You Might Not Keep Your Health Insurance If You Live In One of These 10 States (drugs, death)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do you think those insurance companies made those decisions?
Because they want to skim from the market the most profitable opportunities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
Because it was no longer profitable to do business due to Obamacare.
If that were true, no companies would be offering insurance.
Forgot about that eh?
Stop with the nonsense. Companies wanting to maximize profit is okay. Society doing what's right for its citizens despite what companies want is also okay.
Even if you don't like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
What he said hasn't changed, but it was wrong when he said it, and it's still wrong today.
No it wasn't. And still isn't. You just don't like it, but you don't think that simply stating the reality, that you don't like it, is going to be convincing enough to anyone. You're right about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
I stopped short of saying he was lying, because...
Leave it to the egoistic avarice of the right-wing rag Daily Caller to post deception after deception about ACA, including this one, citing a whole bunch of decisions made by insurance companies and trying to make it seem like ACA itself banned those insurance policies. The president said that ACA does not force anyone to give up their current health plan. That hasn't changed. Don't blame ACA for what private companies decided to do in the free marketplace.
yes yes yes, everyone knows insurance companies just want to lose customers..
Quote:
Originally Posted by DurangoJoe
Wrong.... not that it is no longer profitable. It is no longer profitable enough. Huge difference. Health insurance is one of the most profitable industries in America with profits in the $Bs year after year after year.
Complete lie.. the profits of the insurance industry ranges around 3% a year.. which is far below profits of most other industries.
The fact that its billions of dollars is meaningless, since we're dealing with hundreds of millions of consumers
Are you as upset with the governments hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues expected to be received from Obamacare, or does paying taxes a more worthy goal as long as youre blocking a few dollars of profit?
Whats wrong with competition and forcing other companies to the side? Walmart did it in small towns across the US? There might be a company out there like Molina Health Care or some other outfit that puts the squeeze on the major players. The interesting thing here is Republicans are against competiton that the exchanges have set up and want to go back to the old way where everyone was wearing a blindfold and trying to figure out how much health insurance cost. The fact so few Republicans support the ACA tells you where they get their insurance...from the government.
There is no new competition, the only companies qualified to enter the exchange, are those who previously offered insurance..
yes yes yes, everyone knows insurance companies just want to lose customers..
Looks like pghquest is just posting nonsense again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
they want to skim from the market the most profitable opportunities.
Stop with the nonsense. Companies wanting to maximize profit is okay. Society doing what's right for its citizens despite what companies want is also okay.
How many times will you double-down on the "I don't care about poor people" rhetoric you keep posting?
I saw that movie back when it was credit card companies yearning to compete freely, and the ending sucked.
All the credit card companies moved to where the state governments could be counted upon to be on their side when those annoying consumers thought they had rights and stuff. Delaware won the race to the bottom in consumer protection on that count, so while, say, California voters can ask for the CC business to rein in their more despicable practices, it has zero effect.
Not a good model to emulate.
Nobody's suggesting that the health care industry emulate the credit card industry. In fact, there's no comparison to be made. I don't know what gears are broken in your logic mechanism, but the analogy doesn't even make sense. Credit cards are a pass-thru service. With insurance, you're actually purchasing a product.
States currently have the option to set requirements on the policies sold in their state. I'm not suggesting that change (although maybe the people in New Jersey would - their state is creaming them on that). I'm saying that the idiotic rule set by the federal government that denies an insurance company based in, say, Ohio from selling me a policy in Nevada should be repealed. There's no reason that Nevada couldn't have a say in what that policy must cover. Just let the OH insurance company make the sale - that's all I'm asking, and it would go a hell of a lot further in increasing competition than the Obamacare "exchanges," which don't really do anything significant above what ehealthinsurance.com does.
Blue Cross operates in all 50 states and United operates in most..What you are talking about is letting all the fly-by night outfits operate in all 50 states without regulations. These fly-by night outfits had a chance to operate in all 50 states and they either declined or were prohibited because they couldn't show they had the resources to operate.
How is it "without regulations"?
Since you seem to be in love with the idea of having every aspect of your life micromanaged by the federal government, which as we all know would never take advantage of that position, I'll clarify the obvious for you. The feds would still be able to regulate the industry, just as they do now. I never suggested (nor have I ever read anything that did) that they take a completely "hands off" approach. They could still set rules - just let these companies compete against each other.
How could you possibly be against that, if you have any interest whatsoever in reducing the cost of health insurance?
Oh, and by the way, "Blue Cross" does NOT operate in all fifty states. INDIVIDUAL companies, all owned by Blue Cross Blue Shield each operate within their own state. There's a big difference.
Do you think it's fair that the smaller companies have to incorporate fifty times just to compete with them? Fifty corporations. Fifty registered agents. Fifty sets of books to maintain. Fifty versions of corporate filing requirements. Why do you think that should be necessary? It's the most glaring example of bureaucratic red tape and unnecessary cost I can think of.
I'm saying that the idiotic rule set by the federal government that denies an insurance company based in, say, Ohio from selling me a policy in Nevada should be repealed.... There's no reason that Nevada couldn't have a say in what that policy must cover. Just let the OH insurance company make the sale - that's all I'm asking...
My bolding, because you're not understanding the GOP proposal. What the GOP (and their owners in the insurance industry) mean by "competition across state lines" is that the Ohio company should sell insurance in Nevada but under Ohio contract conditions. And that is exactly the credit card scenario. Race to the bottom. We've seen this play out before, and it sucks for the consumers.
Under the PPACA, states are free to agree that they'll have cross-border insurance competition, but the insurers have to abide by the rules in the state where the insured person live.
Since you seem to be in love with the idea of having every aspect of your life micromanaged by the federal government, which as we all know would never take advantage of that position, I'll clarify the obvious for you. The feds would still be able to regulate the industry, just as they do now. I never suggested (nor have I ever read anything that did) that they take a completely "hands off" approach. They could still set rules - just let these companies compete against each other.
How could you possibly be against that, if you have any interest whatsoever in reducing the cost of health insurance?
Oh, and by the way, "Blue Cross" does NOT operate in all fifty states. INDIVIDUAL companies, all owned by Blue Cross Blue Shield each operate within their own state. There's a big difference.
Do you think it's fair that the smaller companies have to incorporate fifty times just to compete with them? Fifty corporations. Fifty registered agents. Fifty sets of books to maintain. Fifty versions of corporate filing requirements. Why do you think that should be necessary? It's the most glaring example of bureaucratic red tape and unnecessary cost I can think of.
Are you saying that there should be one uniform set of federal regulations rather than state's setting their own regulatory agencies? This appears to fly in the face of republicans state's rights and smaller federal government platform.
You've never run a company, nor do you understand the economic concepts behind it, obviously. *MY* company is more profitable than any health insurance provider.
Profit is measured in percentages, not dollars. Only ignorant fools look at dollar amounts with glazed eyes and proclaim that a company is making "huge profits."
For instance, Health Net (HNT) has a profit margin of 1.01%. Out of every dollar they bring in, only one penny is profit. They have to spend a dollar to make a single cent. That doesn't leave a lot of room for variance.
All of the major health insurance providers operate with a margin in the low single digits. They are nowhere near "one of the most profitable industries in America," and by saying that they are, you are only demonstrating a remarkable lack of understanding about the business world.
As a matter of fact, I have run my own company before having owned and operated a nationally franchised business quite successfully. I provided a small subsidy to help my employees buy health insurance that I provided access to for them. People's health should be more important than profits & shareholders. They place profits and shareholders above people's health consistently. Here's a lovely little excerpt on one of the regional players in SW PA. UPMC revenue rises by $1 billion - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Their miserable little single digit percentage margins translate into $Bs in profits. Yep, I really feel sorry for them as their profits soar and people are driven into bankruptcy because they can't pay their medical bills. $B is $B no matter how you slice it. How much are their CEO's paid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quoted article
Insurers, meanwhile, are already seeing impressive profits. UnitedHealth, for instance, “had a particularly strong past year, with net income of $5.1 billion, up by 11% from the previous year” and Aetna is similarly beating revenue expectations. A July 2010 report from PricewaterhouseCoopers concluded that the law’s state-based health care exchanges provide private insurers with a lucrative new market in which they stand to gain up to $200 billion in revenue by 2019.
Can't imagine why anybody with a conscience would defend these greedy multi $B public companies who only exist to drive profits for shareholders, not to actually help people with their health care needs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
