So do we. Again, the ability for the insurance companies to pay isn't an issue, it's the available space for treatment that is a worry.
That's an existential worry to all of us at this moment. The point about insurance companies being able to pay is dependant on how many people are going to need medical care, not only the ones needing the hospital or IC care. Estimations are that 10 % of infected need hospital care and about 1% need IC care. Of those not able to get into an IC unit it's a simple death sentence. Of those not getting into a hospital bed the care moves to the GP's. So we're talking about (infected rate of 50%) 16 million patients who need about 4 weeks of care. Take note, this is on top of what the insurance companies normally have to pay during a year for the normal situation. If we go for 35,000$ (I saw that in a tweet bill shown) that amounts to at least 560 billion$ without the hospital care, of which I've no clue how much that will be, but that surely will top 100,000$ per patient.
What is the average age of the people that need the IC? I'm going to walk you down off your hysterical bridge before you jump. Or maybe I should just let you go.
In the Netherlands and France 50% are under 50 yo. I expect the rates will converge to that in the rest of Western Europe. For the USA a worsening factor is the obesity rate among young people.
Dutch life expectancy is about 5-6 years longer than of US citizens. So asking for an average is going to lull you into a false comfort feeling as we simply % wise have far more people in the top age group than the USA. Feal the urge to jump yourself now as your self acclaimed safe bridge is burning?
And those "control mechanisms" ensure that all your insurers are capable of paying on 100% of their policies simultaneously? In a nation that is largely below sea level?
Insurers locked floods out of the list you can insure for That's why we build those huge structures and pay taxes to keep the water out. Something you folks should try.
I don’t doubt that you do, and that’s great. That doesn’t change the fact that what you said makes no sense. When people buy and sell insurance, they are mitigating risk. For example, if you sell me life insurance, both you and I are counting on the large probability that the majority of people will not die at the same time. So, you make a profit, and I get the security that if I die my loved ones will get a large sum. However, if there is a pandemic and most of your customers die, you won’t get your profit - you’ll probably lose your business, and my love ones don’t get the money. Now, a libertarian might say to both the insurer and the insured, tough shit, you bet the odds and you lost your bet and now you have to bite the bullet and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Someone who believes the government should have a larger role in helping the people, on the other hand, might propose that the government bail you out, so you can stay in business, your employees can keep their jobs, and my loved ones can get the money that you committed to award them if I die. Both are valid arguments, depending on our ideology and moral values. We can argue for or against them. But what you posted is neither. It’s nonsense.
Saw a clip on CBS with Ted Koppel asking a dr. if hospitals will soon prioritize who gets COVID treatment. For instance, him (I looked it up, he's 80) or a 22 year old. Dr. "the 22 year old'
You are missing my point. According to this, 98% of the cases in the US are mild and not needing intensive care, meaning only 2%, or, according to that linked site, 708 people. Of those, any that are over 65 and on Original Medicare (about 63%) will have 80% of their bill paid by the government and 20% paid by their Medicare Supplement carrier. Those that have group coverage will pay their deductible and reach their max OOP which can vary widely, but with only 2% getting to the need for IC, I'm pretty sure you can jump off that bridge without fear of hitting the rocks. UHC, the largest health insurer in the US, takes in about $2B-4$B a quarter and is required by US insurance law to maintain a free cash level that would satisfy a specific max payout on the policies held. Pretty sure they are OK. And that's just one carrier. BCBS, AETNA and the smaller carriers are also required to hold a level of cash available to pay policies. In an absolute worst-case scenario some of the smaller carriers may go under, but their book of business would be absorbed by the larger carriers.
It's quite funny after decades of Fox Presidential campaign items with lies about Dutch geriatrics afraid going to hospitals as they fear to be euthanized and Democrats are going to copy that if their candidate is elected, now under a gop elected one it might be happening to those oldies.
We finally succumbed to marriage after a similar period. To much is stacked against you if you don’t. Insurance, homes, cars. Then one of you can’t die or the other is screwed. She wouldn’t change her name tho. and that confuses some. She says it’s a male dominated plot to keep college friends away. It’s a good excuse for a party when all this social distancing is done. ps, it doesn’t hurt at all
Yeah, good point. Forget the Knicks. Lets just save the players from relevant franchises - the Celtics, the Lakers, the Warriors...
Maybe God decided to punish them for decades of violating the 9th Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" with what they have been lying about.
The Mrs. was wondering when my nephew was getting married. He's been dating a nice lady for a few years and has been dragging his feet. Possibly because of student loan debt. I'm like "corona just bought him another year"