Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
Anonymous Employee at Work https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=65210 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | Ugueth Will Shiv You [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:07 pm ] |
Post subject: | Anonymous Employee at Work |
Today is our company President’s "Town Hall" meeting, and at the end of the meeting he reads some questions that were sent in to him from employees. Our health insurance premiums just went up for smokers. The question he got was this: “I think raising the insurance premiums for smokers was a great idea. What are the chances that we are going to do the same for the employees who are obese?” |
Author: | FavreFan [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:11 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Legit question. |
Author: | Douchebag [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:12 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
FavreFan wrote: Legit question. I agree. If I am an unsafe driver, my auto insurance premiums would go through the roof. The same should apply to people who live unhealthy lifestyles by choice. |
Author: | spmack [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:14 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
That was jerk store comment. |
Author: | Darkside [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:15 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Douchebag wrote: FavreFan wrote: Legit question. I agree. If I am an unsafe driver, my auto insurance premiums would go through the roof. The same should apply to people who live unhealthy lifestyles by choice. Right? Because all fat people chose to be fat. Fuckers. |
Author: | Killer V [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:16 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Douchebag wrote: The same should apply to people who live unhealthy lifestyles by choice. What if someone's just big-boned? |
Author: | Bucky Chris [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:17 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Wouldn't make this about choices. Just that statistically, it should cost more. |
Author: | Big Chicagoan [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:02 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
And what about all those freeloading cancer "victims"? I mean, I'm the real victim because I pay the same premium. Amirite? |
Author: | Ugueth Will Shiv You [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:08 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Smokers should have to pay more. It would be harder to enforce for obese people, but without a documented medical condition I am sure something could be worked out. |
Author: | bigfan [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:11 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Ugueth Will Shiv You wrote: Today is our company President’s "Town Hall" meeting, and at the end of the meeting he reads some questions that were sent in to him from employees. Our health insurance premiums just went up for smokers. The question he got was this: “I think raising the insurance premiums for smokers was a great idea. What are the chances that we are going to do the same for the employees who are obese?” What about all those married assholes that CHOSE to get pregnant and have kids? and then put their kids on the policy??????????? My rates went up because of them as well. No more children! |
Author: | Ugueth Will Shiv You [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:14 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
bigfan wrote: What about all those married assholes that CHOSE to get pregnant and have kids? and then put their kids on the policy??????????? My rates went up because of them as well. No more children! How did your rates go up because of other people's children? |
Author: | bigfan [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:38 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Do I really need to explain to you how someone having kids cost money? |
Author: | lipidquadcab [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
We have a "wellness credit" at work. If your biometrics meet the requirements or you are showing improvement in at least one area every year, as well as a few other minor things, you get the credit. I've said fuck it for the last three years and just paid the extra money. |
Author: | spanky [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:43 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Darkside wrote: Douchebag wrote: FavreFan wrote: Legit question. I agree. If I am an unsafe driver, my auto insurance premiums would go through the roof. The same should apply to people who live unhealthy lifestyles by choice. Right? Because all fat people chose to be fat. Fuckers. This is not applicable to douchebag's example. Growing up, did you pay the same auto insurance rates as a female member of your family? Me either. I(MU) didn't choose to be male, but I was deemed to be a higher risk. |
Author: | jimmypasta [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:00 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
A fat guy vs. a heavy smoker in the parking lot at noon! The loser pays the higher premium. Fight decided by who's wheezing less after 5 minutes. |
Author: | Ugueth Will Shiv You [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:26 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
bigfan wrote: Do I really need to explain to you how someone having kids cost money? How does you having kids make me pay more for my insurance policy? Just because the overall cost? |
Author: | spmack [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Ugie, don't do this....you were just starting to become likable. |
Author: | Bagels [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:29 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
what about employees who have abortions? |
Author: | 24_Guy [ Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:41 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Big Chicagoan wrote: And what about all those freeloading cancer "victims"? I mean, I'm the real victim because I pay the same premium. Amirite? Are we talking about a policy being issued before or after the cancer diagnosis? |
Author: | C_Howitt_Fealz [ Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:49 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Good question. I assume he chicken-shat the answer. |
Author: | Brick [ Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:10 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
bigfan wrote: Do I really need to explain to you how someone having kids cost money? Every insurance plan I've ever heard of has charged a family a different rate than an individual. They are paying for the cost of extra kids by the rate that is most of the time significantly more.
|
Author: | JORR [ Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:16 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: bigfan wrote: Do I really need to explain to you how someone having kids cost money? Every insurance plan I've ever heard of has charged a family a different rate than an individual. They are paying for the cost of extra kids by the rate that is most of the time significantly more.That isn't how group health works, Rick. I rarely go to a doctor. I'm guessing bigfan is in the same boat. I've worked with guys who had their kids in ER every weekend. The coverage works because there are single guys who very rarely use services. Our insurance cost is cheaper but not when you consider the services used. |
Author: | Brick [ Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:21 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: That isn't how group health works, Rick. I rarely go to a doctor. I'm guessing bigfan is in the same boat. I've worked with guys who had their kids in ER every weekend. The coverage works because there are single guys who very rarely use services. Our insurance cost is cheaper but not when you consider the services used. No, you don't pay for the services you use(besides deductibles). You pay for the services you can use.Family insurance is more because you can use more services and also are likely to use them more often. If individuals were the ones who provided the means by which the insurance companies make money then individual insurance outside of a group plan wouldn't be so expensive. You may rarely go to the doctor, but that doesn't mean that you won't in the future. |
Author: | JORR [ Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:30 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: That isn't how group health works, Rick. I rarely go to a doctor. I'm guessing bigfan is in the same boat. I've worked with guys who had their kids in ER every weekend. The coverage works because there are single guys who very rarely use services. Our insurance cost is cheaper but not when you consider the services used. No, you don't pay for the services you use(besides deductibles). You pay for the services you can use.Family insurance is more because you can use more services and also are likely to use them more often. If individuals were the ones who provided the means by which the insurance companies make money then individual insurance outside of a group plan wouldn't be so expensive. You may rarely go to the doctor, but that doesn't mean that you won't in the future. Individual insurance outside of a group is expensive because there are no other group members to spread the risk against. Let me make it simple. If everyone were going to pay the costs for the services he (and his family) used, there would be no reason to buy insurance. The money has to come from somewhere. Insurance companies don't run at a loss. They take in X in premiums. They pay out Y in claims. X is always higher than Y. That's done because the average guy like bigfan uses less services than an average family of four and an average guy with IMU's profile uses even less services than the average bigfan. So, while you don't want to pay the cost to stop your neighbor's home from burning down, you clearly have no problem with bigfan and IMU subsidizing the ER visits of your kid. |
Author: | Brick [ Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:40 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: Individual insurance outside of a group is expensive because there are no other group members to spread the risk against. Exactly, which is why individual insurance for people without kids or a spouse is still expensive. It's about the risk and the risk that an individual runs up a $250k bill is on average the same as with those kids. Kids are more expensive but so are older adults.Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: Let me make it simple. If everyone were going to pay the costs for the services he (and his family) used, there would be no reason to buy insurance. The money has to come from somewhere. Insurance companies don't run at a loss. They take in X in premiums. They pay out Y in claims. X is always higher than Y. That's done because the average guy like bigfan uses less services than an average family of four and an average guy with IMU's profile uses even less services than the average bigfan. Which is why, even though I don't have any kids, I'd have to pay 4x as much for a "family plan" instead of an individual plan.Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: So, while you don't want to pay the cost to stop your neighbor's home from burning down, you clearly have no problem with bigfan and I subsidizing the ER visits of your kid. No, I want to pay the cost to stop my neighbor's home from burning down. Where are you getting that idea?I don't want to pay for some guy 10 miles away who doesn't help provide the services the other 364 days a year. I also wouldn't support my insurance paying for someone who wasn't a policy holder(though the government does do this anyways). |
Author: | JORR [ Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:47 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: Which is why, even though I don't have any kids, I'd have to pay 4x as much for a "family plan" instead of an individual plan. In most cases I don't believe it's going to work out to be four times more for a family than for an individual. And the larger the family, the better the value for the insured. Regardless, the fact is the average family is going to receive a better value, i.e. more services for per dollar than the individual. Women are going to use more services than men. Their cost may be slightly higher, yes. But the insurance industry is built on the premiums paid by healthy young single guys who rarely use any services. |
Author: | Brick [ Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:59 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: In most cases I don't believe it's going to work out to be four times more for a family than for an individual. And the larger the family, the better the value for the insured. Regardless, the fact is the average family is going to receive a better value, i.e. more services for per dollar than the individual. Women are going to use more services than men. Their cost may be slightly higher, yes. But the insurance industry is built on the premiums paid by healthy young single guys who rarely use any services. In my case it was, but obviously that could vary. A family plan is clearly going to be at least 2.5 times more and likely at least 3. The 4x comes from a very generous premium for an individual that currently is below market rate.The whole thing was started by bigfan's assertion that they should also charge more for kids if they charge for fat people. They do. If a premium was doubled for anyone who weighed over 350 pounds it would be similar as how premiums are at least 3 times higher for those with kids, and in many cases, even if they just have a spouse. |
Author: | JORR [ Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:20 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: In most cases I don't believe it's going to work out to be four times more for a family than for an individual. And the larger the family, the better the value for the insured. Regardless, the fact is the average family is going to receive a better value, i.e. more services for per dollar than the individual. Women are going to use more services than men. Their cost may be slightly higher, yes. But the insurance industry is built on the premiums paid by healthy young single guys who rarely use any services. In my case it was, but obviously that could vary. A family plan is clearly going to be at least 2.5 times more and likely at least 3. The 4x comes from a very generous premium for an individual that currently is below market rate.The whole thing was started by bigfan's assertion that they should also charge more for kids if they charge for fat people. They do. If a premium was doubled for anyone who weighed over 350 pounds it would be similar as how premiums are at least 3 times higher for those with kids, and in many cases, even if they just have a spouse. What if the kids are obese? |
Author: | Ugueth Will Shiv You [ Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:24 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: bigfan wrote: Do I really need to explain to you how someone having kids cost money? Every insurance plan I've ever heard of has charged a family a different rate than an individual. They are paying for the cost of extra kids by the rate that is most of the time significantly more.Same for me, which is why I was initially confused about Big Fan's comment. |
Author: | JORR [ Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:34 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Anonymous Employee at Work |
Here's what people don't seem to understand. Insurance is all about managing risk. A company insures people of various risk levels. The risks are used to set the cost. But if you think that raising rates on smokers, fat people, other various higher-risk members of a group is going to result in reduced costs for you (a person who I assume is in perfect physical condition, has no "bad" habits, and never indulges in any risky behavior) rather than increased profits for the insurance company, I think you're pretty naive. |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |