Public Option - Op - Out

[movieman1957]

I guess I meant from the practice's standpoint. If the doctor owns the practice his profit will be whatever income exceeds the expenses, which I imagine can be formidable at times.

But even health insurance companies are entitled to some profit. It helps bring investors, better employees and hopefully a more smoothly run operation. Understanding that is not always it would seem there would be no incentive for the government to be anything other than what it already is. What are you going to change to when they really make you mad or make you feel like you have been treated unfairly.

It is like Lilly Tomlin's old telephone "commercial" tag line about the phone company. "We're the phone company. We don't care, we don't have to."

[ken123]

Repeal the McCarren - Ferguson Act of 1942, which exempted the insurance companies from Anti - Trust laws. The insurance companies are a cartel.

[jdb1]

I think one of the problems is that what started out as health insurance is no longer really insurance, but payment for ongoing health care. It's not quite the same thing. In the olden days. we all paid our doctors out of pocket (because a visit was $3), and if we were rich, we had Blue Cross insurance in case of an emergency hospital stay. Now that even the most exotic of procedures is routine, it's no longer a question of insurance, but of paying for care. An emphasis on preventative care seems to be the obvious way to go, only health insurance companies don't seem to care too much about prevention. We are now getting a kind of half-hearted, rather grudging mention of prevention from our insurersd, but we still don't get much choice of services there. There's lots more money to be made from catastrophe.

I would never say that any corporation is not entitled to an honest profit. But price-fixing and monopoly (and bribing members of Congress) are still illegal, are they not? I think Mr. Obama has repeatedly stated that what he's aiming for is a reining in, not a dismantling. I don't want to be without healthcare, I just want effective and humane value for my money. For pete's sake, we are talking about people's lives here. I really do feel that there must be some kind of difference in operation and oversight between a corporate entity overseeing my health, and a corporate entity manufacturing my shoes. They are not in the same business.

[movieman1957]

Insurance companies are heavily regulated. Many states have laws that require everything be approved by the state before it can be implemented. This includes policy language and rates. Therefore the company has to prove the rate is warranted. Granted, some states have a system where the company files the rate and can use it but not all.

The companies are held accountable by the states and are often audited and dealt with if irregularities are found. People can file complaints with the commissioner's office and get a hearing that can often keep things out of an already clogged legal system. It's not perfect but it is not the free-for-all some might think it is.

Whatever is done federally the rates should still be allowed to be territorial and set locally.

While my career has been spent in the property/casualty side many of the actuarial principles work on both sides.

[JackFavell]

OK I have decided to leap in and post something not meant to be inflammatory (my life is flashing before my eyes here, if I were to post this over at another website, I would probably be banned), but you guys seem to be able to discuss things in a very level-headed way here. I am from Connecticut, so I found this cartoon to be very funny.... hope you guys do to, and know that it is not meant to upset anyone, just to give a good laugh.

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/200 ... /story.jpg

[movieman1957]

It's all about the deal.

[jdb1]

Insurance companies are heavily regulated. Many states have laws that require everything be approved by the state before it can be implemented. This includes policy language and rates. Therefore the company has to prove the rate is warranted. Granted, some states have a system where the company files the rate and can use it but not all.

The companies are held accountable by the states and are often audited and dealt with if irregularities are found. People can file complaints with the commissioner's office and get a hearing that can often keep things out of an already clogged legal system. It's not perfect but it is not the free-for-all some might think it is.

Whatever is done federally the rates should still be allowed to be territorial and set locally.

While my career has been spent in the property/casualty side many of the actuarial principles work on both sides.

Sorry, Chris, but I just can't buy that the oppressive insurance rates in New York State, especially for health insurance, are for the good of interstate commerce, and the public at large. These egregious rates are approved by our disgracefully inept state legislature (that's a whole 'nother story) because of the money and perks that come with them, courtesy of the insurance lobby, and their purpose is not to be equitable, but to provide unconsionable profits for the industry and gravy for the legislators. Insurance is supposed to protect the consumer, not banktrupt him. Have you seen the movie 1776? Do you remember the New York delegate telling of the chaotic, indolent state legislature? Nothing has changed.

Maybe it's the best of all possible insurance worlds in Maryland, but it sure as heck ain't in NYS. If I had the option of buying affordable health insurance across state lines, I'd do it in a New York Minute. One could hope that that option would be a wakeup call to our local health insurance providers, who would then make things less onerous for us. But I have my doubts.

[movieman1957]

Maybe it's the best of all possible insurance worlds in Maryland, but it sure as heck ain't in NYS. If I had the option of buying affordable health insurance across state lines, I'd do it in a New York Minute. One could hope that that option would be a wakeup call to our local health insurance providers, who would then make things less onerous for us. But I have my doubts.

Maryland is hardly insurance heaven.

[ken123]

I can never get over the fact that business feels it is so oppressed in the United States.The truth being business & their lobbistys allies run most things, not for the betterment of the country at large.

[jdb1]

I still don't get why prices have not come down. How can retailers face their empty stores day after day, an still not understand why we shoppers aren't coming in?

Is it all down to tax write-offs -- that they don't care if they don't sell anything because they can get a tax break? Is it really better to sell nothing at all than to cut prices a little and sell off everything? Don't they get that if they sell off what they have, they can order new stuff, and everyone else down the chain will benefit?

Somebody, somewhere, who has some political clout, has got to speak up. Nobody in Congress is listening to me. It's patently ridiculous to expect a nation of unemployed people to spend $1.49 a roll for toilet paper. (That's how much the TP at CVS was yesterday. I demurred and went to one of the bargain stores instead. Same stuff, 89 cents. And even that's too much.) If we can't afford toilet paper, how can we afford $1200+ a month in insurance premiums for coverage that isn't even comprehensive? No sir, it don't make sense.

[ken123]

I still don't get why prices have not come down. How can retailers face their empty stores day after day, an still not understand why we shoppers aren't coming in?

Is it all down to tax write-offs -- that they don't care if they don't sell anything because they can get a tax break? Is it really better to sell nothing at all than to cut prices a little and sell off everything? Don't they get that if they sell off what they have, they can order new stuff, and everyone else down the chain will benefit?

Somebody, somewhere, who has some political clout, has got to speak up. Nobody in Congress is listening to me. It's patently ridiculous to expect a nation of unemployed people to spend $1.49 a roll for toilet paper. (That's how much the TP at CVS was yesterday. I demurred and went to one of the bargain stores instead. Same stuff, 89 cents. And even that's too much.) If we can't afford toilet paper, how can we afford $1200+ a month in insurance premiums for coverage that isn't even comprehensive? No sir, it don't make sense.

Up until recenty the local public grammar school, about 1/2 block east of me, the school chrildren had to bring there own toilet paper.

[SSO Admins]

I'm in favor of the opt-out. One of two things will happen.

1. No states will opt-out, definitely showing that this is something that the majority wants and needs.

2. Some states will opt-out, and we'll be able to see the difference it makes in terms of people's health and wealth.

I'm in favor of single payer, but I know that's not going to happen yet.

[mrsl]

.
Since November is the re-up month for the Part D insurance for meds, suddenly in the past 2 months my mail has been full of 'come-ons' from various insurance companies. Today, I got a phone call, and just for the heck of it, I was pleasant (not my style on cold calls at all), and asked a few questions. Finally she explained that Medicare covers 80% of medical expenses (doctor visits, hospital stays, hospital procedures, etc.) and these companies want me to take them on to pay that other 20%. Very nicely I asked for a ballpark figure of what it would cost me per month, for this other insurance. Anywhere from $107.00 to $150.00 per month she said depending on my present medical conditions. After reeling, and taking big gulps of air, I said "YOU'RE KIDDING, RIGHT" :!: :!: :!: Medicare takes about $125.00 per month for 80%, yet your company wants a nearly equal figure to cover 20%????? I said "Thank you very much", and hung up the phone. That is what you've got to look forward to when you turn 65, and some of you still are not 100% behind government health? It is 100% beyond the scope of my understanding how anyone could possibly argue against Obama's health care bills. Don't people realize they're going to get screwed just like my generation was when they neared 60 and 62 because insurance companies did not want to pick up the tabs for illnesses before Medicare kicked in. I've written all of my congressmen and I hope those of you out there have done the same for yourself and your children.
.

[jdb1]

And it's more like an additional $250-$300 per month here in NY for comprehensive supplemental coverage. The question remains: why should "supplemental" coverage be necessary at all?