[ExI] 23andTriangulation

[spike]

>... On Behalf Of BillK
Subject: Re: [ExI] 23andTriangulation

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:30 AM, spike wrote:
>
<snip>
>>... So the implication is that there is nothing stopping anyone from 
> figuring out their health risks based on DNA, then buying insurance if 
> they are high risk, or just paying the fine if they are at low risk.
>
>

>...I have doubts about using this DNA data to decide about buying health
insurance in the USA.

>...When you buy house insurance, you are pretty confident that you will
never need to claim on it. You are buying peace of mind. In the very
unlikely event that your house burns down, falls into a sinkhole or gets
destroyed by an 18-wheeler truck, then you can recover the rebuild cost from
the insurance.

>...I think the same logic applies to buying health insurance in the USA.
(Either the new government scheme or private health insurance). There are
many problems requiring medical care and/or hospitalization that have
nothing to do with inherited conditions. Lack of medical insurance causes
financial ruin to many Americans (and illnesses go untreated).
Anyone can fall off a roof or pick up an infection. Insurance means you
don't have to worry about medical problems bankrupting you.

>...As with all insurance, you have to decide whether the cost of the
premiums is worth the freedom from worry.  BillK
_______________________________________________

Thanks BillK, 

I didn't trim anything out of your message intentionally, because it is
concisely written and has some important concepts in there.

The reason health insurance is not comparable to accident insurance is that
the cost of health insurance alone is sufficient to bankrupt lower earners
singlehandedly.  Accident insurance is waaaaay cheaper, way cheaper.

Here's how the USA scheme works.  In nice big round numbers, compareat all
20-somethings to all 60-somethings.  In single-digit precision-ish numbers,
health cost for the 60s are about 6 times the healthcare cost of the 20s.
Insurance companies don't like to reveal that info, but that is about what
it is.  It came out during the non-debate on O-care.  The insurance
companies use the 20s to subsidize the 60s, since the 20s pay about a third
what the 60s pay.  But many of the 20s decide that is a bad deal for them.
Reason: because it is a bad deal for them.  The 20s are being charged a
third for something that costs a sixth, so they overpay by a factor of 2 in
a sense.  So the less healthy 20s are the ones who go ahead and buy health
insurance.  As a group, the less healthy voluntary insurance buyers are more
expensive to insure than the set which is all 20s.  So the insurance
companies are justified to some degree in charging them a third of the price
of the 60s instead of a sixth.

All this is intentionally ignoring employee health insurance by big
companies.  That is a separate topic.

The current law would set a bunch of prices for insurance that make it a
still worse deal for the 20s: they would pay half the rate of the 60s rather
than a sixth, and then to add injury to insult, the law compels them to buy
into the lousy deal.

Of course no one knew this beforehand, because the healthcare law was never
debated in congress.  I am not kidding, they didn't debate it on the floor.
The size of that bill was so enormous, no one could even read it, never mind
debate it.  Proper debate on something that size would have taken a decade.
The party which passed it knew they didn't have a decade, they only had two
years.  So they passed it without debate and without a single vote in either
chamber from the opposing party, which they are now asking to pay for.  Huh.
Sure will.

All this is still further complicated by the definition of the penalty for
non-insurance buying.  It is a fine?  A fine is something you pay for
breaking a law.  Or is it as the US Supreme Court decided, a tax?  A tax is
something you pay as a result of an activity, such as selling something for
a profit.  The distinction is important for those who hold security
clearances: one must be in strict compliance with law in everything.  If you
do anything more illegal than ripping a tag off a pillow you bought, you
risk that clearance which means you risk your job, which means you risk your
career.  So is the penalty for non-insurance buying a fine or a tax?  If it
is a tax, then fine, no problem.  If it is a fine, then it is not fine: you
have broken a law and may lose his clearance.

BillK, back to your original point: the cost to insure against accident
makes accident insurance a good idea: I carry a million dollar policy
myself.  And health insurance is a good idea for the 60s, who get subsidized
by the younger set.  But health insurance is a terrible deal for young and
healthy people, and it is getting worse.  If you are young and healthy, and
you find you have low genetic risk, I would advise the young-and-healthies
to buy accident insurance that specifically covers medical, and skip the
health insurance.  Of course then the non-health-insurance buyer pays a fine
and runs a new risk: a punitive IRS audit.  If the IRS figures out you are a
Tea Party type, you are dead.

The irony of all this is that young people voted for this bunch of yahoos.
They are only now figuring out what a raw deal they have been given.

spike