Does manated age-rated insurance violate civil rights laws?
eridani
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-13-10 07:57 AM
Original message |
Does manated age-rated insurance violate civil rights laws? |
|
I don't know if anyone has ever tried to sue private insurance companies over this. That age discrimination is forced on us by the government that is supposed to enforce civil rights laws is a whole 'nother level of outragreousness, though.
|
RC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-13-10 10:07 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Can you flesh this out a bit? |
eridani
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-13-10 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. It's against the law for a bar to charge minority patrons more for the same drinks, no? |
|
Then why isn't it illegal to charge more for insurance just because of your age?
|
tavalon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-13-10 08:58 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Let's flesh this one out!
|
Donnachaidh
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-13-10 09:00 PM
Response to Original message |
4. what -- you don't want to pay 300% more than anyone else? |
|
You unpatriotic person you! :sarcasm:
Do you really think SCOTUS is going to back the elderly voter, when they can kiss the insurance cartel's ass for far more swag?
|
JoeyT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-14-10 01:01 AM
Response to Original message |
5. The scale is pretty much a reverse of the scale for auto insurance. |
|
It generally gets cheaper as you get older.
|
leftstreet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-14-10 01:10 AM
Response to Original message |
6. We'll be buying insurance from private companies |
|
Aetna can just go ahead and hang a sign on their corporate offices:
We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone
:-(
|
jbnow
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-14-10 02:43 AM
Response to Original message |
7. The mandate is not that it costs 3 times as much but that |
|
it can't be more than 3 times as much. Currently there are no limits and it is often 10 times as much or more. In CA it is 9 times as much.
Charging more with age would not be a civil rights issue since it is a higher risk/cost group. Of course we are requiring them not to charge more for preexisting conditions, also higher risk/cost so they could require no higher cost due to age. But that would shoot the cost up for the younger buyers too...
I suspect one of the first changes will be letting older Americans buy into medicare which will be an all around benefit. Older people just above subsidy levels will definitely have trouble affording the insurance. They'll get waivers and will be left in the same status- with no insurance. Those getting subsidies will cost the taxpayers a lot...the difference between what they are expected to pay and the high premiums will be big. Since their average cost for care is often more than 3 times lowest rate the difference will cost everyone on the exchange.
|
eridani
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-14-10 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. So fucking what if we are higher cost? Ever heard of the concept of shared risk? |
|
NO developed country has age rating. It is considered wrong to charge women more because of reproductive health and wrong to charge minorities more because they are sicker. Why should age be different?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat Jan 04th 2025, 09:19 PM
Response to Original message |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.