• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health Insurers Plan Hikes

What? I'm absolutely stunned!

Forcing private companies to provide a service to high risk people means that they are going to raise their rates?! But.. but... the nanny-staters said that wouldn't happen! They said our rates would go down! THEY said that more govt involvement would make everything better and cheaper.

You mean to tell me they were... *gasp*... wrong?

Shocked, I am. Just shocked.
 
rivrrat said:
What? I'm absolutely stunned!

Forcing private companies to provide a service to high risk people means that they are going to raise their rates?! But.. but... the nanny-staters said that wouldn't happen! They said our rates would go down! THEY said that more govt involvement would make everything better and cheaper.

You mean to tell me they were... *gasp*... wrong?

Shocked, I am. Just shocked.
Click to expand...

Of course, the "pre-existing conditions" changes don't go into effect until 2014. What changes in 2010/2011 are causing this increase? Allowing kids to stay on until 26 instead of 21 couldn't possibly cause a 9% increase in costs.
 
Deuce said:
Seeing as how every single country with UHC spends far less than we do, (some half as much) we should probably look at their models and try to figure out why ours seems to be so inefficient. Important note: UHC does not necessarily imply "socialized medicine." Conservatives always focus on Canada and the UK, because those are the best places to use the SOCIALISM bogeyman.
Click to expand...

Denying care and limiting coverage is a great way to keep things cheap.
That's how many of them do it.

I don't want any part of that.
 
Deuce said:
Of course, the "pre-existing conditions" changes don't go into effect until 2014. What changes in 2010/2011 are causing this increase? Allowing kids to stay on until 26 instead of 21 couldn't possibly cause a 9% increase in costs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they wouldn't possibly raise rates in expectation of the influx of high risk people they're forced by the government to provide services for.
 
Deuce said:
Of course, the "pre-existing conditions" changes don't go into effect until 2014. What changes in 2010/2011 are causing this increase? Allowing kids to stay on until 26 instead of 21 couldn't possibly cause a 9% increase in costs.
Click to expand...

Neither a 21 year old nor a 26 year old is a "kid."
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Denying care and limiting coverage is a great way to keep things cheap.
That's how many of them do it.

I don't want any part of that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm constantly stunned how nanny-stater, entitlement, big government folks say other countries spend less but fail to mention WHY they spend less. No country, NO COUNTRY, can provide full on-demand healthcare to every citizen. No country has unlimited resources to do that. All countries that have UHC must ration the healthcare in order to stay within a budget.

No thanks. I'll pay for my own ****. **** the taxing me out the ass bull**** only to deny me what I want/need.

The only way I'd support UHC in this country is if we can opt out of paying for it when we opt out of using it. I don't want to pay out the ass in taxes for rationed healthcare, only to then have to pay out of pocket too in order to get what I want/need. I'll just pay out of pocket for it all, TYVM, and skip the high taxes and rationing bull****.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Denying care and limiting coverage is a great way to keep things cheap.
That's how many of them do it.

I don't want any part of that.
Click to expand...

We do that in this country. It's just a private company with a profit margin to consider doing it instead of a government agency with a budget to consider. I don't see either as being inherently better than the other.

rivrrat said:
Yeah, they wouldn't possibly raise rates in expectation of the influx of high risk people they're forced by the government to provide services for.
Click to expand...

Influx. In three years. Why not wait until 2013 to raise the rates, other than to grab some extra profit right now with a convenient excuse? Either that, or they're banking some profits now to offset expected losses in 2014... but why would they not raise premiums enough to cover their expenses in 2014? That's not a very good business plan.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Neither a 21 year old nor a 26 year old is a "kid."
Click to expand...

How extremely relevant.
 
opinion8tdwench said:
Thousand and thousands of people pay insurance premiums month after month and never use the benefits. This is what insurance is. You pay out, so that if you do need it, you will have it. You might pay 200 dollars a month for 20 years and never file a claim. In fact, except for occasional trips for a flu or what have you, this is how the majority of America goes about. The insurance companies bank on this. They hope that you wont ever need them. They stack the cards in their favor in this. But see..if you go into the insurance business, that is the risk you take. Now, when they are being told they are not allowed to stack the deck in their favor anymore, they whine. I have not seen them handing back refunds to all the many americans who have not filed claims. Yet as soon as it looks like they may end up having to pay out a bit more, they are instantly wanting to increase premiums. And there are those among you who do not see the problem with insurance companies as they stand now?
Click to expand...

Actually, Democrats file claims constantly and call them "annual bonuses".
 
Obama says the insurance companies need to stop blaming Obama care

Townhall - Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare


There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."

That sounds like a stern headmistress dressing down some sophomores who have been misbehaving. But it's actually from a letter sent Thursday from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans -- the chief lobbyist for private health insurance companies.

Sebelius objects to claims by health insurers that they are raising premiums because of increased costs imposed by the Obamacare law passed by Congress last March.

She acknowledges that many of the law's "key protections" take effect later this month and does not deny that these impose additional costs on insurers. But she says that "according to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact ... will be minimal."
 
Deuce said:
We do that in this country. It's just a private company with a profit margin to consider doing it instead of a government agency with a budget to consider. I don't see either as being inherently better than the other.
Click to expand...

Well for one, we know that the U.S. government denies more people than private insurers do.
There is no comfort in knowing that unelected bureaucrats will have control over my medical dollars.

I'm not interested in your utopian solution.
 
Deuce said:
Influx. In three years. Why not wait until 2013 to raise the rates, other than to grab some extra profit right now with a convenient excuse? Either that, or they're banking some profits now to offset expected losses in 2014... but why would they not raise premiums enough to cover their expenses in 2014? That's not a very good business plan.
Click to expand...
Of course they're trying to grab extra profit. Duh. They're about to be slammed with high risk folks they're forced by big government to provide service to. Of course they're going to do their best to offset that increased cost and risk, while turning a profit.

How the **** is that a bad business plan? ROFL


Deuce said:
We do that in this country. It's just a private company with a profit margin to consider doing it instead of a government agency with a budget to consider. I don't see either as being inherently better than the other.
Click to expand...
With a private company, I can refuse to use their service and refuse to pay for it. With the government, I'm forced to ****ing pay for it whether I use it or not. And since Govt denies MANY more claims than private companies, I'll take my choice of private companies over big government any day of the week and twice on Sunday. (if I even choose to get insurance at all)
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Of course, the "pre-existing conditions" changes don't go into effect until 2014.
Click to expand...
Increase in future costs mean increase in current coverage, that's kind of what actuaries and loss prevention specialists do in the insurance field. You don't adjust to increase when it happens when you can help it you adjust before, that is business reality.
What changes in 2010/2011 are causing this increase?
Click to expand...
See prior point.
Allowing kids to stay on until 26 instead of 21 couldn't possibly cause a 9% increase in costs.
Click to expand...
First, 18 is the initial age of consent in the U.S. this is when adults can vote, join the military, and enter into legal contracts, the 21 laws for other things like gambling, owning handguns, and drinking are stupid emotional additions in later years that institute full adulthood, this would mean that HG is correct when he appropriately states that 21-26 year olds are not kids. This being said, adding these "kids" to group coverage adds to the amount of people in the pool that MUST BE COVERED, you multiply this by households of 2-3 children of coverage holders and the multiplying factor does in fact add to cost. Math is fun isn't it?
 
Deuce said:
We do that in this country. It's just a private company with a profit margin to consider doing it instead of a government agency with a budget to consider. I don't see either as being inherently better than the other.
Click to expand...
Private insurance is contract based. If they deny coverage for something they contracted to cover, you can get relief via the court system.


Influx. In three years. Why not wait until 2013 to raise the rates, other than to grab some extra profit right now with a convenient excuse? Either that, or they're banking some profits now to offset expected losses in 2014... but why would they not raise premiums enough to cover their expenses in 2014? That's not a very good business plan.

....
Click to expand...
You should offer to advise the insurance companies on business, since you understand their business so much better than they do. :roll:

.
 
TOJ said:
Private insurance is contract based. If they deny coverage for something they contracted to cover, you can get relief via the court system.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct, as well you know what is covered and under what conditions with a private insurer. It's the insurance company's responsibility when denying coverage to prove their case and the physician's responsibility to explain to an underwriter why a procedure was necessary past actuarial conditions of need, but there is recourse. With a UHC system you will get what they deem necessary by how many procedures are allowed and you will like it or not.....like they care you don't have a choice.
 
All of the criticism of this health care bill has been proven true. The more it is analyzed the worse the news is. Last I heard is that seniors, those who need the care the most and have paid for it the longest, will have severe cuts in availability of preventive procedures and up to $2000 dollars more per year in co-pays. The potential cost, perceived or real, to small businesses has pretty much stopped them from considering any business growth or borrowing.

Sebelius should be brought to court for threatening political punative action against insurance companies for exercising free speech and sound business practice. It's easy to see that she learned her basic government from Chairman Mao, Stalin and the Gernan National Socialist party. Can one impeach a cabinet secretary? What can we do then? How about voting in a conservative House and Senate in November and totally zip up the pocketbook and appropriate no funding for any of this unbelievable socialist drivel.
 
Councilman said:
This really does fly directly in the face of the latest BS Gov. report, and the costs of all care are going up as rationing will become a serious reality along with the death panels that are on the way to a granny near you.

We have an opportunity to make positive changes in the direction our Nation is taking by Restoring our Heritage and Constitution and taking our Country away from Socialist/Marxist in Chief and his Radical deciples and the progressive Left in Congress.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything
Click to expand...

OK, I'm a little dummber for reading this.

God help us if anyone buys into this silliness.
 
buck said:
Insurers Pin Rate Hikes on Health Law - WSJ.com



Health insurance companies state that the are raising rates specifically because of the additional benefits required by Obamacare - which some people here have inexplicably continued to deny and I am sure still will. Add those increases in with the normal increase of health care (which I don't expect to decrease in the future as the dems promised) and premiums are expected to increase about 20% for most of the affected plans.
Click to expand...

That's why if you're going to do something where you will require everyone to have health insurance, that you provide a public option then. I don't think this is to offset costs as much as it is to make more money because they know they can. But I did say that any real government "healthcare" plan would be a play to the insurance companies.
 
Ikari said:
That's why if you're going to do something where you will require everyone to have health insurance, that you provide a public option then. I don't think this is to offset costs as much as it is to make more money because they know they can. But I did say that any real government "healthcare" plan would be a play to the insurance companies.
Click to expand...

Can you provide information as to how a public option would save any large sums of money? Private health insurance companies only have a profit margin of 4.8% (from yahoo finance). Administrative costs of private insurance are not only a small percentage of premium collected, but they are lower then both Medicare and Medicaid based on a per insured basis.


From the price-Waterhouse study:
PricewaterhouseCoopers Cost Study 2008

Private administrative costs are sometimes compared to Medicare's administrative costs
without reference to the significant differences in the two programs and their target
populations. Medicare administrative costs as a percent of total costs are estimated to
be approximately 5 percent as compared to an estimated 13 percent for private plans. To
start, they enroll very different populations with different costs per enrollee. On a per
capita basis, Medicare monthly costs are about $750 per beneficiary compared to
roughly $350 per member per month in private plans.

The differences go far beyond the underlying costs of the two programs. Private
insurers develop a range of products; sell them to an under-65 population; develop and
support provider networks; promote wellness and prevention; offer disease
management services; access to health information; and offer consumer support
services related to choice of providers, treatment plans and value. Traditional Medicare
primarily provides basic coverage to designated populations, seniors and persons with
disabilities, without health management services, provider networks, or consumer
choice of benefit packages. Private plans frequently pay state and local taxes from which
Medicare is exempt. Similarly, private plans meet state imposed "risk based capital
requirements" as well as pay appropriate returns to investors. Medicare is financed not
only through premiums, but through taxation and government borrowing. The
comparison is complicated further because some of Medicare’s cost of capital—for
example, the interest cost of the share of national debt due to Medicare spending—is
not included in the calculation of the program’s administrative costs.
Click to expand...
 
buck said:
Can you provide information as to how a public option would save any large sums of money? Private health insurance companies only have a profit margin of 4.8% (from yahoo finance). Administrative costs of private insurance are not only a small percentage of premium collected, but they are lower then both Medicare and Medicaid based on a per insured basis.


From the price-Waterhouse study:
PricewaterhouseCoopers Cost Study 2008
Click to expand...

The government is sometimes ok at large, aggregated systems due to its power and economic backing. As such, it is not only able to provide for a larger base than any individual private insurance company, but it is also less susceptible to large changes in the market since the government is not going to go anywhere even in recession. Of course, you'd still need a competent public option which would be another difficulty. Our current incarnation of government rarely does anything compentently.
 
Ikari said:
The government is sometimes ok at large, aggregated systems due to its power and economic backing. As such, it is not only able to provide for a larger base than any individual private insurance company, but it is also less susceptible to large changes in the market since the government is not going to go anywhere even in recession. Of course, you'd still need a competent public option which would be another difficulty. Our current incarnation of government rarely does anything compentently.
Click to expand...

The fact that the current government (public option) plans have administrative costs per insured of more than twice the administrative costs of private insurance companies doesn't seem to back up your assumption that they do better with "large aggregated systems".
 
buck said:
The fact that the current government (public option) plans have administrative costs per insured of more than twice the administrative costs of private insurance companies doesn't seem to back up your assumption that they do better with "large aggregated systems".
Click to expand...

Governments in general are better able to handle large scale, aggregated systems more so than private industry. Ability doesn't guarantee success however, and ill conceived government plans can fall short of the potential government has in enacting such a system. Because of the size and stability and longevity of government, it has advantages within it that cannot be found in private industry. Regardless, if you're going to have a system in which you require everyone to have health insurance you need a public option to compete against the private sector or a system of laws and regulations to prevent collusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom