(December 26, 2015 at 11:07 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:(December 26, 2015 at 10:10 pm)Easy Guns Wrote: First of all, you didn't explain how your position differs from mine.
Secondly, as far as I can tell you went on and on about how limiting an insurance companies ability to properly form a risk assessment costs them money, and in turn costs payers money.
If you want to discuss the ACA and how it's actually really bad for payers, we can do that and generally speaking I'll agree.
Maybe I didn't make my point very clearly and you misunderstood my intention.
Here is my point:
As far as I'm concerned, a person has the right to utilize their insurance policy to the fullest extent of their agreement with said insurance provider, and judging them for doing so just because you don't agree with why they're doing it is wrong. If the insurance company is losing money for doing so, it is the fault of the insurance company for putting themselves in a poor position to earn capital on that policy.
If my insurance company is charging me more money due to their poor investment decisions, then my issue is with the provider and not some crazy person that wants to keep their dead child breathing.
*edited for further clarity
You made a comment about execs getting rich on payers. Not in this case, not a valid point.
I agree that the insurance company will take a hit in the first year. Fine, get all the benefits you can during the first year. But not after. You don't seem to be able to grasp that point. This kid will be going into the 3rd year.
Medical contract premium rates last for 1 year, then they go up based on experience. Either the parents are paying (unlikely) or the others in the group are paying through increased premium (other payers). It's unlikely any private insurance company will be out any money after that first year. The insured's will. You stated that "That contractual agreement has nothing to do with other paying customers". In the second year that is not correct. The point is that the cost is shifted to the payers. If it is/was a group, it was shifted to other payers. If the premium can't be afforded by private funds it will be shifted to the state/fed. Are those not "other payers"?
A quick search shows that care is being paid through an award through the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network. That kind of sounds like an "other payer" to me.
It appears that your position is mainly opinion with little to back it up. Fine, OK. We can agree to disagree.
My comment about execs getting rich was oversimplified, and you are right, in this case not worth very much for the topic at hand. But I do believe that in a free market, customers have the power to minimize corporate profits and maximize their own dollar value if they're smart enough to collaborate and unify. Again, not the topic and a useless, oversimplified comment for me to make.
I'm not disagreeing that the cost is being shifted to other payers, there's no doubt that is the case. I'm heavily involved in the finances of a corporation (albeit, not an insurance provider) But I do know there are two primary ways to maintain and/or increase revenue: increased cost to customer or decreased cost of compensation to employees. Customers are always first, and when that's not possible, you short change employees (starting at the bottom and then moving up). Compensation, after all, is typically the #1 expenditure (although I can see how that may not be the case with an insurance provider) but that doesn't change my moral standing.
At the end of the day, I still believe a company is responsible for its own financial decisions. If their poor financial decisions are costing me additional money as a customer, I place blame on them and not the recipients of their decisions. I'm content to agree to disagree on that.
