Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PM_me_PMs_plox t1_itk95js wrote

Reply to comment by optimus_bmk in How are you voting on propositions 1-4? by gooutside0628

If they raise the premiums they still have to spend 80% of the raise on coverage. Another company would definitely undercut them if they tried that. And to be clear, licenses will still be available to people who legally entered the country.

9

WhiteNamesInChat t1_itmndak wrote

Why don't companies undercut companies with a low ratio already?

1

PM_me_PMs_plox t1_itmylp5 wrote

They do, by lowering the ratio. You pay half as much and get a quarter of the coverage.

1

optimus_bmk t1_itkgkqe wrote

What benefit then do we get by stipulating a percentage of premium money spent on care if they will simply raise premiums by 90% to make a 10% gain? I feel like the consumer is always the loser in political vs company monetary affairs. As to the license: i would say illegal in country = shouldn’t be in country = no license. But i really wish politicians would figure out and implement a better legal immigration mechanism.

−2

WinsingtonIII t1_itks1mm wrote

The benefit is that if dental insurers do this they will actually have to cover far more services than they currently do. Most dental insurance barely covers anything other than routine things like cleanings so it is largely pointless. If they raise premiums, they will have to cover more expensive procedures in order to hit the 83% of revenue spent on dental care threshold. Otherwise they will just have to refund the excess premiums to consumers.

9

TywinShitsGold t1_itl91fg wrote

…or they’ll just pay dentists a reasonable amount for service.

2

PM_me_PMs_plox t1_itkptn9 wrote

The proposed law for q2 specifically prohibits insurers from raising the premiums by more than the yearly change in the consumer price index (section 1d). As for q4, the real issue for me is about insurance. Currently, illegal immigrants are basically forced to flee from accidents since they're operating cars illegally. This may be how you like it, but you'd probably feel differently if you got hit and run by a car and ended up stuck with the medical bill. That is, maybe "illegal in country = shouldn’t be in country" is true, but I don't think "shouldn’t be in country = no license" holds up to scrutiny.

8

Easy-Progress8252 t1_itkqdc8 wrote

I agree on 4. I don’t think withholding the ability to have a driver’s license is going to incentivize people not to come here illegally.

5

CoolAbdul t1_itkviio wrote

All the police departments are Yes on 4.

5

PM_me_PMs_plox t1_itlrny8 wrote

Yeah, it would be a weird hill for anyone to die on. Especially since it's already a law and just barely squeaked onto the ballots with a lawsuit.

1