Good time to bug your MP

[speling bee]

Yes it could still possibly be based on risk assessment to a large degree just with some restrictions on innate conditions.

For example i believe the EUssr are bringing in or have brought in a regulation where you can't discriminate car insurance premiums on gender (something i would be against incidently). They can still assess risk on other factors though.

You don't get risk, do you? What os the risk of an 18 year old on hamodialysis needing haemodialysis in the next week?

[Robinho]

You don't get risk, do you? What os the risk of an 18 year old on hamodialysis needing haemodialysis in the next week?

Yes i do get risk. I don't really understand what you're getting at with this question though. If he already has a problem the risk is high, if he doesn't the risk is low. If he already has it though he should not have to worry because regulations would state you cannot discriminate on innate conditions, if he doesn't he should simply buy insurance and if he gets it the insurance company will cover him.

[speling bee]

Yes i do get risk. I don't really understand what you're getting at with this question though. If he already has a problem the risk is high, if he doesn't the risk is low. If he already has it though he should not have to worry because regulations would state you cannot discriminate on innate conditions, if he doesn't he should simply buy insurance and if he gets it the insurance company will cover him.

Insurance is for a risk - an uncertain event.

[doodab]

So essentialy you want to add up the total cost of healthcare and divide the cost slightly differently. Given that all of the evidence is that it will cost more per patient when privatised, and we'll have the same number of patients, it's inevitable that it will cost more overall.

Now, if some people are going to pay less, and others will have to pay more, who is going to pick up the extra costs?

BTW, AFAIK the way it normally works for kids in Germany is that their parents pay, not the state.

[doodab]

Let's say you eliminated the least productive people in society. How would the GDP per capita look?

Never mind that, who will we argue with when you've been eliminated?

[Robinho]

Insurance is for a risk - an uncertain event.

Yes i know, but what is your point? That it wouldn't be insurance due to a few regulations. Well you can call it something else if you want but that isn't going to change the basic way it's going to work.

Or are you going to argue that car insurance is no longer insurance because you can't discriminate between males and females?

[speling bee]

Yes i know, but what is your point? That it wouldn't be insurance due to a few regulations. Well you can call it something else if you want but that isn't going to change the basic way it's going to work.

Or are you going to argue that car insurance is no longer insurance because you can't discriminate between males and females?

Males and females represent different risks. Treatment costs for dialysis arising from congenital kidney disease are not a risk but a certainty. You have got yourself confused because both examples involve stopping discrimination. That does not mean that the grounds for discrimination are both risk related.

We will call it something else and that is cover. You are providing cover (not insurance) to a group of people by putting the cost of that cover, not on the general population through taxation, not on a health insurance tax, not on land tax payers, but on anyone who chooses an insurer who is coverproviding that cover. Let's see if you can work out the problem here for yourself.

[Robinho]

Males and females represent different risks. Treatment costs for dialysis arising from congenital kidney disease are not a risk but a certainty. You have got yourself confused because both examples involve stopping discrimination. That does not mean that the grounds for discrimination are both risk related.

We will call it something else and that is cover. You are providing cover (not insurance) to a group of people by putting the cost of that cover, not on the general population through taxation, not on a health insurance tax, not on land tax payers, but on anyone who chooses an insurer who is coverproviding that cover. Let's see if you can work out the problem here for yourself.

If the grounds for gender discrimination were not risk related then there probably wouldn't be any discrimination.

Again it is a small part cover, a big part insurance, it is cover for a small % of issues that people were born with, and insurance for the rest.

This is why the problem you perceive is irrelevant, or at least, largely mitigated.

[speling bee]

If the grounds for gender discrimination were not risk related then there probably wouldn't be any discrimination.

Again it is a small part cover, a big part insurance, it is cover for a small % of issues that people were born with, and insurance for the rest.

This is why the problem you perceive is irrelevant, or at least, largely mitigated.

These are expensive patients and you lump their costs onto customers who choose the same provider that they choose.

See if you can work it out.

[d000hg]

Agreed. I'm not too bright so I have to pick my targets carefully.

Well fielded