I found that going from “Highschool” to “Graduate degree” would save me $100/yr. Being female would save me another $120!

By them saying that because I’m male, I should be charged more for being “statistically higher risk”, is like an employer saying a black person should get paid less because they are “statistically lazier”. It’s wrong! If any employer pays lower wages for colored or ethnic people because they feel they are “statistically worse” employees, they’d be sued for every penny and be out of business. How can insurance companies do this and get away with it? Its a form of sexism!

I know insurance companies have rooms full of lawyers, however a reasonable case could always be won.

Do you think someone could have a shot at this? Even without a million dollar law team behind them?
Well just to settle a mis-communication, I did not say any one, color or race was lazy. I just used that as an example of wrong assumptions that would be grounds for a lawsuit.

I just think it’s unfair, that I’ve been driving for 8 years (I know to some that may seem short), with out a single claim. Not even a cracked windshield.

The reasoning for my excessively large insurance rate is may age (24), sex (male) and my credit score. Come on! I’ve seen 22 year old girls who have total 3 cars, with a total of 8 (claimed) accidents (all in 4 years), and the insurance on their ‘06 Infinity G35, with still $25k on the loan, is still less than mine.

Where is the equal opportunity insurance?

At this rate I’m better off paying the $500/yr uninsured motorist fee, and bank the rest for if/when I do get into an accident. But I’m afraid of the SR-22 waiting for me when I do decide to get full insurance again.

Once the rules change so that companies writing new policies have to write them for all applicants including those with pre-existing illness and disability, is that really insurance?

Isn’t that just harnessing up the shareholders of the corporation to pay the ongoing costs of the applicant with an existing illness of disability?

Why would the shareholders to that? What would be in their heads? What would their business model be?

Maybe something like “Oh yes, we get to pay the costs of this applicant’s illness or disability, and look how much money we will be able to give to help that applicant. Then we can fail to breakeven, and become bankrupt and see our shares go to zero value, oh that would be fun, how wonderful!”

When I got my MBA, I never saw a company with a business model like that. AIG may have had that, but they weren’t doing it on purpose.

Keep in mind that after the rules change, the old policies can stay in place. The old “book” of existing contracts can become the entire insurance business of the corporation. As long as they don’t write new policies, they don’t have to take all comers and insure people with pre-existing illness or pre-existing disability. They don’t have to go into the charitable payment for sick people business, which doesn’t seem a very smart business model for a profit seeking corporation.

Ceasing writing new health insurance won’t put these companies out of business, but continuing to do so surely will.

So, they will apply their talents to other forms of risk-related trading. The Cap and Trade Bill, if it is enacted into law will create a vast market for pollution permissions. These will be actively bought and sold by firms that have experience in forward projection of financial values — like health insurance companies. It’s an Enron style business. Then there’s also fire insurance, liability, flood, inability to work insurance, long-term care, all sorts of elements in the risk projection business that could be smoothly integrated into their business models to replace writing new health insurance policies, and would be.

So the public option would become the only option for persons seeking health insurance who don’t already have a policy.

How would that work? That’s the Bad Business Model company, and it would work by massive draws on the Federal Treasury until the moment when Congress realizes that it made a huge mistake, and that the Federal government is bankrupt because of operating a business that is well and truly not sensible.

When would that happen? It would only take about two years for the Congress to figure this out.

What would they do?

They would have to close down the public option companies.

So what then?

Then nobody can get health insurance from any source.

You mean the private corporations would not get back into that business?

Right, I don’t think they would. Once burned, twice shy.

So with no health insurance, would healthcare costs be lower for the average American family?

They might be, as long as nobody in that family got sick. But the number of bankrupt families due to unexpected health problems would go up dramatically.

Would this be better than what we have right now?

No, it would not be better.

Is there a good reason to enact the Healthcare Bill?

No, there’s no good reason to do that.
TO ACERMILL:

NO PRIVATE CORPORATION IS IN THE “RISK SPREADING BUSINESS”.

THAT IS A SOCIALLY BENEFICIAL BUT INCIDENTAL BYPRODUCT OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE BUSINESS WHICH IS LIKE ALL OTHER BUSINESSES DONE FOR PROFIT (NOT FOR RISK SPREADING).

YOUR EXCELLENT AND WELL-INFORMED RESPONSE IS NOT DISPOSATIVE OF THE ISSUE I RAISED. WHY WOULD IT NOT BE MORE PROFITABLE TO SIMPLY KEEP THEIR CURRENT BOOK, AND MOVE INTO OTHER SECTORS OF THE INSURANCE OR RISK FINANCE BUSINESS?

I SAY THAT PEOPLE ARE ALREADY HARD PUT TO PAY THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS. IF THOSE GET RAISED UP (AS YOU ADMIT THEY WILL) THE CUSTOMERS WILL LEAVE. POLICIES THAT ARE REALLY HARD TO SELL ARE NOT A BASIS FOR THE MOST PROFITABLE BUSINESS THOSE COMPANIES COULD BE IN. LIKE WATER THEY WILL FIND THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE WHICH I THINK WOULD BE CESSATION OF NEW POLICY WRITING AND RE-SHAPING THEIR BUSINESS MODEL TO SERVE OTHER MORE PROFITABLE SECTORS.

AS TO THE LENGTH ISSUE — SORRY ABOUT THAT — IT’S NOT TWITTABLE

Are they able to do that to a paying customer? Even when it’s on their end the reason why the claim is taking longer than expected?