The Conservatives have nothing to hide

[Alta4ever]

So what are we going to do? Have mandatory drug tests? And should it end there? Will we have a cadre of secret police photographing people "Aha, you were at McDonald's and ordered two Quarter Pounders" or "We saw you parachuting"? Would drinking homo milk instead of skimmed milk bump up ones premiums?

I guess you have never bought a life insurance policy have you? Read a policy declaration or the terms and conditions in regard ot non disclosure and misrepresentation.

[guyser]

I guess you have never bought a life insurance policy have you? Read a policy declaration or the terms and conditions in regard ot non disclosure and misrepresentation.

If you want we could follow your advice, except that the form would be about 400 pages long, in other words useless for the benefits of underwriting healthcare.

For me to agree with your assertation, we would need to know absolutely everything about you, your habits, where you go, what you do, who you hang around with and so on and so on.

Not a particularly good idea. Not to mention virtually impossible for an actuary to put rates too.

[guyser]

Also, lets no lose sight of the fact that 'sin taxes' are used to fund healthcare, in essence those who smoke and drink are already paying more for the hc in this country. We could easily expand that to include a marijuana tax.

[Alta4ever]

If you want we could follow your advice, except that the form would be about 400 pages long, in other words useless for the benefits of underwriting healthcare.

For me to agree with your assertation, we would need to know absolutely everything about you, your habits, where you go, what you do, who you hang around with and so on and so on.

Not a particularly good idea. Not to mention virtually impossible for an actuary to put rates too.

The standard life insurance app would suffice, you would be able to get enough from that to underwrite a policy without it getting too combersome. But I see where you are comming from you want the taxpayer to pay for your choices.

Just think we wouldn't need sin taxes if the public purse did have the responisbility of funding 100% of healthcare. But then again the left never likes to take responsibility for itself.

[Alta4ever]

You would be surprised what an actuary can do and what already has been done with those types of tables. Have you heard of Disablitiy insurance? How about critical illlness insurance? These are both forms of insurance that use the data that you have managed, and their are actuaral tables for them that have been updated year after year.

You only think its impossible because you don't like the idea of it.

[guyser]

The standard life insurance app would suffice, you would be able to get enough from that to underwrite a policy without it getting too combersome. But I see where you are comming from you want the taxpayer to pay for your choices.

Sorry grasshopper , no go.

A std life app would work? The same app that doesnt ask about any mary jane use? LOL

And in these ' life apps' , do they ask about your sporting pursuits, apart from I beleive, scuba diving, sky diving , non-comm'l flight risks? Do they ask what you eat? What neighbourhood you live in? Does it ask if you live by a lake, a highway?,a railroad track?, ask about your kids health or if you have a bitch for a spouse? ask about what roads you travel on? ask whether or not you remove safeguards from your mower or blower? ask if you have a fireplace or not?

Nice try on deflecting though. We already pay for for our choices, yours too .

Just think we wouldn't need sin taxes if the public purse did have the responisbility of funding 100% of healthcare. But then again the left never likes to take responsibility for itself.

Ah, so this is a 'left 'problem, not a societal problem?

You would be surprised what an actuary can do and what already has been done with those types of tables

No I wouldnt. Why would I be surprised?

Have you heard of Disablitiy insurance? How about critical illlness insurance?

I beleive so.

You only think its impossible because you don't like the idea of it.

No, because it is virtually impossible. You just havent taken it far enough or to a logical conclusion.

Edited January 26, 2009 by guyser

[Alta4ever]

Life apps do ask about drug use, sports and ect. They even find out about your diet through blood tests. They don't know exactly what you eat but, sodium and colesterol levels show up and that is something dictated by your eating habbits. Most disability policies ask what your regular occupation is, and those classes have in the tables data to off set time spent on highways not to mention other hasards like those say in the construction industry.

You have never been in the Insurance industry have you?

[Wild Bill]

Life apps do ask about drug use, sports and ect. They even find out about your diet through blood tests. They don't know exactly what you eat but, sodium and colesterol levels show up and that is something dictated by your eating habbits. Most disability policies ask what your regular occupation is, and those classes have in the tables data to off set time spent on highways not to mention other hasards like those say in the construction industry.

You have never been in the Insurance industry have you?

Your points are moot. We are almost at the point when genetic testing will reveal any individual's propensity for most diseases. There are people who have never smoked and yet died of lung cancer. There are people who do all the right things yet suffer high blood pressure and cholesterol. Or MS, or CS, or a host of others.

It's a lead pipe cinch that life insurance companies will obtain and use this information to set rates or deny policies to people born with high risks. Given that our publicly funded health care system is not self-sustaining and is out of control financially, it's also certain that it will be used as an excuse to tax people differently for their health care.

[guyser]

You have never been in the Insurance industry have you?

Interesting...... LOL.

I guess not since you dont think so.

All your jokes aside, what I feel you are not grasping is the stupidity of such a step.

If Ins Co's start to invade your life, and demanding answers to every little thing you do, it would render them profitable in the short term, but in the end they would lose their shirts since a court, (and there are numerous cases to show this), would , when asked, come down hard on the ins co to pay up since the ins co is in the business to pay claims and not to be in business to find fault which equals to no payment.

Ever wonder why suicide is not excluded?

The clauses that state "you must be truthful..yada yada....or we will not pay" are not catch alls for the companies. They cannot rely on such clauses due to spirit interpretations by the courts.

For your plan to work would require one to check in weekly with an insurance agent to update and or amend premiums , and that would take approximately half an hour. Why so long? Because an ins agent would not want to miss a question, a question that may come to haunt him, since he would have to pay the claim personally since he failed to ask it in the first place.

[guyser]

We are almost at the point when genetic testing will reveal any individual's propensity for most diseases. There are people who have never smoked and yet died of lung cancer. There are people who do all the right things yet suffer high blood pressure and cholesterol. Or MS, or CS, or a host of others.

There is a move afoot to deny any such use of dna tests to show propensity to certain illnesses.The ins co realze that using such data may in fact harm them greatly, and they also know the courts would not allow them to use such data in court.

It's a lead pipe cinch that life insurance companies will obtain and use this information to set rates or deny policies to people born with high risks.

'

That they have looked into it, yes, I agree. But to use it, no I dont. I think they understand the pitfalls of such use. They also want to make money, not lose it, so u/w guidelines are not, nor will be as strict as you may think they are.

Besides, companies have no problems insuring those that are unhealthy or a propensity to certain illnesses. They charge for the risk, and they know a good precentage of those who buy wil either 1) cancel in time 2) switch up policies 3) get booted for NSF 4) forget they ever bought a policy and/or cant find it 5) amend agents which triggers underwriting changes.

All 5 of those above means they keep the moolah, no payout, and therefore remain quite profitable.

[Alta4ever]

Interesting...... LOL.

I guess not since you dont think so.

All your jokes aside, what I feel you are not grasping is the stupidity of such a step.

If Ins Co's start to invade your life, and demanding answers to every little thing you do, it would render them profitable in the short term, but in the end they would lose their shirts since a court, (and there are numerous cases to show this), would , when asked, come down hard on the ins co to pay up since the ins co is in the business to pay claims and not to be in business to find fault which equals to no payment.

Ever wonder why suicide is not excluded?

The clauses that state "you must be truthful..yada yada....or we will not pay" are not catch alls for the companies. They cannot rely on such clauses due to spirit interpretations by the courts.

For your plan to work would require one to check in weekly with an insurance agent to update and or amend premiums , and that would take approximately half an hour. Why so long? Because an ins agent would not want to miss a question, a question that may come to haunt him, since he would have to pay the claim personally since he failed to ask it in the first place.

Actually sucide is excluded for the first two years of your policy.

If you don't think so then you had better go check your policy wording again. How does it work in countries without universal health care? There would be some underwriting for the insurance product, otherwise it wouldn't be insurance.

[Alta4ever]

an ins agent would not want to miss a question, a question that may come to haunt him, since he would have to pay the claim personally since he failed to ask it in the first place.

This is exactly why they purchase E & O insurance if an agent or broker misses a question on a app, or fails to offer a service the courts will award a client. This is also why thye note everything in a file, and usually have the client sign that they did not want a product or service. So that the client can't plead ignorance and have the court side with them.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Alta4ever

[BubberMiley]

But I see where you are comming from you want the taxpayer to pay for your choices.

You are happy to pay for law enforcement, incarceration, and a lack of tax revenue from criminalization, yet worry about the potential for a rise in health care costs from decriminalization, even though it's a proven fact weed never killed anyone?

Methinks you're either very stupid or profiting from its criminalization yourself.

[Alta4ever]

You are happy to pay for law enforcement, incarceration, and a lack of tax revenue from criminalization, yet worry about the potential for a rise in health care costs from decriminalization, even though it's a proven fact weed never killed anyone?

Methinks you're either very stupid or profiting from its criminalization yourself.

Pots never killed anyone, I highly doubt that, maybe not from an overdose, but what about the extra tar in the lungs, or driving under the influence.

If we are going to live with everyones sins, I don't want my taxes to pay for it. I work darn hard for that money, just to see it pissed away, on some that are nothing but leaches on society.

[guyser]

Actually sucide is excluded for the first two years of your policy.

Not all insurance, but certainly Life Ins.

If you don't think so then you had better go check your policy wording again. How does it work in countries without universal health care? There would be some underwriting for the insurance product, otherwise it wouldn't be insurance.

You are confusing Life Ins with health insurance. Huge difference. And an insurance company does not need underwriting , it can sell policies for anything it wants.

[guyser]

This is exactly why they purchase E & O insurance if an agent or broker misses a question on a app, or fails to offer a service the courts will award a client.

But someone has to pay the deductible. Methinks a few $10,000 deductibles in a year might piss a guy off.

This is also why thye note everything in a file, and usually have the client sign that they did not want a product or service. So that the client can't plead ignorance and have the court side with them.

Sadly it doesnt work that way. Pretty much never. All the initials and signatures are well and good, but a lawyer will find one that wasnt addressed. Besides, a loss could occur the next day while that 'letter' was in the mail, or the client hadnt come in to sign off on the changes.

Besides, you would not have control of the case . If your e&o guy wants to settle a $50,000 case knowing full well he will spend $55,000 on defence costs, he will do so, and you have no say about it.

[Alta4ever]

Not all insurance, but certainly Life Ins.

You are confusing Life Ins with health insurance. Huge difference. And an insurance company does not need underwriting , it can sell policies for anything it wants.

We were talking life insurance, nothing else pays out if you hang yourself. If you drive into another vehicle, your family may get a small claim under accident benefits, depending on the province you live in.

Wrong an insurance company does need underwriting because it must stay profitable to continue to write new business. It needs actuarial table to determine were profitablity lies within a certain group, then uses underwriting to charge according to risk. A company cannot sell a policy for whatever it wants. Then there are the regulator bodies that over see this.

[guyser]

Pots never killed anyone, I highly doubt that, maybe not from an overdose, but what about the extra tar in the lungs, or driving under the influence.

All the more reason to ban booze then since we know , almost exactly, how many people are killed while driving drunk.

No one here, no one I have ever heard, advocates driving while stoned. Thats a red herring that just spent three days on the sidewalk.

That they try to implement a 'stoner' roadside test is laudible, but hardly works since the metabolism of pot is something in the neighbourhood of three days. Booze is about 5 hours.

If we are going to live with everyones sins, I don't want my taxes to pay for it. I work darn hard for that money, just to see it pissed away, on some that are nothing but leaches on society.

Ah, so anyone who might smoke a little weed is now a leach on society. Thats openmindedness for you.

But dont worry, we already pay for your sins, and suprise we work just as hard for that money.

[Alta4ever]

But someone has to pay the deductible. Methinks a few $10,000 deductibles in a year might piss a guy off.

Sadly it doesnt work that way. Pretty much never. All the initials and signatures are well and good, but a lawyer will find one that wasnt addressed. Besides, a loss could occur the next day while that 'letter' was in the mail, or the client hadnt come in to sign off on the changes.

Besides, you would not have control of the case . If your e&o guy wants to settle a $50,000 case knowing full well he will spend $55,000 on defence costs, he will do so, and you have no say about it.

IF you know so much please tell me what licenses you hold, have you taken the LLQP have you ever written any kind of insurance policy. Do you even know the licensing requirements. Taken a CAIB or CIP coarse. Do you know how insurance law applies, or have you seen a best practices document for the industry. Going by what you've posted I think not.

[Alta4ever]

All the more reason to ban booze then since we know , almost exactly, how many people are killed while driving drunk.

No one here, no one I have ever heard, advocates driving while stoned. Thats a red herring that just spent three days on the sidewalk.

That they try to implement a 'stoner' roadside test is laudible, but hardly works since the metabolism of pot is something in the neighbourhood of three days. Booze is about 5 hours.

Ah, so anyone who might smoke a little weed is now a leach on society. Thats openmindedness for you.

But dont worry, we already pay for your sins, and suprise we work just as hard for that money.

Well then we should be paying for our healthcare based on our risk not our neighbors. IF you want to go down the path of destruction DO IT ON YOUR DIME NOT MINE. Private health care premiums address this best.

I am very openminded, but whenit times to own up for responsibilty don't hide behind someone else or expect them to pay to get you out of your problem, you best doit yourself, in otherwords, you lay in the bed you made.

[guyser]

We were talking life insurance, nothing else pays out if you hang yourself. If you drive into another vehicle, your family may get a small claim under accident benefits, depending on the province you live in.

Yes, they will get a death benefit, suicidal or not. Perhaps not all provinces, but ICBC, Ont and Alta they do. (definitely Ont)

Wrong an insurance company does need underwriting because it must stay profitable to continue to write new business. . A company cannot sell a policy for whatever it wants. Then there are the regulator bodies that over see this.

So then I am not wrong . They dont need them, but for profitabilty they should.

Regulator bodies are just that. So yes a company can sell for what it wants, it merely has to be approved, and that is not with rates, that is primarlily with wordings .

[Alta4ever]

Yes, they will get a death benefit, suicidal or not. Perhaps not all provinces, but ICBC, Ont and Alta they do. (definitely Ont)

So then I am not wrong . They dont need them, but for profitabilty they should.

Regulator bodies are just that. So yes a company can sell for what it wants, it merely has to be approved, and that is not with rates, that is primarlily with wordings .

They are required to by regulation it is part of the business.

[guyser]

Well then we should be paying for our healthcare based on our risk not our neighbors. IF you want to go down the path of destruction DO IT ON YOUR DIME NOT MINE. Private health care premiums address this best.

Except we pay for yours, and continue to pay for others all the time. Just now you want to try and save a couple of bucks, and screw the rest. It dont work that way. There will always be better and healthier people than you, and always be some worse. So put the stick in the ground anywhere you want, and there will be someone bitching they shouldnt pay for your excesses.

I do triathlons and get plenty of exercise , drink very little but enjoy the odd sin. So what?

The path of destruction that some are on, is already addressed. Taxes in cigs pays for OHIP, so yes they are paying for it. But you knew that.

As for private health premiums addressing this, well guess what, it doesnt.

"A 2004 OECD report found no clear evidence that allowing a privately insured option eases wait times in a mainly public system."

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=M1ARTM0013187

Same old same old.

I am very openminded, but whenit times to own up for responsibilty don't hide behind someone else or expect them to pay to get you out of your problem, you best doit yourself, in otherwords, you lay in the bed you made.

Thing is , I am not hiding behind anyone. I pay, and I pay and I pay, same as everyone else . And since I pay, I get. No one is getting me 'out of my problem' , I am simply getting what I paid for.

[guyser]

IF you know so much please tell me what licenses you hold, have you taken the LLQP have you ever written any kind of insurance policy. Do you even know the licensing requirements. Taken a CAIB or CIP coarse. Do you know how insurance law applies, or have you seen a best practices document for the industry. Going by what you've posted I think not.

I think I have demonstrably shown you I do know what I am talking about. Since I have had to correct you , makes your last point a bit of a laugher.

But its all good.

[BubberMiley]

Pots never killed anyone, I highly doubt that, maybe not from an overdose, but what about the extra tar in the lungs, or driving under the influence.

If we are going to live with everyones sins, I don't want my taxes to pay for it. I work darn hard for that money, just to see it pissed away, on some that are nothing but leaches on society.

There is no tar in pot and driving under the influence is nothing like alcohol.

But again, because your follow-up indicates a likelihood for my former analysis and not my latter, you are already paying outrageous amounts of money that you "work darn hard for" on enforcement. Wouldn't you rather pot-smokers pay YOU money through taxation?