Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: Health Insurers' Move to Drop Child Policies Draws Criticism

  1. #11
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Health Insurers' Move to Drop Child Policies Draws Criticism

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnWOlin View Post
    I don't understand why you would think it is strained or that somehow insurance companies weren't already making ridiculous amounts of profit.
    What's the profit margin for the insurance industry?
    Who do you think should be in charge of deciding how much profit each industry is allowed to make?

    You want to know how to mae insurance companies play nicer? Break them apart, and force them to play nice.
    Great idea! Let's do the same thing with airlines, auto companies, movie studios, retailers, energy companies, food companies, and everyone else. I mean, how could such a simplistic idea not work wonders?

    The government pussied out and put these loopholes in here so they could get some more lobbying money. Hooray for Democrats! Thanks for ****ing children over and blaming Republicans, oh but hey also thanks for raising every pack of cigarettes up the past 2 years to pay for childerns health and doing it again soon, because ****ing me over and not the insurance company makes even more sense
    It sounds like your position is based more on "I can't believe I have to pay more for my cigs" and less on "this is a sound economic proposal."
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  2. #12
    Guru
    JohnWOlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    01-17-17 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,594

    Re: Health Insurers' Move to Drop Child Policies Draws Criticism

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    What's the profit margin for the insurance industry?
    Who do you think should be in charge of deciding how much profit each industry is allowed to make?



    Great idea! Let's do the same thing with airlines, auto companies, movie studios, retailers, energy companies, food companies, and everyone else. I mean, how could such a simplistic idea not work wonders?



    It sounds like your position is based more on "I can't believe I have to pay more for my cigs" and less on "this is a sound economic proposal."
    The government actually did decide how much insurance companies made quite a few years ago with Nixon scheming on how to make more money within the industry, so just as fast as they made it more profitable for the fortunate, they could make it as beneficial for the less fortunate. Also breaking them up is a good idea when their is a monopoly shared by 3 main companies, and yeah I am bitching about my cigarettes being more while at the same time pointing out the irony of it.
    "We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy." -Reagan

  3. #13
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Health Insurers' Move to Drop Child Policies Draws Criticism

    apologies for popping you palliatives, but obama has thoroughly SHOT america's health care WAD for at least a generation

    there will be NO movement forward on this impossible issue in most of your lifetimes

    i'm astonished anyone, let alone people who spend so much time in political chatrooms, could be so egregiously outta touch with america's mood

    live it, libs, love it

    it's YOURS!

    MEANINGFUL talk about health care begins only AFTER november, there will be much remediation required

    have fun, tho

    chat

  4. #14
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Health Insurers' Move to Drop Child Policies Draws Criticism

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnWOlin View Post
    The government actually did decide how much insurance companies made quite a few years ago with Nixon scheming on how to make more money within the industry, so just as fast as they made it more profitable for the fortunate, they could make it as beneficial for the less fortunate. Also breaking them up is a good idea when their is a monopoly shared by 3 main companies, and yeah I am bitching about my cigarettes being more while at the same time pointing out the irony of it.
    Got a source?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Health Insurers' Move to Drop Child Policies Draws Criticism

    More info on this issue:

    Big health insurers to stop selling new child-only policies

    Major health insurance companies in California and other states have decided to stop selling policies for children rather than comply with a new federal healthcare law that bars them from rejecting youngsters with preexisting medical conditions.

    Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna Inc. and others will halt new child-only policies in California, Illinois, Florida, Connecticut and elsewhere as early as Thursday when provisions of the nation's new healthcare law take effect, including a requirement that insurers cover children under age 19 regardless of their health histories.

    The action will apply only to new coverage sought for children and not to existing child-only plans, family policies or insurance provided to youngsters through their parents' employers. An estimated 80,000 California children currently without insurance — and as many as 500,000 nationwide — would be affected, according to experts.
    I understand this issue a little better. What insurance companies are trying to do is incentivize parents to buy family plans, purchase full coverage for their families.

    That I understand and agree with this.

    On the surface it does look like a win-win. Health insurance companies are able to sell a more comprehensive value added product. Obviously, the rate for family coverage is higher than an individual child. Parents who budget for this will get their families covered and stop showing up at emergency room with a flu. This is also why the individual mandate (originally conceived by a conservative think tank) is so important, it gets people who are not covered by their employer and who don't qualify for Medicaid to budget accordingly and be responsible about buying health insurance.

    Hear that, Teabrains, big Gov wants you to be responsible and not rely on emergency rooms to treat your type-2 diabetes.

    I'm not clear on who the typical customer is for Child-Only plans. How many company plans cover the employee only? That would be the only instance where I could see a parent needing coverage for his child only. Foster children are covered by the state. If you become the legal guardian of a child that is not yours, then they should be covered under your plan.

    While I understand the notion of wanting to save money, and younger parents only wanting to cover their infants/toddlers for now, the idea is to get as many people as insured as possible and not have the burden fall on the states when people show up at emergency rooms with things that could have been treated with regular visits to the doctor. And who pays if an invincible uninsured parent gets in a car accident?

    I don't get why Teabaggers want to repeal the Health Care Bill (maybe because they have no clue how it's supposed to work)... It's government pushing people be more responsible for themselves through the individual mandate while incentivizing more competitive pricing and regulating ethical practices. These are attempts at pragmatic modifications to Free Market. I say we see how the bill works, then modify it as we go along. Eventually there's going to have to be a push towards more not-for-profit care, as that's the only way to really get pricing down.

    The downside of not offering Child-Only plans:
    *the new value-added family plan is unreasonably limited, and therefore not much of a value.
    *parents don't budget accordingly and then wait until their children get sick.
    *Children w/o coverage getting in accidents and having to be transported to public hospitals when they've been stabilized. Or parents demanding full coverage for their newly sick/injured child so they can stay and be treated at private hospitals.
    *this becomes a major PR problem and damages the brand image for companies. Whenever companies put children at risk, even unintentionally, they open the door public outcry and possible unwanted attention to regulators they can't control.
    *other unintended consequences.

    In fairness to these bigger companies, it seems like they are saying, given our business model these are the only types of plans we can sell at present time. That's fine as it doesn't stop smaller companies from specializing in child-only coverage. Hopefully these will be reputable companies that don't take advantage of younger parents looking to cover their infants/toddlers.

    The big consequence is that these companies who don't offer child-only coverage to healthy children may be hit with some big claims down the road when parents and state insurance regulators demand that they follow the law and cover a newly sick child.

    One last question: While long-term growth is needed in most industries, what are the benefits of long-term growth in health insurance? These big companies have constantly shown a profit and paid their executives handsomely, but how has this benefited society? Set employing people at various pay-rates aside, every big company does this. How has private health insurance improved the quality of its product in a way that justifies these profits?

    Compare 'advances' in private health insurance to that of say... cell phones. Or even pharmaceuticals, another health-related industry.

  6. #16
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Health Insurers' Move to Drop Child Policies Draws Criticism

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    More info on this issue:

    Big health insurers to stop selling new child-only policies



    I understand this issue a little better. What insurance companies are trying to do is incentivize parents to buy family plans, purchase full coverage for their families.

    That I understand and agree with this.

    On the surface it does look like a win-win. Health insurance companies are able to sell a more comprehensive value added product. Obviously, the rate for family coverage is higher than an individual child. Parents who budget for this will get their families covered and stop showing up at emergency room with a flu. This is also why the individual mandate (originally conceived by a conservative think tank) is so important, it gets people who are not covered by their employer and who don't qualify for Medicaid to budget accordingly and be responsible about buying health insurance.

    Hear that, Teabrains, big Gov wants you to be responsible and not rely on emergency rooms to treat your type-2 diabetes.

    I'm not clear on who the typical customer is for Child-Only plans. How many company plans cover the employee only? That would be the only instance where I could see a parent needing coverage for his child only. Foster children are covered by the state. If you become the legal guardian of a child that is not yours, then they should be covered under your plan.

    While I understand the notion of wanting to save money, and younger parents only wanting to cover their infants/toddlers for now, the idea is to get as many people as insured as possible and not have the burden fall on the states when people show up at emergency rooms with things that could have been treated with regular visits to the doctor. And who pays if an invincible uninsured parent gets in a car accident?

    I don't get why Teabaggers want to repeal the Health Care Bill (maybe because they have no clue how it's supposed to work)... It's government pushing people be more responsible for themselves through the individual mandate while incentivizing more competitive pricing and regulating ethical practices. These are attempts at pragmatic modifications to Free Market. I say we see how the bill works, then modify it as we go along. Eventually there's going to have to be a push towards more not-for-profit care, as that's the only way to really get pricing down.

    The downside of not offering Child-Only plans:
    *the new value-added family plan is unreasonably limited, and therefore not much of a value.
    *parents don't budget accordingly and then wait until their children get sick.
    *Children w/o coverage getting in accidents and having to be transported to public hospitals when they've been stabilized. Or parents demanding full coverage for their newly sick/injured child so they can stay and be treated at private hospitals.
    *this becomes a major PR problem and damages the brand image for companies. Whenever companies put children at risk, even unintentionally, they open the door public outcry and possible unwanted attention to regulators they can't control.
    *other unintended consequences.

    In fairness to these bigger companies, it seems like they are saying, given our business model these are the only types of plans we can sell at present time. That's fine as it doesn't stop smaller companies from specializing in child-only coverage. Hopefully these will be reputable companies that don't take advantage of younger parents looking to cover their infants/toddlers.

    The big consequence is that these companies who don't offer child-only coverage to healthy children may be hit with some big claims down the road when parents and state insurance regulators demand that they follow the law and cover a newly sick child.

    One last question: While long-term growth is needed in most industries, what are the benefits of long-term growth in health insurance? These big companies have constantly shown a profit and paid their executives handsomely, but how has this benefited society? Set employing people at various pay-rates aside, every big company does this. How has private health insurance improved the quality of its product in a way that justifies these profits?

    Compare 'advances' in private health insurance to that of say... cell phones. Or even pharmaceuticals, another health-related industry.
    Insurers used to offer cheaper, more affordable plans, for a lot of different situations not that long ago.
    With more regulation and insurance mandates, those plans have been legislated out of existence.

    Wanting more and expecting to pay less, it doesn't work like that.

    Most people can get their kids covered under the heavily subsidized SCHIP plans.
    There should be very little whining.
    Last edited by Harry Guerrilla; 09-22-10 at 02:26 PM.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Health Insurers' Move to Drop Child Policies Draws Criticism

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Insurers used to offer cheaper, more affordable plans, for a lot of different situations not that long ago.
    With more regulation and insurance mandates, those plans have been legislated out of existence.
    Be more specific. You seem to be talking about consequences that happened over time 1990-2000, 2001-2009? Give examples of older mandates and regs that have directly caused the elimination of a specific type of plan.

    *Where these plans all they were cracked up to be?

    *How did a mandate cause the elimination of a good plan?


    Wanting more and expecting to pay less, it doesn't work like that.
    The free market works like his -- people shopping for better service/product at a competitive price. Choice. Yes, that's how it works. When you limit choices, there is no free market.

    For a long time, the Health Insurgence Industry relied on what is called Information Asymmetry and consumers had relatively little influence on their own health service choices.

    Health insurance is the moral hazard model of Information Asymmetry, the consumer lacks lacks information about performance of the agreed-upon transaction or lacks the ability to retaliate for a breach of the agreement. Many cases you can't even argue that the consumer didn't read the 'fine print' because the ultimate decision about specific coverage came from a claims rep. In a for-profit model Claims departments were incentivized to cover as few claims as possible, while sales department were selling group policies to company reps. The buyer relies on the seller’s expert opinion to a much greater degree than he would in any other market.

    Most people can get their kids covered under the heavily subsidized SCHIP plans.
    There should be very little whining.
    Wouldn't it be better if middle-income families w/o work insurance purchased their own comprehensive and ethical plans?

  8. #18
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Health Insurers' Move to Drop Child Policies Draws Criticism

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Be more specific. You seem to be talking about consequences that happened over time 1990-2000, 2001-2009? Give examples of older mandates and regs that have directly caused the elimination of a specific type of plan.

    *Where these plans all they were cracked up to be?

    *How did a mandate cause the elimination of a good plan?
    Preventative mandates largely killed the emergency/surgical only plans.
    Where before you paid out of pocket for visits and insurance covered emergency/surgical care.

    From what I remember, the plans cost around $100 a month for the average person.

    Wellchild care mandates, preventative screening mandates, all those things are not included with a surgical/emergency insurance plan.
    They are affordable out of pocket.

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    The free market works like his -- people shopping for better service/product at a competitive price. Choice. Yes, that's how it works. When you limit choices, there is no free market.

    For a long time, the Health Insurgence Industry relied on what is called Information Asymmetry and consumers had relatively little influence on their own health service choices.
    There is no such thing a perfectly symmetrical information, not even with the government.
    With government, they make aggregated choices.
    Choices on the average, as we know there are always exceptions and such many people get left out in the cold.

    Private insurance offered more choice and flexibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Health insurance is the moral hazard model of Information Asymmetry, the consumer lacks lacks information about performance of the agreed-upon transaction or lacks the ability to retaliate for a breach of the agreement. Many cases you can't even argue that the consumer didn't read the 'fine print' because the ultimate decision about specific coverage came from a claims rep. In a for-profit model Claims departments were incentivized to cover as few claims as possible, while sales department were selling group policies to company reps. The buyer relies on the seller’s expert opinion to a much greater degree than he would in any other market.
    Courts exist for any breach of contract.
    Fine print is a bogus argument, you can read the document before you sign it and if you're really worried it would cost you little to have it reviewed by a lawyer.

    Few claims as possible means that they deny invalid claims and not claims covered by the agreed upon contract.
    If you didn't read what was covered, it's your fault, not the insurer.

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Wouldn't it be better if middle-income families w/o work insurance purchased their own comprehensive and ethical plans?
    People should be buying plans outside of their employer.
    Government shouldn't be creating incentives for employer plans but they have been for quite some time.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  9. #19
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Health Insurers' Move to Drop Child Policies Draws Criticism

    super popular medicare advantage zeroed out: CBO Testimony Echoes Insurers

    bottom line, you can't expand m&m by some TWELVE MILLION while simultaneously reducing their already severely overstrained and direly relied-upon funding by HALF A TRIL

    as obama said at the georgetown townhall day before yesterday (which the nyt described as a "therapy session for disillusioned obama supporters,") the math just isn't there

    Governors balk over what healthcare bill will cost states - The Boston Globe

    live it, libs, love it

    it's YOURS!
    Last edited by The Prof; 09-22-10 at 04:39 PM.

  10. #20
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Health Insurers' Move to Drop Child Policies Draws Criticism

    emergency room visits actually INCREASE, despite what the solons suggest

    Emergency room visits grow in Mass. - The Boston Globe

    it's cuz there aren't enough doctors to treat the millions of newly insured, leading to "primary care access problems"

    none of this is news

    which is why you need to read more and talk less

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •