• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Insurance aspect?

SoliDeoGloria

Active Member
I have always considered Insurance to be the biggest scam to have ever hit humanity. Just looking at some basic tenets of it like:
1. Collect money from people based on the idea that they will help people out in troubling times.
2. Make it extremely hard for people to get money back in troubling times and raise payments when people do despite the fact that they have already put a lot of money in.
3. Get laws passed that make it mandatory for everybody to carry insurance for various things.

For the general public, insurance is nothing but a lose lose situation. If insurance companie's gave out more money than they took in, they would ofcourse be out of business, so the objective is to take more money than give out and they do this exceptionally well.

With that being noted, one nagging thought that pops in my mind is how much the Insurance aspect truly plays a role in the issue of Homosexual Marriages. It is no secret, although it is not discussed half as much as other aspects surrounding this issue, that insurence, especially health insurance, is a pretty major issue when it come to Homosexual Marriages due to the fact that Health Insurance companies give discount rates for families, more so than individuals. I truly wonder how much money insurance companies stand to lose if Homosexual Marriages were recognized on a national scale in the U.S.. I would need to do some research on this but I wonder how many other counties that have leaglized same sex marriage have government run health insurance as opposed to private health insurance? I wouldn't be suprised in the least to find that a majority of the counties that have legalized same sex marriage do indeed have government run health insurance. And to state that insurance companies have legislatures in their pockets would not be to illogical of a conclusion given the facts in the U.S.. To further emphasize this point I can almost swear that I heard on the radio about two straight men who got married in the U.S. to recieve insurance discounts. I tried to look for the article but couldn't find it.

With this being noted I wonder how strong of an aspect Insurance truly is when it comes to the issue of same sex marriages in the U.S. as opposed to the religious aspect. And yet the concentration seems to be on the religious aspect. There have been many deaths and wars fought because of agenda's hidden by religious convictions played upon the general public by various leaders. While, as a Christian, I have taken a stand on the issue of homosexuality due to religious conviction, I can't help but wonder if the same has happened in this issue due to insurance company agendas and if that is the case, I wonder why more hasn't been stated about this aspect? Are both side just being side tracked here to avoid the real issues? That would make more sense to me than religious oppression in this day and age in the U.S..

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
 

evearael

Well-Known Member
Practical issues, like hospital visitation, inherentance rights and access to health insurance should take precendent on the political scene because they can be addressed by politics. Issues like the recognition of unions with particular churches cannot and should not be addressed by politics... due to the separation of church and state.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
I'm surprised that more companies don't currently offer the same types of benefits to same-sex partners.

You have to realize that Insurance Companies can't just charge whatever they want for their products. You need to take into account the probability of a loss, as well as the probability of how large of a loss it is, factor in investment income, add some for profit, and charge as little as possible in order to be competative. Most of the discounts are there because there is some evidence that the reason for the discount (i.e. being married), has some effect on either the frequency or the severity of a loss. I don't know if there have been many studies on same-sex couples in this reguard, so I couldn't tell you if there should be a discount or not. If they are a safer risk, then a company would be stupid not to offer the discount and get the business.

The government doesn't have to get involved at all, although it probably will.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
I work in Life Insurance - well, currently in Long Term Care Insurrance - so I don't know a whole lot about how Health insurance and Property and Casualty insurance work. As far as I can tell, my company doens't offer a discount to same sex partners - and I don't know that it has been looked into much. From a business standpoint, if there is a smaller risk, they should be charged less. We'll have to see what the future holds.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
The basic idea behind insurance was good. It worked something like this, originally: say ten families lived in a small mining community, and each of the families is completely dependent upon a single bread-winner for their survival. If something were to happen to that single bread-winner, the whole family would quickly become broke and lose everything. And no individual family could save up enough to protect themselves from such a disaster.

However, they know that such a disaster is likely to only occur to one of the ten families in a ten year period, so the families get together and create a pool of emergency money for whichever family it happens to. And it's good fro everyone. Each family only has to contribute one tenth of the money needed, which they can afford, and in return they all have the security of knowing that if it's their family that is struck by the loss of the bread-winner, they will not lose everything.

This was the beginning of "life insurance".

Unfortunately, insurance has become a "for profit" business, instead of a community trust, and so the goal has become the "profit" rather than the protection that the insurance offers to the participants. In the pursuit of these profits, insurance companies now try not to pay out to those who need the money if they can help it, and so they actually use the money they take in to hire lawyers and lobbyists to help them deny responsibility for paying claims. They also have become so rich and powerful that they can bribe politicians to write laws forcing us to buy their dishonest insurance, so they can cheat us even further.

This has become epidemic in America, and is strangling businesses (who are struggling to pay outrageous insurance premiums) and costing us jobs and productivity, as well as holding down wages.

The idea of insurance itself was a great idea, and still is. But sadly, as with everything else in America, greed has completely replaced any sense of community service as the goal of commercial enterprise, and the result is that we are collapsing economically.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
PureX said:
The basic idea behind insurance was good. It worked something like this, originally: say ten families lived in a small mining community, and each of the families is completely dependent upon a single bread-winner for their survival. If something were to happen to that single bread-winner, the whole family would quickly become broke and lose everything. And no individual family could save up enough to protect themselves from such a disaster.

However, they know that such a disaster is likely to only occur to one of the ten families in a ten year period, so the families get together and create a pool of emergency money for whichever family it happens to. And it's good fro everyone. Each family only has to contribute one tenth of the money needed, which they can afford, and in return they all have the security of knowing that if it's their family that is struck by the loss of the bread-winner, they will not lose everything.

This was the beginning of "life insurance".

Unfortunately, insurance has become a "for profit" business, instead of a community trust, and so the goal has become the "profit" rather than the protection that the insurance offers to the participants. In the pursuit of these profits, insurance companies now try not to pay out to those who need the money if they can help it, and so they actually use the money they take in to hire lawyers and lobbyists to help them deny responsibility for paying claims. They also have become so rich and powerful that they can bribe politicians to write laws forcing us to buy their dishonest insurance, so they can cheat us even further.

This has become epidemic in America, and is strangling businesses (who are struggling to pay outrageous insurance premiums) and costing us jobs and productivity, as well as holding down wages.

The idea of insurance itself was a great idea, and still is. But sadly, as with everything else in America, greed has completely replaced any sense of community service as the goal of commercial enterprise, and the result is that we are collapsing economically.
Actually, the biggest problem is fraud. Insurance companies need to be very careful about who they are paying money out to, because if not, people will take them for all they've got.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
SoyLeche said:
Actually, the biggest problem is fraud. Insurance companies need to be very careful about who they are paying money out to, because if not, people will take them for all they've got.
You're right, it isn't just the greed of the insurance companies, it's also the greed of people trying to swindle them with false claims, too.

But in the last thirty years or so, insurance companies have routinely posted massive profits. Meanwhile, the cost of insurance goes up, and the pay-outs dwindle. There is a correlation, here. Of course the insurance companies claim this is because of massive fraud (that they are the victims), but what would you expect them to say; that it's because they are greedy and wanted massive profits at the expense of their fellow citizens?

The truth is that they have gained massive profits in recent decades. So the supposed "fraud" couldn't have been hurting them too much.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
PureX said:
You're right, it isn't just the greed of the insurance companies, it's also the greed of people trying to swindle them with false claims, too.

But in the last thirty years or so, insurance companies have routinely posted massive profits. Meanwhile, the cost of insurance goes up, and the pay-outs dwindle. There is a correlation, here. Of course the insurance companies claim this is because of massive fraud (that they are the victims), but what would you expect them to say; that it's because they are greedy and wanted massive profits at the expense of their fellow citizens?

The truth is that they have gained massive profits in recent decades. So the supposed "fraud" couldn't have been hurting them too much.
Every business wants profits. That's how it works.

I have helped price variable annuities - there isn't a huge window that you can be profitable and competative.
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
SoliDeoGloria said:
I truly wonder how much money insurance companies stand to lose if Homosexual Marriages were recognized on a national scale in the U.S.. I would need to do some research on this but I wonder how many other counties that have leaglized same sex marriage have government run health insurance as opposed to private health insurance?

Considering the greater number of heterosexual couples cohabitating, I think it make more of a difference if they suddenly decided to get legally married.

The insurance companies won't lose just because they're asked to insure a bunch more couples that happen to be homosexual. They'll get their premiums, as always.

It may make a difference to some companies, though, who will have less to take in profits or spread around in raises. I'm have no idea how much of a difference it would really make, though.
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
evearael said:
Practical issues, like hospital visitation, inherentance rights and access to health insurance should take precendent on the political scene because they can be addressed by politics.

Oh, definitely. :clap
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
SoyLeche said:
I'm surprised that more companies don't currently offer the same types of benefits to same-sex partners.

You have to realize that Insurance Companies can't just charge whatever they want for their products. You need to take into account the probability of a loss, as well as the probability of how large of a loss it is, factor in investment income, add some for profit, and charge as little as possible in order to be competative. Most of the discounts are there because there is some evidence that the reason for the discount (i.e. being married), has some effect on either the frequency or the severity of a loss. I don't know if there have been many studies on same-sex couples in this reguard, so I couldn't tell you if there should be a discount or not. If they are a safer risk, then a company would be stupid not to offer the discount and get the business.

I don't see the insurance companies as much of a factor as companies generally. That is, there's been a long standing tradition to insure spouses and children, and potential employees expect that. There probably is some advantage as well in a company extending this perk to married people with children especially -- they are in less of a position to flit off to the next promising job. It costs a lot of money to hire and train personnel, and companies that are smart work to keep the good ones.
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
PureX said:
Unfortunately, insurance has become a "for profit" business, instead of a community trust, and so the goal has become the "profit" rather than the protection that the insurance offers to the participants. In the pursuit of these profits, insurance companies now try not to pay out to those who need the money if they can help it, and so they actually use the money they take in to hire lawyers and lobbyists to help them deny responsibility for paying claims. They also have become so rich and powerful that they can bribe politicians to write laws forcing us to buy their dishonest insurance, so they can cheat us even further.

This has become epidemic in America, and is strangling businesses (who are struggling to pay outrageous insurance premiums) and costing us jobs and productivity, as well as holding down wages.

The idea of insurance itself was a great idea, and still is. But sadly, as with everything else in America, greed has completely replaced any sense of community service as the goal of commercial enterprise, and the result is that we are collapsing economically.

Yes, that pretty much sums it up. :eek:
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
I must admit I'm ignorant on this... for countries that have universal healthcare, do people there also have insurance? Why would they need it if they can just walk into the doctor's office without having to worry about copays?
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
SoyLeche said:
Actually, the biggest problem is fraud. Insurance companies need to be very careful about who they are paying money out to, because if not, people will take them for all they've got.
Sorry, after seeing what home insurers did 10 years ago to victims of a tornado a half mile from my house, I can't buy that. There are still cases in our state court over that mess.

And don't even get me started on companies that tried to screw people out of their due when Katrina blew in. Knockout
 

robtex

Veteran Member
Gloria, if you don't like health insurance don't buy any. Instead ask the goverment to completely subsidize you when you go to the emergancy room. As a matter of fact it may be best to elimatinate all health insurance and we can spread the risk equally amount all tax-payers for people going to the hospital....oh wait......that would be ... insurance......goverment monopolized insurance.

If you give the goverment a monopoly on the insurance industry everyone loses. The competition between insurance companies is the only check and balance against even higher rates. Counteries in europe that do subdize medicine have tax rates between 50-70 %. Subsidizing medicine does not work there and it would not work here. Creating an intentional monopoly by the goverment to be the only carrier of insurance is playing with fire. The fact that companies compete for rates is a large factor in making them fair. Because health and life insurance are not mandatory (as opposed to auto insurance) you personally are under no obligation to own or have any but I for one don't feel a need, if you are financially capable, of bailing you because you want to free-load off the health system. Personally, I would go as far as to say that is immoral if you are capable of having insurance and chose not to own any and than expect "free medical health care."

The christians have passed laws in many states including Texas, that bar insurance companies from selling insurance to same sex couples by making it spouse insurance only applicable in marriage. It has been an intentional and well thought out act and a hate crime, in my eyes. The fact of the matter is that it cuts into the market share of life and health companies and is not in the interest of any insurance company but apparently is in the best interest of Christians. For any Christian to openly and flippany propose propoganda that the insurance industry as out to get the homosexual community and than belong than belong to an organization (which is most all christian orgainazations) that does not openly promote same-sex relationship, both finacialy and emotionally is both dishonest and morally repugnant.

Incidently, I notice you forgot to post the link(s) of insurance carriers who are opposed to gay marriage.
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
robtex said:
The christians have passed laws in many states including Texas, that bar insurance companies from selling insurance to same sex couples by making it spouse insurance only applicable in marriage. It has been an intentional and well thought out act and a hate crime, in my eyes. The fact of the matter is that it cuts into the market share of life and health companies and is not in the interest of any insurance company but apparently is in the best interest of Christians. For any Christian to openly and flippany propose propoganda that the insurance industry as out to get the homosexual community and than belong than belong to an organization (which is most all christian orgainazations) that does not openly promote same-sex relationship, both finacialy and emotionally is both dishonest and morally repugnant.

I was not aware of this, Robtex. I agree this is repugnant.

I can see why Christians might object to passing laws that would equate same-sex marriage with the current version.

But by what right do they claim to interfere with free trade? I don't see it's any of their business what products insurers offer and to whom.
 

robtex

Veteran Member
Booko said:
I was not aware of this, Robtex. I agree this is repugnant.

By banning gay marriage they take take away a whole long list of rights hetrosexual couples enjoy one of which is insurance. Amy (Maize) is really knowledgable on this, so much more than I am and maybe she can contribute later on ..but the non-recognition of same sex marriage is the reason for higher premiums for same sex couples when compared to non-same sex couples.
 

jeffrey

†ßig Dog†
If companies did offer insurance to gay couples I'm sure they would charge more then for heterosexual couples, just for the fact that aids runs higher among the gay community.
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
jeffrey said:
If companies did offer insurance to gay couples I'm sure they would charge more then for heterosexual couples, just for the fact that aids runs higher among the gay community.

Not in the lesbian community, it doesn't.
 
Top