(10-11-2016 02:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 02:12 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 02:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  LS,

No, it sounds like what he had was a low-ball, mispriced product. The actuaries corrected that, when they saw how poor their assumptions were on the claim filing rate of the individual buyer pool.


200,

That's good!

So we've tried the private company solution, and we're seeing that it's not working. What do you propose??

Insurance is 100% math. Complex formulas weigh risk to determine insurability and rate. Excessive government interference in the form of Obamacare have wrecked the system and lead to teh drastic increases in premiums. Insurance companies are not the bogey men the left make them out to be.

There are others here that are far more qualified than I am to make propositions, but in very general terms, start with the following:

1. Repeal Obamacare
2. Allow competition across state lines
3. Create tax or savings incentives rather than penalties to encourage the young and healthy to participate in the health insurance market.
4. Tort reform
5. Create a high-risk public option for those that fall into the uninsurable category

That's cute...you think that the insurance companies are going to compete with each other....

Not when they have 50 oligarchies. And BTW, I'd even allow select foreign entities to compete in all US states and territories too. I got no qualms buying health insurance from Canada for example.

(10-11-2016 02:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 02:12 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 02:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  LS,

No, it sounds like what he had was a low-ball, mispriced product. The actuaries corrected that, when they saw how poor their assumptions were on the claim filing rate of the individual buyer pool.


200,

That's good!

So we've tried the private company solution, and we're seeing that it's not working. What do you propose??

Insurance is 100% math. Complex formulas weigh risk to determine insurability and rate. Excessive government interference in the form of Obamacare have wrecked the system and lead to teh drastic increases in premiums. Insurance companies are not the bogey men the left make them out to be.

There are others here that are far more qualified than I am to make propositions, but in very general terms, start with the following:

1. Repeal Obamacare
2. Allow competition across state lines
3. Create tax or savings incentives rather than penalties to encourage the young and healthy to participate in the health insurance market.
4. Tort reform
5. Create a high-risk public option for those that fall into the uninsurable category

That's cute...you think that the insurance companies are going to compete with each other....

Nice constructive response.

(10-11-2016 02:58 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 02:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 02:12 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 02:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  LS,

No, it sounds like what he had was a low-ball, mispriced product. The actuaries corrected that, when they saw how poor their assumptions were on the claim filing rate of the individual buyer pool.


200,

That's good!

So we've tried the private company solution, and we're seeing that it's not working. What do you propose??

Insurance is 100% math. Complex formulas weigh risk to determine insurability and rate. Excessive government interference in the form of Obamacare have wrecked the system and lead to teh drastic increases in premiums. Insurance companies are not the bogey men the left make them out to be.

There are others here that are far more qualified than I am to make propositions, but in very general terms, start with the following:

1. Repeal Obamacare
2. Allow competition across state lines
3. Create tax or savings incentives rather than penalties to encourage the young and healthy to participate in the health insurance market.
4. Tort reform
5. Create a high-risk public option for those that fall into the uninsurable category

That's cute...you think that the insurance companies are going to compete with each other....

Not when they have 50 oligarchies. And BTW, I'd even allow select foreign entities to compete in all US states and territories too. I got no qualms buying health insurance from Canada for example.

BCBS Texas is the same as the BCBS in many other states. Same with Aetna, etc. And they've been merging like crazy. Allow competition across state lines...and all you'd get is 3 insurance companies nationally, all of whom would cut coverage and raise rates to pay for the massive merger costs.

Finally figured out what was going on...

(10-11-2016 02:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Then it's settled: everyone agrees that private insurance companies have failed miserably to assimilate the individual buyer pools within their overall systems and maintain the previous prices for their products.

That leaves us really with one other solution: single payer.


Well, unless you want to attack the issue from the other end: negotiate ceilings on how much can be charged for each type of health care service or product.

How about we let the 90% of folks that had affordable insurance go back to the way it was before and absorb the 10% that were uninsurable into Medicaid..........

Oh yeah - and we should just give total control of the healthcare system to the Federal government.............because they are so efficient and there is no waste in any system they control.........................

(10-11-2016 03:38 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 02:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Then it's settled: everyone agrees that private insurance companies have failed miserably to assimilate the individual buyer pools within their overall systems and maintain the previous prices for their products.

That leaves us really with one other solution: single payer.


Well, unless you want to attack the issue from the other end: negotiate ceilings on how much can be charged for each type of health care service or product.

How about we let the 90% of folks that had affordable insurance go back to the way it was before and absorb the 10% that were uninsurable into Medicaid..........

Oh yeah - and we should just give total control of the healthcare system to the Federal government.............because they are so efficient and there is no waste in any system they control.........................

That is also what I didn't understand. Why not put those people on medicare/medicaid and just increase my withholding to pay for it. I mean I'm paying for their healthcare no matter what.

Ohh.. thats right.. everyone not only needs health insurance.. they need the same health insurance so we are all equal.

(10-11-2016 03:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  BCBS Texas is the same as the BCBS in many other states. Same with Aetna, etc. And they've been merging like crazy. Allow competition across state lines...and all you'd get is 3 insurance companies nationally, all of whom would cut coverage and raise rates to pay for the massive merger costs.

Now hold on ... you and I may just be able to get somewhere meaningful here.

So you would agree that having massive mergers to where we have 2-4 insurers nationwide would be a bad thing for competition and thus a bad thing for the consumer, right?

(10-11-2016 01:12 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  BCBS just sent me a letter notifying me my plan doesn't exist next year. And the next closest thing -- why -- that's another $1,000+ for less benefits.

I'M DONE.

I'M OUT.

I refuse to be fleeced further.

I'd rather die.

The Obama miracle...

(10-11-2016 03:54 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 03:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  BCBS Texas is the same as the BCBS in many other states. Same with Aetna, etc. And they've been merging like crazy. Allow competition across state lines...and all you'd get is 3 insurance companies nationally, all of whom would cut coverage and raise rates to pay for the massive merger costs.

Now hold on ... you and I may just be able to get somewhere meaningful here.

So you would agree that having massive mergers to where we have 2-4 insurers nationwide would be a bad thing for competition and thus a bad thing for the consumer, right?

C'mon GT - having 1 insurer, the government, is soo much better for all of us. That way, when they p!ss away hundreds of billions because they are p!ss poor at running anything - they can just "raise taxes" to cover their inefficiencies.........

As long as the benevolent government is running it..........no need for competition - because they always act in our best interests. In fact, given that the government is so excellent at running stuff - we should just make things more efficient and cost saving by nationalizing the drug makers and medical device makers while we are at it......

One very important point that needs to be understood about insurance. For well over 150 years, regulation of insurance has been under each state. This was codified in 1945 in the McCarren-Ferguson Act.

That's why the whole "over state lines" issue keeps popping up. Even the national firms must deal with each state independently. In effect, they have a different operational entity for each state.

It's also why a state like New York has not seen the prices of policies go up drastically since the NY regulations had already required policies to include many of the costly Obamacare provisions.

Therefore allowing the insurance companies to offer identical policies in every state would certainly be a way towards cost control without the pernicious hand of the federal government.

The worst thing to happen to the middle class in a very long time, Obamacare.

(10-11-2016 01:26 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 01:25 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  A public option, open to everyone, should be a part of the solution.

And it starts...............

Starts?

lol. This entire boondoggle of a fiasco wrapped in a clusterfluck has been for a "public" option from the jump.

Designed to fail. "Gotta pass it before we can see what's in it", why? Cause anyone with a pulse and working knowledge of any kind of business or economics or even how to use a calculator could see this was no solution AT ALL, would only make things demonstrably worse, and of course zerO would be long gone before the real carnage strikes.

Many of us here have been saying this for years (many far before I got here, I'm certain), been told we're liars by the apologists and that we will just have to let the dims "fix" this disaster further.

Just wait til the rationing and denial of basic services starts to happen with frequency. And it will happen. Why? Cause it has to.

I'm fully prepared for another 20% hike for this year and I will have to cut my employees beni's yet further.

Great job Progs!

(10-11-2016 01:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  EagleX,

If unregulated, private insurance companies would simply refuse to cover people who are too risky - or offer products that are unaffordable or moot (the person would have to have so much money, that he/she could just pay the direct costs of the health care).

So now you have X% of the population with no health insurance. So then what happens when they need health care? Either: the emergency rooms end up absorbing the costs, since the person can't pay, or they refuse to provide health care and the person dies on the street.

If you accept that those are not reasonable alternatives, then you must agree all people need to be covered by health insurance.

Could you provide ONE example of that happening? Thx.

(10-11-2016 02:02 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 01:55 PM)muffinman Wrote:  Prior to 2011-2012, I had a "Cadillac" health care plan through my employer. Co-pays were like $15, $2000 max-out-of-pocket, it was only a few hundred dollars/month to pay for my whole family. It was wonderful, especially when one of my sons was sick after birth.

After ACA starting going into effect, I lost that plan in favor of a more expensive plan for less coverage. Now I pay twice as much for a plan with no-copays, $4000 deductible, $12k max-out-of-pocket.

Obamacare is a un-mitigated disaster. It was designed this way to force a single-payer system on us, when it failed.

I will never understand why single men have to pay for coverage for pre-natal and birth care.

I had that too

Yup. Me three +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Not single ONE complained about the coverage or premiums (the service? Perhaps, but people always complain about something) for more than a decade and a half. Now? I hear about the complaints and hardships probably weekly.

And the problem is, again- IT DIDN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN. TOTALLY UNNECESSARY FOR WHAT IT WAS "supposed" TO DO.

(10-11-2016 06:49 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 02:02 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 01:55 PM)muffinman Wrote:  Prior to 2011-2012, I had a "Cadillac" health care plan through my employer. Co-pays were like $15, $2000 max-out-of-pocket, it was only a few hundred dollars/month to pay for my whole family. It was wonderful, especially when one of my sons was sick after birth.

After ACA starting going into effect, I lost that plan in favor of a more expensive plan for less coverage. Now I pay twice as much for a plan with no-copays, $4000 deductible, $12k max-out-of-pocket.

Obamacare is a un-mitigated disaster. It was designed this way to force a single-payer system on us, when it failed.

I will never understand why single men have to pay for coverage for pre-natal and birth care.

I had that too

Yup. Me three +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Not single ONE complained about the coverage or premiums (the service? Perhaps, but people always complain about something) for more than a decade and a half. Now? I hear about the complaints and hardships probably weekly.

And the problem is, again- IT DIDN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN. TOTALLY UNNECESSARY FOR WHAT IT WAS "supposed" TO DO.

Try Having a kid under Obamacare. It's brutal

(10-11-2016 03:54 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 03:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  BCBS Texas is the same as the BCBS in many other states. Same with Aetna, etc. And they've been merging like crazy. Allow competition across state lines...and all you'd get is 3 insurance companies nationally, all of whom would cut coverage and raise rates to pay for the massive merger costs.

Now hold on ... you and I may just be able to get somewhere meaningful here.

So you would agree that having massive mergers to where we have 2-4 insurers nationwide would be a bad thing for competition and thus a bad thing for the consumer, right?

Ruh, roh.

(10-11-2016 07:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Lot of whining in this thread. Especially of the form "I want my artificially low premium/deductible products back! These correctly priced products make it so I can't take a second vacation this year!"

Obamacare has problems. It doesn't make it a bad program or a bad idea. Or that the flaws with Obamacare are completely the fault of the Democrats. But there are problems with it.

In the absence of any entitlement to affordable healthcare, Obamacare will likely stay. The insurance companies had a chance to make this work. Its failing.

(10-11-2016 07:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Lot of whining in this thread. Especially of the form "I want my artificially low premium/deductible products back! These correctly priced products make it so I can't take a second vacation this year!"

(10-11-2016 06:50 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 06:49 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 02:02 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 01:55 PM)muffinman Wrote:  Prior to 2011-2012, I had a "Cadillac" health care plan through my employer. Co-pays were like $15, $2000 max-out-of-pocket, it was only a few hundred dollars/month to pay for my whole family. It was wonderful, especially when one of my sons was sick after birth.

After ACA starting going into effect, I lost that plan in favor of a more expensive plan for less coverage. Now I pay twice as much for a plan with no-copays, $4000 deductible, $12k max-out-of-pocket.

Obamacare is a un-mitigated disaster. It was designed this way to force a single-payer system on us, when it failed.

I will never understand why single men have to pay for coverage for pre-natal and birth care.

I had that too

Yup. Me three +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Not single ONE complained about the coverage or premiums (the service? Perhaps, but people always complain about something) for more than a decade and a half. Now? I hear about the complaints and hardships probably weekly.

And the problem is, again- IT DIDN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN. TOTALLY UNNECESSARY FOR WHAT IT WAS "supposed" TO DO.

Try Having a kid under Obamacare. It's brutal

Had two, both of whom entered the age of Varsity sports, year round, at around the same time all this garbage took it's strangle hold.

One instance- My son breaks his thumb in 2 places, as in snapped it there, and there. Looked painful enough to me. Orthopedist could give us 2 options basically- the next A.M., a Friday, in the surgical offices he and his practice had UPSTAIRS from his practice, OR wait til he had his Hospital time all the way across town the following WEDNESDAY.

Why? Cause with zerOcare it is assumed that this Doctor is crooked and if he's allowed to do diagnosis and surgery in the same place that close together time-wise, he'll abuse the system and perform unnecessary procedures.

It was a restriction come down from on high, insurance really had nothing to do with it, they thought it was as ridiculous as we did, as the Doctor did, the attending nurses did, the billing folks did, event the people on the other end of the phone at Anthem or whatever they are called this week.

I won't even get into scripts and employee kind of stuff. I now occupy probably 15-20% of my time going through all this crap, filling out this, complying with that.

Oh, and for my troubles? It costs a WHOLE LOT MORE! As in 5 figures a year more. Guess we're some of those lucky enough to have "won life's lottery"...

(10-11-2016 07:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Lot of whining in this thread. Especially of the form "I want my artificially low premium/deductible products back! These correctly priced products make it so I can't take a second vacation this year!"

This may be the most tone deaf post here.

There is a growing group of Americans whose insurance premiums are approaching or surpassing their mortgage payments.