Lifetime Community Rating Discriminatory

heyjude · 22-03-2015 2:43am #1

I am surprised that there hasn't been any comment about a critical aspect of the introduction of Lifetime Community Rating that clearly discriminates against anyone who is over 35 and has lived their whole life here, as opposed to Irish emigrants returning to Ireland and non-nationals coming to live here.

Lifetime Community Rating will see a 2% loading per year for anyone taking out inpatient private health insurance for the first time after 30th April, so for example, a 40 year old lifelong Irish resident, who has never held such insurance before and takes it out after 30th April would face a 10% loading(but the loading can be up to 70%). The justification being to encourage younger (healthier) people to subscribe to health insurance and not just take it out later when they are higher risk, so if you pay in when you are younger, you don't face a loading when you get older. But if the justification for the new loading is that people who don't subscribe till their risk is higher should have to pay more, why does that reasoning not also apply to Irish emigrants who may either be returning here in their 60s or someone who has never lived here before(whatever their age), neither of which are required to have paid for any Irish health insurance in the past, but just have to take out health insurance within 9 months of arriving here and get treated like as if they've been paying in for their whole lives(unlike long term Irish residents who if they miss the 30th April deadline, immediately get hit with an age related health insurance loading for life(based on the age they commence cover)

Why has there been no clamour in the media about the seemingly much more favourable terms for health insurance that apply to people(Irish or otherwise) entering Ireland after 30th April, as compared to people already living here. If people over 35 without health insurance, who live here already are to be hit with a lifelong loading as they didn't contribute when they were younger, why should those who lived abroad and who also did not contribute previously be given more favourable terms no matter what age they are when they commence health insurance ?

For details about Lifetime Community Rating see www.hia.ie/consumer-information/lifetime-community-rating-explained where it explains "Anybody who lives outside of the State on 1 May 2015 and moves to live in Ireland will have 9 months to purchase inpatient private health insurance avoiding the loading under Lifetime Community Rating."

Atlantic Dawn · 22-03-2015 2:47am

Yes it should work like motor insurance no claims bonus where evidence is required from your previous policy abroad, if they have no previous policy they should be treated the same as an Irish resident who never got cover.

strandroad · 22-03-2015 3:06am

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Yes it should work like motor insurance no claims bonus where evidence is required from your previous policy abroad, if they have no previous policy they should be treated the same as an Irish resident who never got cover.

In some countries there is no need or indeed no way to have such previous policy, as you are fully covered by your taxes alone.

johnnyskeleton · 22-03-2015 12:59pm

Possibly they were concerned about EU free movement. Certain types of intra EU movement eg university study require you to have private health insurance and so a 50 year old who has had private health insurance since the age of 30 in Germany would be treated less favourably than a 50 year old Irish person who had such insurance since 30 in Ireland.

EU rules allow us to treat our own citizens less favourably than other EU citizens, but we have to be very careful that we dont treat other EU citizens less favourably than Irish citizens in many areas.

Surely a sensible approach would be to allow each insurer to charge whatever they think is reasonable. A law permitting insurers to charge a higher premium for new customers over 35 rather than requiring it makes a lot more sense. If an insurer cant survive based on existing premia it is up to them to decide whether to increase premia or go out of business.

Muahahaha · 23-03-2015 2:14am

I thought discrimination based on age was part of the Equal Status Act? Discriminating based on gender was given as the reason insurance companies can no longer charge females less for their car insurance so I'm not sure how they can do so with age?

johnnyskeleton · 23-03-2015 9:40am

Muahahaha wrote: »

I thought discrimination based on age was part of the Equal Status Act? Discriminating based on gender was given as the reason insurance companies can no longer charge females less for their car insurance so I'm not sure how they can do so with age?

Its the government rather than the insurance companies bringing it in, so they are entitled within limits to legislate for occasionally unequal treatment so long as it is a proportionate measure.

Godge · 23-03-2015 11:38am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Its the government rather than the insurance companies bringing it in, so they are entitled within limits to legislate for occasionally unequal treatment so long as it is a proportionate measure.

Not just proportionate

http://www.hayes-solicitors.ie/news/AgeDiscrimination.htm

"Each Member State has an opportunity to justify direct discrimination on the age ground if the state is pursuing a legitimate aim in its social or employment policy."

Private Health Insurance is a key component of the State's social policy thereby making government discrimination on the grounds or age both legal and possible.

Quin_Dub · 23-03-2015 11:56am

Actually for me, the worst one is the discrimination against children/spouses.

Consider a not atypical example - Family covered by 1 Spouses Employer funded Health cover.

Coverage in place for decades - Spouse 1 drops dead of a heart-attack at 50 - Widow(er) , despite having Health insurance within the "family" policy is considered to have never had coverage before and so will get hammered when attempting to renew.

Same would apply to adult dependent children.

No concept of "Named Driver" style credit under the scheme.

Utterly ridiculous...

Einhard · 23-03-2015 12:07pm

I can see why people might be annoyed at the scheme, but it would be ridiculous to penalise returning emigrants for not signing up for health insurance in a country in which they don't reside. I live abroad and insurance is covered by my job. I'm rarely home. What justification could there possibly be for me buying health insurance in Ireland. It's a daft notion to be honest. You might believe you're being discriminated against, but at least you might avail of your insurance.

PaddyTheNth · 23-03-2015 12:15pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Actually for me, the worst one is the discrimination against children/spouses.

Consider a not atypical example - Family covered by 1 Spouses Employer funded Health cover.

Coverage in place for decades - Spouse 1 drops dead of a heart-attack at 50 - Widow(er) , despite having Health insurance within the "family" policy is considered to have never had coverage before and so will get hammered when attempting to renew.

Same would apply to adult dependent children.

No concept of "Named Driver" style credit under the scheme.

Utterly ridiculous...

What's your source for this?

Is there a distinction between an employer-funded scheme and a self-funded family plan? The HIA confirmed that anyone with continuous cover under the latter will not be loaded if they leave the family plan.

Quin_Dub · 23-03-2015 12:34pm

PaddyTheNth wrote: »

What's your source for this?

Is there a distinction between an employer-funded scheme and a self-funded family plan? The HIA confirmed that anyone with continuous cover under the latter will not be loaded if they leave the family plan.

It was based on an interview given to Pat Kenny last week by the head of the HIA..

However - It would appear that they have now back-tracked on that based on this article.

So, we are now back to a fairer view , but Don Gallagher had been quite adamant during the interview that spousal coverage would not count...

Full Marx · 23-03-2015 7:49pm

Einhard wrote: »

I can see why people might be annoyed at the scheme, but it would be ridiculous to penalise returning emigrants for not signing up for health insurance in a country in which they don't reside. I live abroad and insurance is covered by my job. I'm rarely home. What justification could there possibly be for me buying health insurance in Ireland. It's a daft notion to be honest. You might believe you're being discriminated against, but at least you might avail of your insurance.

When you return from abroad you will have 9 months to take out health insurance before you become subject to the Lifetime Community Rating loading.

What we are seeing here is a further effort by the government to prop up private business by shifting the customer base to predominantly younger people. The negative equity generation who gave up health insurance will never be able to afford it now. This will in turn place greater demands on the public system.

The government, imo, should not be encouraging private health insurance or giving any tax relief. Rather we should have a proper, single tax based healthcare system based on peoples needs, not their ability to pay.

Einhard · 24-03-2015 12:10am

Full Marx wrote: »

When you return from abroad you will have 9 months to take out health insurance before you become subject to the Lifetime Community Rating loading.

What we are seeing here is a further effort by the government to prop up private business by shifting the customer base to predominantly younger people. The negative equity generation who gave up health insurance will never be able to afford it now. This will in turn place greater demands on the public system.

The government, imo, should not be encouraging private health insurance or giving any tax relief. Rather we should have a proper, single tax based healthcare system based on peoples needs, not their ability to pay.

I agree with you. I was responding to the OP who seems to have a gripe about emigrants not having to subscribe to health insurance while living abroad.

heyjude · 24-03-2015 9:46pm

Einhard wrote: »

I can see why people might be annoyed at the scheme, but it would be ridiculous to penalise returning emigrants for not signing up for health insurance in a country in which they don't reside. I live abroad and insurance is covered by my job. I'm rarely home. What justification could there possibly be for me buying health insurance in Ireland. It's a daft notion to be honest. You might believe you're being discriminated against, but at least you might avail of your insurance.

Its not a question of whether I believe that I or anyone else that has lived all their life in Ireland, is being discriminated against, I would have thought that was self evident. A lifelong Irish resident aged 40 who has never had health insurance, will after 30th April be subject to a 10% loading if they take out health insurance for the first time, whereas a returning Irish emigrant or an immigrant from another country, aged 40,50, 60 or 70 will not (if they take out insurance within 9 months of entering the country), which is discrimination.

I can see though, that as a current emigrant, and as a possible future beneficiary of this new type of community rating if you return to Ireland, how you wouldn't see it as discrimination.

The bottom line is that this new type of community rating(as it applies to current Irish residents) with sizeable indefinite annual premium loadings, together with the ever rising health insurance premiums in general, will ensure that many thousands of people, who may have considered taking out health insurance as their mortgages are paid down, will now no longer do so, thereby adding to the numbers that are wholly dependent on the public health system.

Einhard wrote: »

I was responding to the OP who seems to have a gripe about emigrants not having to subscribe to health insurance while living abroad.

If you were referring to my original post, I took issue with people who have lived here their own life being treated less favourably than Irish emigrants, who may in some cases have been out of the country their whole working lives or immigrants(of whatever age) from whatever country. I did not take specific issue with emigrants not having to subscribe to health insurance while abroad, as I made no distinction between returning emigrants and immigrants entering Ireland for the first time

Full Marx · 24-03-2015 9:50pm

heyjude wrote: »

Its not a question of whether I believe that I or anyone else that has lived all their life in Ireland, is being discriminated against, I would have thought that was self evident. A lifelong Irish resident aged 40 who has never had health insurance, will after 30th April be subject to a 10% loading if they take out health insurance for the first time, whereas a returning Irish emigrant or an immigrant from another country, aged 40,50, 60 or 70 will not (if they take out insurance within 9 months of entering the country), which is discrimination.

I can see though, that as a current emigrant, and as a possible future beneficiary of this new type of community rating if you return to Ireland, how you wouldn't see it as discrimination.

The bottom line is that this new type of community rating(as it applies to current Irish residents) with sizeable indefinite annual premium loadings, together with the ever rising health insurance premiums in general, will ensure that many thousands of people, who may have considered taking out health insurance as their mortgages are paid down, will now no longer do so, thereby adding to the numbers that are wholly dependent on the public health system.

If you were referring to my original post, I took issue with people who have lived here their own life being treated less favourably than Irish emigrants, who may in some cases have been out of the country their whole working lives or immigrants(of whatever age) from whatever country. I did not take specific issue with emigrants not having to subscribe to health insurance while abroad, as I made no distinction between returning emigrants and immigrants entering Ireland for the first time

It is worth noting that the returning emigrant has to have been out of the country on 1/5/15. If someone emigrates in July for instance and returns in five years time the loadings may apply if they are over 35 (taking into account credit for prior cover etc).

The essential point is this is what happens when you allow private companies have such a huge influence over essential public services like healthcare. Make no mistake the companies will be the winners from this legislation, not the public.

Uncle Ben · 24-03-2015 9:55pm

Full Marx wrote: »

It is worth noting that the returning emigrant has to have been out of the country on 1/5/15. If someone emigrates in July for instance and returns in five years time the loadings may apply if they are over 35 (taking into account credit for prior cover etc).

The essential point is this is what happens when you allow private companies have such a huge influence over essential public services like healthcare. Make no mistake the companies will be the winners from this legislation, not the public.

I wonder how long it will take for Dinny to get into the insurance business.
'Get €200 for passing Go'.

Full Marx · 24-03-2015 10:30pm

Uncle Ben wrote: »

I wonder how long it will take for Dinny to get into the insurance business.
'Get €200 for passing Go'.

Well he owns the Beacon Hospital (a private hospital) so rest assured he is already making money from the private health insurance industry in Ireland. Guess who O'Brien appointed to the board of said hospital... Brian Cowen.

http:// www. independent.ie/business/irish/former-taoiseach-brian-cowen-joins-board-of-beacon-hospital-31003390.html

Godge · 25-03-2015 6:31pm

Full Marx wrote: »

It is worth noting that the returning emigrant has to have been out of the country on 1/5/15. If someone emigrates in July for instance and returns in five years time the loadings may apply if they are over 35 (taking into account credit for prior cover etc).

The essential point is this is what happens when you allow private companies have such a huge influence over essential public services like healthcare. Make no mistake the companies will be the winners from this legislation, not the public.

The winners from this are those who did the right thing and paid health insurance all their life instead of waiting until their 50s to do it.

Quin_Dub · 25-03-2015 6:38pm

Godge wrote: »

The winners from this are those who did the right thing and paid health insurance all their life instead of waiting until their 50s to do it.

Not sure I'd call it winning- It's not like there's a discount for having had insurance for 30 years.. It's just that they avoid getting a loading..

Fairly Pyrrhic victory tbh...

Full Marx · 25-03-2015 7:26pm

Godge wrote: »

The winners from this are those who did the right thing and paid health insurance all their life instead of waiting until their 50s to do it.

"Did the right thing"? Is it some sort of moral responsibility to have health insurance? What about those who can't afford it until their career progresses to a certain stage?

Godge · 26-03-2015 12:49am

Full Marx wrote: »

"Did the right thing"? Is it some sort of moral responsibility to have health insurance? What about those who can't afford it until their career progresses to a certain stage?

Those who have paid it all their lives shouldn't have to carry the Johnny comes lately who suddenly got worried about their health later in life.

Full Marx · 26-03-2015 12:53am

Godge wrote: »

Those who have paid it all their lives shouldn't have to carry the Johnny comes lately who suddenly got worried about their health later in life.

By your logic health insurance should be risk rated rather than community rated. In that case those who "paid it all their lives" won't be able to afford it when they get older.

Jawgap · 26-03-2015 8:55am

Full Marx wrote: »

By your logic health insurance should be risk rated rather than community rated. In that case those who "paid it all their lives" won't be able to afford it when they get older.

......or when you take it out you're giving an initial risk rating and the price you pay progresses from there .

I always thought it was bonkers that someone who made decent lifestyle choices as in avoided smoking, moderated their alcohol consumption, maintained a reasonable level of activity and consumed a healthy diet (i.e. me!:)) had to pay the same as those who decided only to invest in their health by buying health insurance.

Brian Shanahan · 26-03-2015 1:09pm

Full Marx wrote: »

The government, imo, should not be encouraging private health insurance or giving any tax relief. Rather we should have a proper, single tax based healthcare system based on peoples needs, not their ability to pay.

Yes, take a look at the NHS original idea and implement that taking today's medical knowledge and challenges into account. It's the only proper way to set up a health system, and is cheaper than all the others to boot.

Rezident · 01-04-2015 3:14pm

I’m already over 35. So now, instead of leaving health insurance for a few more years before buying it, I will never buy it (in Ireland). Pay a 10% or 20% penalty every year!? Not a chance. Terrible system.

Sounds like a system that works in a totally different culture to Ireland which they just copied here, I don’t fancy its prospects. Like when Germany tried to impose German austerity on different cultures, with disastrous results. Different cultures are – obviously – different, the same rules do not apply.

Cookie_Monster · 02-04-2015 1:12am

Not sure it'll even really work.

I I'm 25 now and live until 80.

1) Pay insurance every year from now, assume 2% inflation on an initial 200eur quote= 20,311 total paid
2) Wait until 40, assume an initial 300eur + 10% pa gov fine, same inflation = 20,661
3) Wait until 50, assume an initial 300eur + 30% pa gov fine, same inflation = 20,147

Simplistic; but in the end its cheaper to wait. The higher the initial quote the better it works out to hold off.

4) Pay insurance every year from now, assume 2% inflation on an initial 700eur quote= 71,090 total paid
5) Wait until 40, assume an initial 1000eur + 10% pa gov fine, same inflation = 68,871
6) Wait until 50, assume an initial 1000eur + 30% pa gov fine, same inflation = 67,158

AlekSmart · 02-04-2015 10:46pm

Full Marx wrote: »

"Did the right thing"? Is it some sort of moral responsibility to have health insurance? What about those who can't afford it until their career progresses to a certain stage?

How Ireland managed to reach a situation in which various Private Sector Health Insurance providers have reached a very powerful position is surely subject to critical appraisal.

The State has levied and collected PAYE/PRSI along with Health Levies when appropriate from me over a 40 year working life,I have,thankfully, never had to seek significant medical intervention and I see no good reason for the same State to direct me into the warm embrace of a Health Insurance provider.

Private Health Insurance in the Irish Context is little more than a scam,and should be robustly challenged ! :eek:

Berserker · 03-04-2015 6:36pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

Private Health Insurance in the Irish Context is little more than a scam,and should be robustly challenged ! :eek:

I am in my mid 30s and have had private health insurance for a good few years now. If, god forbid, something happened to me in the morning, I am able to go to any hospital in the country for treatment and skip the seemingly incredibly long queues for access to consultants.

I purchase private health insurance for the reasons above, primarily. How is it a scam?

Brian Shanahan · 03-04-2015 9:57pm

Rezident wrote: »

Sounds like a system that works in a totally different culture to Ireland which they just copied here, I don’t fancy its prospects. Like when Germany tried to impose German austerity on different cultures, with disastrous results. Different cultures are – obviously – different, the same rules do not apply.

It wouldn't even work in a country like Germany, just like with German austerity, which they tried for twenty years after reunification, leading to anaemic growth and the country inheriting the "sick man of Europe" tag. The real reason that Germany looked to be dealing with the 2008 crash was that it was stagnating so long, it effectively had no more down left in the economy.

ednwireland · 04-04-2015 10:32pm

Berserker wrote: »

I am in my mid 30s and have had private health insurance for a good few years now. If, god forbid, something happened to me in the morning, I am able to go to any hospital in the country for treatment and skip the seemingly incredibly long queues for access to consultants.

I purchase private health insurance for the reasons above, primarily. How is it a scam?

i've never had private health insurance, ended up in hospital last year after blacking out with loss of blood from an upper gi bleed.

in 4 weeks had 2 colonoscopies an endoscopy a ct scan and an mri scan

had to pay for my 8 days on the ward 600 euro

Mrs OBumble · 04-04-2015 10:59pm

Berserker wrote: »

I am in my mid 30s and have had private health insurance for a good few years now. If, god forbid, something happened to me in the morning, I am able to go to any hospital in the country for treatment and skip the seemingly incredibly long queues for access to consultants.

I purchase private health insurance for the reasons above, primarily. How is it a scam?

Even with private insurance, there are some specialities which there si a queue for.

If you get really sick, your treatment will be in public anyways. And if you're in a smaller private hospital overnight (when there are no doctors in the building) and they cannot get hold of your consultant - guess who pays for the ambulance which is called and guess where they take you.

Jawgap · 05-04-2015 6:07am

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Even with private insurance, there are some specialities which there si a queue for.

If you get really sick, your treatment will be in public anyways. And if you're in a smaller private hospital overnight (when there are no doctors in the building) and they cannot get hold of your consultant - guess who pays for the ambulance which is called and guess where they take you.

Private health insurers do things differently to the HSE.

Last summer I picked up a fairly vicious infection that needed aggressive treatment with iv antibiotics. I had my health insurance so after the Mater stabilised me I was sent home where a nurse came twice a day to give me the antibiotics.

I only had this option because of my insurance - if I'd been wholly public the HSE would not have covered it and I'd have spent 2 weeks (instead of 3 days) occupying a bed in the hospital.

oscarBravo · 05-04-2015 5:30pm

ednwireland wrote: »

i've never had private health insurance, ended up in hospital last year after blacking out with loss of blood from an upper gi bleed.

This highlights the difference between private and public healthcare in this country: there's not much difference in the quality of care if you're in imminent danger of death.

I've had two health issues dealt with in private hospitals in recent years: the first was a kidney stone which was detected early enough that it never caused me any actual pain - and it was detected that early because when the consultant referred me for a CT scan, I walked downstairs, had the scan, then walked back upstairs to the consultant's office for the diagnosis. The surgery happened three weeks later, and would have been sooner if it had suited me.

The second was a glaucoma diagnosis. From the first suspicion that there might be a problem to my consultation with an ophthalmologist was a question of a couple of weeks. If I'd gone onto a public waiting list, I would have had probably a year and a half of significant deterioration of my eyesight before anyone got around to even looking at me.

If I hadn't gone private, and if the kidney stone had had me writhing on the floor in agony, I would have been whisked off for emergency surgery and in the best of hands - but health insurance meant that I had the stone surgically removed before it had caused anything other than mild urinary irritation.

And that's why I have private health insurance. It's not because I don't think I'd get good treatment in the public system; it's because of the significant complications that could arise while I'm waiting for the public system to get around to bothering to see me.

rasper · 04-05-2015 12:55pm

Mortgage or health insurance, obvious which one is more pressing.
absolute crazy levy , will like to see what the governments next move against the sheep who didn't jump.
Where does all this tie in with the universal healthcare care BS that was being last election

BoJack Horseman · 04-05-2015 12:58pm

rasper wrote: »

Where does all this tie in with the universal healthcare care BS that was being last election

Universal health insurance was long-fingered ..... then dropped entirely.

Depending on who wins the next GE, there could be an Irish NHS in place in the next 5-6 years.

_Kaiser_ · 05-05-2015 1:51pm

rasper wrote: »

Mortgage or health insurance, obvious which one is more pressing.
absolute crazy levy , will like to see what the governments next move against the sheep who didn't jump.
Where does all this tie in with the universal healthcare care BS that was being last election

Universal Healthcare hasn't gone away - it's just been pushed back (probably a result of the mess that is IW and the upcoming election)

You can be sure if FG see a second term (for the first time ever) that it'll be back up on the list. That'll be how they get the rest of the people who didn't willingly sign up this time.

Brian Shanahan · 05-05-2015 8:43pm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Universal Healthcare hasn't gone away - it's just been pushed back (probably a result of the mess that is IW and the upcoming election)

You can be sure if FG see a second term (for the first time ever) that it'll be back up on the list. That'll be how they get the rest of the people who didn't willingly sign up this time.

First of all you don't understand what universal healthcare is about. It is not about forcing people to be gouged by insurers but providing a healthcare system available for all and not discriminating on wealth or other grounds, like what the UK had until Major or what France has.

Second of all, despite what the Blueshirts will tell us all, they don't have now, nor did they ever have, an interest in introducing universal healthcare, because it will hurt the very people who have them bought.

BoJack Horseman · 05-05-2015 10:51pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

like what the UK had until Major

What happened in 1990?

what France has.

Compulsory insurance via payroll deduction (4-7%)

because it will hurt the very people who have them bought.

Here is where all party & oireachtas donations are listed.

Can you point out what you are referring to?

http://m.sipo.gov.ie/en/Reports/Annual-Disclosures/

Thanks.....

Brian Shanahan · 06-05-2015 7:23pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What happened in 1990?

Major did what Thatcher was afraid to do and started the privitisation of the NHS.

Compulsory insurance via payroll deduction (4-7%)

Public healthcare free at the point of service paid through general taxation, and available to all regardless of means. Much better than the Irish system of "if rich you pay to go to another country, if poor you die on a trolley".

But, to be honest, I'm not interested in talking to a person who wants to derail a valid point on healthcare.

BoJack Horseman · 06-05-2015 7:39pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Public healthcare free at the point of service paid through general taxation, and available to all regardless of means.

Like the UK then..... Under Tory governance.... Grand.

But, to be honest, I'm not interested in talking to a person who wants to derail a valid point on healthcare.

Or (in reality),... You make a statement on political bribery & can't back it up so run away instead.

Top gun posting.

Lifetime Community Rating Discriminatory

Comments