OT: An end to health insurance companies

[JointPain]

An end to health insurance companies.

A good thing, hopefully.

[Kairosgrammy]

I would imagine there are good sides and bad sides. Who pays the doctors? What if you don't like your doctor, can you choose another. I doubt seriously that Obama care is the solution to the world's medical problems. What would go a long way, is to limit malpractice suits to reasonable amounts, stop frivoulous suits altogether and stop assuming that doctors are infallible. It is malpractice insurance that continues to drive medical costs up beyond all reason. Then insurance costs would go down because the cost of medical care would go down

An end to health insurance companies.

A good thing, hopefully.

[Slinky]

I do NOT want to be locked into some group of doctors, specific hospitals, etc. I've been blessed w/good insurance and Medicare and if I want to drive 12 hours one way to Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN for some of the BEST, MOST EFFICIENT health care in the world - I can do so - W/0 worrying about a referral or permission, etc. I can just hop in my car and go. It was - and is - worth it to me to pay my own doctor office calls in return for the option to go to any medical facility or doctor in this country that I want to which is what my insurance company provides for.

Restricting health insurance companies to 15% of premiums for "overhead" (office expenses, CEOs, staff, etc.) is the best idea I've seen yet, the rest on health care for their insureds.

[The Choker]

Restricting health insurance companies to 15% of premiums for "overhead" (office expenses, CEOs, staff, etc.) is the best idea I've seen yet, the rest on health care for their insureds.

This is pure political theatre by Obama's camp.

All of the majors in the state I live in announced this week that their expenses were already below 15%. A few of the minors said they are slightly over but will have no problems adjusting. The adjusting will be done by recategorizing expenses as is allowed under Obamacare.

Nationwide the average is already 14%. So where is the "best idea I've seen yet"?

Politicians suck us in so easy. They know it is impossible for the average voting citizen to be well informed on most of the issues. So they stick it to us.

Obama/Pelosi/Reid are doing no damage to their buddies in the insurance industry.

[idamtnboy]

Nationwide the average is already 14%. So where is the "best idea I've seen yet"?

It hasn't always been that good. Here's a quote about Blue Cross premiums for members of the Associated General Contractor of Idaho.

Blue Cross said it used 94.5 percent of the group’s premiums in 2011 to cover medical costs. The remaining 5.5 percent went to administrative costs, including compensation and state and federal taxes.

That was a big change from the previous year, when 76.7 percent of the group’s premiums went to medical costs, and Blue Cross raised rates 2.83 percent.

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/01/1 ... rylink=cpy

According to the article they plan to spend about 15% of the premiums for medical care for 2012.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/01/1 ... k=misearch

EDIT: Oops, that should be 85%, not 15%.

[RocketGirl]

Obama/Pelosi/Reid are doing no damage to their buddies in the insurance industry.

Uh... wrong subject and object in that sentence.

The figures are public. Romney gets a lot more of his money from insurance companies than Obama has, and Pelosi basically got nothing from them in her last campaign.

If you must cast things in terms of partisan debate, at least get your facts straight.

[chunkyfrog]

Change can be good.

[The Choker]

Nationwide the average is already 14%. So where is the "best idea I've seen yet"?

It hasn't always been that good. Here's a quote about Blue Cross premiums for members of the Associated General Contractor of Idaho.

Blue Cross said it used 94.5 percent of the group’s premiums in 2011 to cover medical costs. The remaining 5.5 percent went to administrative costs, including compensation and state and federal taxes.

That was a big change from the previous year, when 76.7 percent of the group’s premiums went to medical costs, and Blue Cross raised rates 2.83 percent.

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/01/1 ... rylink=cpy

According to the article they plan to spend about 15% of the premiums for medical care for 2012.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/01/1 ... k=misearch

That was a very short article but you still managed to cut out the part that supports the claim that this provision of Obamacare does nothing for the health insurance policy holders:

During the past five years, after the company paid claims, it was left with an average of 16.9 percent of the AGC group’s premiums, which meets federal rules.

I don't defend Romney nor any other Republican. You blindly partisan types won't understand that.

[NateS]

An end to health insurance companies.

A good thing, hopefully.

The only thing good about this article is the title. Getting rid of health insurance companies would be a great idea, as they serve absolutely no purpose except to take out a large slice of the money intended to cover the cost of medical care. Unlike other types of insurance companies, they do not serve the purpose of spreading the risk of a peril. The alleged 15% cost of administration for private health insurance companies is a phony number put out by tools of the health insurance industry. Bought and paid for.

The gist of the article effectively describes a return to capitation, where doctors receive a fixed amount of money per year for each patient. This means that every time they see or treat a patient, their overhead goes up and the net compensation for their efforts goes down. This is nuts. In the past, this resulted in doctors in pediatric practices, for example, yelling at each other for telling parents to bring their infants and children in for examination when concerned parents called, because seeing and treating patients was driving their bottom line down. Better to just sit on the monthly per capita check from the insurance company and go golfing every afternoon, right? After all, only one of the unseen children out of every 15 will die if unseen, so those are good numbers for the insurance company. Anyone that thinks that capitation plans result in good patient care is dreaming, to put it politely.

[PST]

Restricting health insurance companies to 15% of premiums for "overhead" (office expenses, CEOs, staff, etc.) is the best idea I've seen yet, the rest on health care for their insureds.

This is pure political theatre by Obama's camp.

All of the majors in the state I live in announced this week that their expenses were already below 15%. A few of the minors said they are slightly over but will have no problems adjusting. The adjusting will be done by recategorizing expenses as is allowed under Obamacare.

Nationwide the average is already 14%. So where is the "best idea I've seen yet"?

In my state, Illinois, notices went out in January from the dominant health insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS), that we may be receiving rebates in August due to failure to meet the medical loss ratio (MLR) requirement of the Affordable Care Act in 2011. The parent company of that plan had profits in excess of $1 billion in 2010 and 2011. That doesn't tell the whole story, however. BCBS has also announced that small-group premium rates in Illinois will decrease by 3.5% to 6.5% for 2012 renewals. As a partner in a small business myself, that is a big deal. When was the last time premiums came down? The issue is discussed in an objective way in Crain's Chicago Business at http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... n-illinois (which also says that rates will go up for large groups and individuals). It is important to note that when insurance companies say that they are now meeting the MLR requirements of the ACA, that doesn't mean that the act was not helpful to consumers, since the prospect of having to comply may have been an important factor in bringing that about.

In addition, you can't look at the 14 percent average overhead and profit figure nationally and conclude that the the MLR requirement will have no effect. First, an average is an average, and the requirement can help control the outlying cases. After all, except in Lake Wobegon, half of us are below average. Second, the 14 percent figure includes self-insurers. Most big companies don't really buy insurance the way individuals and small companies do. They pay most medical expenses for covered employees themselves, but buy "stop loss" coverage from the commercial carriers to cut off exceptional losses. These self-insured plans typically have low overhead because there is no marketing cost, among other reasons, and because self-funded benefit plans aren't expected to generate a profit. This brings down the average, obscuring the degree to which commercial insurance often involves an MLR under 80 or 85 percent.

That was a very short article but you still managed to cut out the part that supports the claim that this provision of Obamacare does nothing for the health insurance policy holders:

During the past five years, after the company paid claims, it was left with an average of 16.9 percent of the AGC group’s premiums, which meets federal rules.

You're both wrong! (Sorry, that's just fun to say; I don't mean it personally.) A single group with 6,000 members is too small to prove anything, either way. The fact that it went in one year from paying out 76.7 percent to 94.5 percent of premium shows that it isn't big enough to avoid large random year-to-year variation.

[Slinky]

Given that so many health insurance companies jacked up their premium rates, some by as much as 25%, in the year preceding Obamacare starting to come into effect one has to wonder about the figures being quoted above.

[archangle]

What would go a long way, is to limit malpractice suits to reasonable amounts, stop frivoulous suits altogether and stop assuming that doctors are infallible.

Absolute, complete, utter BS spread by the medical mafia!!!! If all the money awarded in malpractice suits and settlements were refunded and given back to the patients in proportion to what they were charged for medical procedures, your bills would go down less than 10%.

[NightMonkey]

What would go a long way, is to limit malpractice suits to reasonable amounts, stop frivoulous suits altogether and stop assuming that doctors are infallible.

Absolute, complete, utter BS spread by the medical mafia!!!! If all the money awarded in malpractice suits and settlements were refunded and given back to the patients in proportion to what they were charged for medical procedures, your bills would go down less than 10%.

Your "less than 10%" number is inaccurate. It is closer to 1% which is nearly insignificant.

According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs.

But I hear a complaint that doctors order many unnecessary tests just to cover themselves from lawsuits. Who knows whether this is true and how much it costs? If true I suppose it could be a large cost.

[NightMonkey]

Restricting health insurance companies to 15% of premiums for "overhead" (office expenses, CEOs, staff, etc.) is the best idea I've seen yet, the rest on health care for their insureds.

Yes, a lot of people in my state were hoping for refunds. But all the majors reported compliance. No refunds.

Central control of an industry by D.C. has always been a bad deal for consumers and this will be a bad deal.

So consumers want to screw the insurance companies down to the point that they are making no money? You want your health coverage to be provided by a company that is under great stress and can't raise capital?

My relationship with a health insurance company is potentially a very important relationship. I don't want such a relationship to be with a weak partner. That is dangerous for me and who knows when or where the partner might fail or be unable to provide the type of benefits I contracted for?

I want a strong, profitable partner who is not heavily encumbered by government restrictions. I want to hear things like this from my insurance company:

"WellPoint is in a strong financial position as of year-end 2009. Our insurance subsidiaries remain well-capitalized and we continue to generate substantial operating cash flow. We intend to utilize our capital to enhance customer and shareholder value," said Wayne S. DeVeydt, executive vice president and chief financial officer. "We continue to maintain a strong and conservative balance sheet, and are comfortable with our outlook for earnings per share of at least $6.00 in 2010."

What do you want to hear? That your insurance company is struggling, is not making decent earnings, and has little ability to raise capital? I leave that to you and choose for myself a company with strong earnings and balance sheet.

[rocklin]

But I hear a complaint that doctors order many unnecessary tests just to cover themselves from lawsuits.

Who knows whether this is true and how much it costs?

Billions.

But if your doctor says: "I don't think it's cancer, but I want to order an MRI, just to be sure . . ."

Are you going to say no (for God and Country), especially if your insurance covers all or most of it?

.