Page 14 of 37 FirstFirst ... 491011121314151617181924 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 726
  1.    #261  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    On and on and on and on with the evil health insurance companies mantra! It's getting ridiculous, guys. If you totally wiped out all of the insurance companies in the US, you honestly think that the 3% "profit" margin would make a difference in bottom line costs? Or even if you'd still have that margin above costs (as if big gov would actually be more effecient at administrating insurance)?

    Somebody needs to stop drinking the koolaid, and it ain't me.
    You know better. You know that it's not the 3% profit, it's the 20% overhead that adds to health care costs by private insurers. And as you also know, it's clear that Medicare overhead is considerably less than any private insurer, no matter what kind of arguments are thrown at the way it's calculated. As this article so clearly points out, it's really the different business models that is the problem.


    A great deal of misinformation, spin, and overheated hype came out of last year's debate on health care. Of the modicum of real information that managed to get through the enormous buzz of noise and confusion, the most startling was the stark comparison between the overhead of private health insurance and Medicare. Private health insurance spends 20% or more of every premium dollar on overhead: processing costs, administration, and profit. The corresponding number for Medicare is 1%.

    The numbers defy belief. To conservatives, it is inconceivable that a government program could be more efficient than private industry, much less 20 times more efficient. To liberals, the contrast is welcome, because it strongly makes the case for caps on health insurance overhead, and even more so for a real public option, such as extension of Medicare to other age groups. Even liberals, however, scratch their heads as to why this could or should be so.

    ------------
    It seems perfectly natural that insurance companies would carefully investigate claims and rule out fraud. Any claim would be very large compared to the monthly premium -- or even compared to a lifetime of premiums. If the company spends staff hours, or even staff days, on each investigation, it is still a miniscule overhead compared to the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars they will pay to settle the claim.
    This same model carried over into health insurance. Not so many years ago, health insurance was truly "major medical" insurance. It would kick in if you had a major operation, but you wouldn't bother with it for a routine doctor's office visit.
    But over years, health costs went up as the expectation for what was covered went up. Medicare partially drove the increase in expectations, as it covered both major and routine expenses. It reached the point in recent years where people expect health insurance to cover just about all of their health care expenses, except for co-pays and deductables. Further, people came to expect that private insurance would, like Medicare, pay the provider directly.
    Private insurance responded to the demands, but did not fundamentally change its business structure. Claims processing remains very labor-intense, just like in any casualty insurance organization. But claims, which had been large compared to monthly premiums and once every few years became small compared to premiums and several per month. Even though the companies tried to increase their capacity and reduce their cost through automation, the fundamental model still resulted in a very expensive operation.


    When Medicare was created in 1965, the Johnson administration realized that there was only one government agency that would be up to the immense administrative burden: Social Security. Medicare made the rules rigid and uniform, so that the discipline learned from Social Security of handling a high volume of relatively low value transactions could apply.
    So there is the root of the paradox. Medicare was, almost by historical accident, designed to be efficient at the business of health care funding. Driven both by competition within the industry and comparison to Medicare, private health insurance evolved into a condition where its overhead became ever higher.


    -------------

    You don't use your auto insurance to buy gas for your car, but you expect the equivalent from your health insurance. It doesn't make sense. The private insurance industry knows it doesn't make sense. They know they run like an insurance company, not like the check processing department of a bank. They can't change, and they don't really know what to do about it.
    The health care bill called on private insurance to cut its overhead modestly. I expect that will prove to be a struggle, which could have unintended, and mostly bad, consequences for policy holders.


    Dr. Philip Neches: The Paradox of Medicare Overhead


    He called that right....
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #262  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    You know better. You know that it's not the 3% profit, it's the 20% overhead that adds to health care costs by private insurers. And as you also know, it's clear that Medicare overhead is considerably less than any private insurer, no matter what kind of arguments are thrown at the way it's calculated. As this article so clearly points out, it's really the different business models that is the problem.

    Dr. Philip Neches: The Paradox of Medicare Overhead


    He called that right....
    Seriously David? If I posted an article that was up on Glenn Beck's website, would you give it serious consideration?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3.    #263  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Seriously David? If I posted an article that was up on Glenn Beck's website, would you give it serious consideration?
    Please, by all means, as a knowledgeable spokesman for the industry, tell me exactly what is wrong about what he wrote? You're comparing the Huffington Post to Glen Beck? You know better than that, too. At least I hope you do.

    Oh...and by the way, he doesn't just work for Huffington. This is his bio. Sound like a raving lefty to you?

    Dr. Philip M. Neches has more than 30 years of leadership experience in technology. He is Chairman of Foundation Ventures LLC, an investment bank serving information technology and life science companies. Previously, Neches was Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of AT&T’s Multimedia Products and Services Group and Senior Vice President and Chief Scientist at NCR. Neches was a founder of Teradata Corporation, which was acquired by NCR and AT&T in 1992. He is a Director of Evolving Systems, Inc. (EVOL), and a Trustee of the California Institute of Technology, where he earned his BS, MS and PhD in computer science.
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #264  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Please, by all means, as a knowledgeable spokesman for the industry, tell me exactly what is wrong about what he wrote? You're comparing the Huffington Post to Glen Beck? You know better than that, too. At least I hope you do.

    Oh...and by the way, he doesn't just work for Huffington. This is his bio. Sound like a raving lefty to you?
    Whatever... if his pov is posted on Huffington, you can be sure it's been screened for proper biasing.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5.    #265  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Whatever... if his pov is posted on Huffington, you can be sure it's been screened for proper biasing.
    Let's not divert. What is wrong with what he wrote? Since I am not an insider in the insurance business, what he wrote seems eminently reasonable to me, especially the part about how insurers are really not structured to deal with health insurance as it has currently changed, and that has resulted in excessive overhead. Tell me why his argument is wrong.
  6. #266  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    So your theory is that the majority politicians made this bill to fail so that.. what? It convinces the minority politicians to support what a majority of Americans have been in support of for several years now, a single-payer system? It's amazing how devious and calculating government can be at times!

    Here's my theory, I think that they were attempting to garner a bipartisan support but ended up making too many concessions to the minority party with nothing in return. Then figuring they needed ANYTHING to go through after an entire year long debate and restructuring of the bill they just went ahead with the bill as it was at the time rather than trying to remove the concessions they had made. That pretty much broke the intended purpose of the bill and added opposition from those that wanted real reform to the already existing opposition of those that either just hate government in general or currently hate government because the Right-wing is telling them to hate government for the moment.
    Well....let's see....they put out there a bill that they get all excited about and is historical, right? Then, when it fails (and by fail, I mean that either rates will go up at an even faster pace or more and more insurance companies dump their health insurance portfolio thus resulting in less competition) the liberals who, if still in charge, will say, "You see, we tried to work with the insurance companies and the crazy Republicans, but what we discovered is this simply won't work in the private sector despite our best efforts. The only way health insurance can work is with the government running it, like the oh so successful Medicare." Thus, a single-payor system...that they wanted....is born. We are already seeing rates going up specifically related to health care reform and we are also seeing insurance companies stop writing health coverage. The Principal was the first major company to bail out, but trust me, more will follow. Aetna just bailed on writing individual coverage on children....just stopped....no temporary ban like other companies....just said it wasn't feasible.

    I disagree with your theory of bipartisan support. The liberals definition of bipartisan support was to put in a couple of things that Republicans would agree with but not address the real issues...cost and access. So, why would Republicans vote on a bill that wasn't going to accomplish the goal of reducing premiums and opening up coverage to all? I realize you disagree with me, but in my opinion, their plan will not decrease rates. As more companies pull out of the health insurance business, fewer companies will be taking on a higher percentage of the now uninsurable. So what will they do? Raise rates. If they aren't allowed to raise rates, what will they do? Stop writing the coverage. It isn't rocket science. The government simply doesn't understand that businesses have to be concerned with taking in less than they pay out.

    As Micael said, a 3% profit margin that most health insurance carriers operate under is not highway robbery. It's odd....it's as if people out there think that insurance companies are responsible for the rate of increase in health care....they aren't! Davidra knows how many more medications are available now vs 10 years ago....and how many people (because of marketing) go into doctors and ask them for a particular prescription. The insurance companies are not responsible for this, they are simply responsible for reimbursing for these expenses. Insurance companies try and negotiate lower costs with the providers, but the doctors and hospitals fight to keep the reimbursements up. I don't fault them for that, but it is a fact. When negotiations fail, they part ways until one side or the other decides they must bend over. Holy cow, 3% profit margin.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  7.    #267  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post

    I disagree with your theory of bipartisan support. The liberals definition of bipartisan support was to put in a couple of things that Republicans would agree with but not address the real issues...cost and access. So, why would Republicans vote on a bill that wasn't going to accomplish the goal of reducing premiums and opening up coverage to all? I realize you disagree with me, but in my opinion, their plan will not decrease rates. As more companies pull out of the health insurance business, fewer companies will be taking on a higher percentage of the now uninsurable. So what will they do? Raise rates. If they aren't allowed to raise rates, what will they do? Stop writing the coverage. It isn't rocket science. The government simply doesn't understand that businesses have to be concerned with taking in less than they pay out.

    As Micael said, a 3% profit margin that most health insurance carriers operate under is not highway robbery. It's odd....it's as if people out there think that insurance companies are responsible for the rate of increase in health care....they aren't! Davidra knows how many more medications are available now vs 10 years ago....and how many people (because of marketing) go into doctors and ask them for a particular prescription. The insurance companies are not responsible for this, they are simply responsible for reimbursing for these expenses. Insurance companies try and negotiate lower costs with the providers, but the doctors and hospitals fight to keep the reimbursements up. I don't fault them for that, but it is a fact. When negotiations fail, they part ways until one side or the other decides they must bend over. Holy cow, 3% profit margin.
    1. It won't work no matter who works with who. You talk about "opening up coverage to all". Do you really want that? I haven't seen ANY republican thought processes that cover that little gem. Have you? There is no way to accomplish that singular objective as long as private insurers with their 20% overhead are involved. It's not an issue of taking in more than they pay out....it's a matter of lowering their overhead and their profit margin (no matter how small you think it is, 3-6% of billions of dollars actually is real money.....that is NOT providing care).
    2. No, the insurance companies aren't responsible for patients demanding expensive drugs that are no better than inexpensive ones. That's the pharmaceutical industry who was paid off by republicans with Medicare D....and doctors, who refuse to tell patients that what they want is no better than what they've been taking. That's why we need regulation to control prices. And that's one of many reasons why the VA is cost-efficient...they negotiate prices.
    3. There is only one way to negotiate lower prices with providers. Price fixing. And that's what you can get with a single payor system. My colleagues won't like that, but that's one way to do it. Of course, if all insurers kept their reimbursements linked to Medicare, which they try and do, that would work fine. But they don't.
    4. One reason providers and especially hospitals need to keep their rates up is because of all the charity care they provide ($25 million a year at my hospital in lost income). Remove that and replace with a universal plan and I bet negotiations would be quite different.
  8. #268  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Well....let's see....they put out there a bill that they get all excited about and is historical, right? Then, when it fails (and by fail, I mean that either rates will go up at an even faster pace or more and more insurance companies dump their health insurance portfolio thus resulting in less competition) the liberals who, if still in charge, will say, "You see, we tried to work with the insurance companies and the crazy Republicans, but what we discovered is this simply won't work in the private sector despite our best efforts. The only way health insurance can work is with the government running it, like the oh so successful Medicare." Thus, a single-payor system...that they wanted....is born. We are already seeing rates going up specifically related to health care reform and we are also seeing insurance companies stop writing health coverage. The Principal was the first major company to bail out, but trust me, more will follow. Aetna just bailed on writing individual coverage on children....just stopped....no temporary ban like other companies....just said it wasn't feasible.

    I disagree with your theory of bipartisan support. The liberals definition of bipartisan support was to put in a couple of things that Republicans would agree with but not address the real issues...cost and access. So, why would Republicans vote on a bill that wasn't going to accomplish the goal of reducing premiums and opening up coverage to all? I realize you disagree with me, but in my opinion, their plan will not decrease rates. As more companies pull out of the health insurance business, fewer companies will be taking on a higher percentage of the now uninsurable. So what will they do? Raise rates. If they aren't allowed to raise rates, what will they do? Stop writing the coverage. It isn't rocket science. The government simply doesn't understand that businesses have to be concerned with taking in less than they pay out.

    As Micael said, a 3% profit margin that most health insurance carriers operate under is not highway robbery. It's odd....it's as if people out there think that insurance companies are responsible for the rate of increase in health care....they aren't! Davidra knows how many more medications are available now vs 10 years ago....and how many people (because of marketing) go into doctors and ask them for a particular prescription. The insurance companies are not responsible for this, they are simply responsible for reimbursing for these expenses. Insurance companies try and negotiate lower costs with the providers, but the doctors and hospitals fight to keep the reimbursements up. I don't fault them for that, but it is a fact. When negotiations fail, they part ways until one side or the other decides they must bend over. Holy cow, 3% profit margin.
    I'm pretty sure the government understands that businesses need to be able to cover costs.

    The money is going somewhere and it's not going to health care the way it should be. You say government is inefficient yet Medicare overhead is lower than private insurance overhead. The current point of the rules being put into place are, because of Republican influence, a goal to make health insurers reorganize their own practices. They have a few options, I can see three basic ones. One is to reorganize their overhead and make their processes more efficient for providing care services. The second would be to split their services, split their policies such that they have major medical policies and routine care/direct services policies to remove a large part of the overhead from at least one. Three would be the examples you're showing in this thread over and over of them trying to game the system to their short term advantage and give even more leverage to those that say private insurance should not control medical service funding.

    Concessions made in the bill to the Right basically put the fate of private insurance in the hands of those private companies. It's in the best interests of the private companies to stop trying to find loopholes in the system and instead look at themselves for fixing the problems.
  9. #269  
    Seems like some people in here were on my case the other day about posting about McDonalds and how I had listened to the WSJ without checking my facts. Apparently, the HHS felt there must have been some truth to the issue....I accept the apology from those that attacked me.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/bu...ml?_r=2&ref=us (Waivers Address Talk of Dropping Health Coverage)

    And I do apologize for using the New York Times as a reference, we all know they are in the pocket of the right, correct?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  10. #270  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Seems like some people in here were on my case the other day about posting about McDonalds and how I had listened to the WSJ without checking my facts. Apparently, the HHS felt there must have been some truth to the issue....I accept the apology from those that attacked me.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/bu...ml?_r=2&ref=us (Waivers Address Talk of Dropping Health Coverage)

    And I do apologize for using the New York Times as a reference, we all know they are in the pocket of the right, correct?
    I'm already bored. For the next four years, every bump in the road will equal "failure," even though the status quo was demonstrably a failure for decades.

    As I've posted elsewhere, I've had my health insurance policies changed probably a dozen times over the years while working for institutions and companies of all sizes. What was my choice in the matter? None.

    Unfortunately, American politics now requires complex policy to be discussed in soundbites, which by definition are too vague, and which can be held up later by either side as dissembling. So when Obama said, "If you like what you have now, you won't have to change it," etc., it was obviously shorthand for, "the new law will not require you to drop your current private coverage and enter into a government plan," because that was the (false) assertion the soundbite was responding to.

    But now, of course, that soundbite can be construed by opponents of reform as Obama saying , "We're going to make some of the most sweeping changes in one of the largest sectors of the economy that have been made in decades, but there will be no problems at all in the transition, and insurance companies will not change their plans whatsoever, even though they've been doing that on a regular basis before these changes were made"--which is absurd.

    And since we're quoting the New York Times, how about this piece, which addresses the same questions, but reaches a different conclusion.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/bu...leonhardt.html
  11. #271  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    I'm already bored. For the next four years, every bump in the road will equal "failure," even though the status quo was demonstrably a failure for decades.

    As I've posted elsewhere, I've had my health insurance policies changed probably a dozen times over the years while working for institutions and companies of all sizes. What was my choice in the matter? None.

    Unfortunately, American politics now requires complex policy to be discussed in soundbites, which by definition are too vague, and which can be held up later by either side as dissembling. So when Obama said, "If you like what you have now, you won't have to change it," etc., it was obviously shorthand for, "the new law will not require you to drop your current private coverage and enter into a government plan," because that was the (false) assertion the soundbite was responding to.

    But now, of course, that soundbite can be construed by opponents of reform as Obama saying , "We're going to make some of the most sweeping changes in one of the largest sectors of the economy that have been made in decades, but there will be no problems at all in the transition, and insurance companies will not change their plans whatsoever, even though they've been doing that on a regular basis before these changes were made"--which is absurd.

    And since we're quoting the New York Times, how about this piece, which addresses the same questions, but reaches a different conclusion.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/bu...leonhardt.html
    Is that an "opinion" piece? Seems like whenever I've posted an "opinion" piece, I am told "well that is his/her opinion, just stick to the facts." The fact is that HHS is bending the rules for some and making others stick to the the rules. As for bumps in the road, I agree, there will be many, many bumps in the road if the plan is allowed to continue as it is. Even the HHS realizes they made a huge mistake and are correcting it. They will continue to correct things based on who brings it up and who contributes to obama and the democrats. I think it would be better to just start over, but, I know that won't happen because I don't know if we'll see enough change in Congress to make that happen. In my "opinion", the bill will continue on and rates will rise at a faster pace as more and more insurance companies call it quits on health insurance.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  12. #272  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/bu...ml?_r=2&ref=us (Waivers Address Talk of Dropping Health Coverage)
    ZOMG sound bite!

    "...they will stop selling new policies in some states because the rules do not protect them from having to cover too many sick children."

    That sounds pretty bad huh? They're going to stop selling policies because they have to cover too many sick children!
    Last edited by Orion Antares; 10/07/2010 at 11:45 AM. Reason: !
  13.    #273  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Even the HHS realizes they made a huge mistake and are correcting it. They will continue to correct things based on who brings it up and who contributes to obama and the democrats.
    Yeah, I guess you really have little experience with the implementation of groundbreaking legislation. There are always changes. They make things better.

    And once again you seem to have confused the democrats with the republicans. Unless you are referring to the mistakes Obama made in even listening at all to the insurance industry.
  14. #274  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    ZOMG sound bite!

    "...they will stop selling new policies in some states because the rules do not protect them from having to cover too many sick children."

    That sounds pretty bad huh? They're going to stop selling policies because they have to cover too many sick children!
    Yup....it's called reality. What do you think would happen if they did this with everyone, right now, today. Insurance companies must offer coverage to everyone...today...no questions asked....no requirement that everyone must be on. You can come and go as you please. I can't speak for anyone else in here, but since I just socked it to my insurance company for about $14k and have no health issues going on at this time...I'd be dropping my coverage and saving the premium until the next health issue came along. And you know what the insurance companies would do? They would stop selling policies because then "....the rules would not protect them from covering too many sick people." And no davidra, this is not me advocating a single-payor system. It's sad that obama and the liberals put insurance companies in a position where they simply could not cover any children because of government mandates. Repeat....ANY children. They could have done such a better job. As Ross Perot once said to Larry King..."It's just sad Larry".
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  15. #275  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Yeah, I guess you really have little experience with the implementation of groundbreaking legislation. There are always changes. They make things better.

    And once again you seem to have confused the democrats with the republicans. Unless you are referring to the mistakes Obama made in even listening at all to the insurance industry.
    I don't know....seems like what the insurance industry warned obama about is happening. A large insurance company (Principal) withdraws from the health insurance market place (less than a few weeks after the mandate).....companies refusing to write coverage....it sounds to me like obama didn't listen to the insurance industry at all. Which is quite pathetic....let's see....obama has experience in being a community organizer and took that experience and decided to tell insurance companies how to do their business. And now it's coming back to bite children in the So much for his "education" being an asset.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  16.    #276  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I don't know....seems like what the insurance industry warned obama about is happening. A large insurance company (Principal) withdraws from the health insurance market place (less than a few weeks after the mandate).....companies refusing to write coverage....it sounds to me like obama didn't listen to the insurance industry at all. Which is quite pathetic....let's see....obama has experience in being a community organizer and took that experience and decided to tell insurance companies how to do their business. And now it's coming back to bite children in the So much for his "education" being an asset.
    He listened to the insurance industry too much, according to Daschle. Regardless, I just hope that every company that pulls out at this point without even having a clue what their bottom line will look like is immediately dropped from participation in any exchange. And if they all pull out, so much the better as far as I'm concerned. What's important is that everyone is covered. Listening to the insurance industry would not accomplish that in any way. Frankly I think the best outcome is an attempt at a self-supporting public option and let real competition take place, but I really doubt that will happen. The only other option, if companies continue to drop out is a single payor system with the expansion of Medicare. Those companies that stay in the fight would be able to offer higher-level options to those who want to buy them. The others would be excluded. Sounds good to me.
  17. #277  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Yup....it's called reality. What do you think would happen if they did this with everyone, right now, today. Insurance companies must offer coverage to everyone...today...no questions asked....no requirement that everyone must be on. You can come and go as you please. I can't speak for anyone else in here, but since I just socked it to my insurance company for about $14k and have no health issues going on at this time...I'd be dropping my coverage and saving the premium until the next health issue came along. And you know what the insurance companies would do? They would stop selling policies because then "....the rules would not protect them from covering too many sick people." And no davidra, this is not me advocating a single-payor system. It's sad that obama and the liberals put insurance companies in a position where they simply could not cover any children because of government mandates. Repeat....ANY children. They could have done such a better job. As Ross Perot once said to Larry King..."It's just sad Larry".
    Yea, it's sad they put insurance companies into a position where they have the opportunity to fix their poor practices themselves. Choosing to game the new system to exploit loopholes instead of overhauling outdated practices that contribute to high overhead costs is more proof that you really can't expect those businesses to act in good faith.

    You say they could be doing the "drop and add" but really the question that hasn't been answered yet, can they put into place contractual agreements to protect themselves? It's been made pretty specific they can't deny people for pre-existing conditions but there are other possible ways to protect themselves that no one really seems to mentioned whether or not those avenues have actually been closed to them.
  18. #278  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    Yea, it's sad they put insurance companies into a position where they have the opportunity to fix their poor practices themselves. Choosing to game the new system to exploit loopholes instead of overhauling outdated practices that contribute to high overhead costs is more proof that you really can't expect those businesses to act in good faith.

    You say they could be doing the "drop and add" but really the question that hasn't been answered yet, can they put into place contractual agreements to protect themselves? It's been made pretty specific they can't deny people for pre-existing conditions but there are other possible ways to protect themselves that no one really seems to mentioned whether or not those avenues have actually been closed to them.
    It's my understanding that is WHY they have stopped writing children, to get some clarification on whether they can have SOME protection by having an open enrollment period. For example, maybe only in December of each year can children enroll with no pre-ex exclusions. That way if they drop it 2 months later in March, they can't re-enroll until December. It still leaves the door open for the "drop and add" situation, but may help some. I guess they are waiting on HHS to come to that decision.

    Not sure how mandates allow insurance companies to fix their "poor practices". What is sad is the obama intellectuals couldn't figure out that insurance companies could just not write coverage on children. What a bunch of idiots. That is some loophole....not sure how the insurance companies figured that one out! And how dare these businesses act responsibly by taking in more money than the pay out. They really need to study most government programs and simply not worry about operating in the red.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  19. #279  
    Well I guess there are some insurance providers out there concerned more with their customers rather than simply continuing their overhead waste: Regence dropping child-only insurance policies - Spokesman.com - Sept. 29, 2010

    Premera Blue Cross, the leading private insurer in the Spokane region, said Tuesday that it was monitoring the changes.

    “For now, we are selling child-only policies, and it’s our desire to continue to do so,” said Eric Earling, a Premera spokesman. “Given the new health care law, however, it’s important that all major carriers share the risk and costs.”
  20. #280  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    Well I guess there are some insurance providers out there concerned more with their customers rather than simply continuing their overhead waste: Regence dropping child-only insurance policies - Spokesman.com - Sept. 29, 2010
    Yup....nothing new there....basically the same thing here in SC. The only major "player" in SC still willing to cover children is UHC (through their subsidiary Golden Rule), which will do it via family policies only (gotta have at least one adult on the plan). BC/BS of SC and their HMO arm, BlueChoice, both stopped writing child(ren) coverage of any kind about 2 weeks ago.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton

Posting Permissions