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.
"Buying insurance across state lines" is just another Republican idea to keep things the way they are but to make it appear that they're trying to make things better for the American public.
Buying insurance across state lines won't change anything. The parent companies will still be the same.
for example....
Wellpointe is Anthem is Blue Cross and they're in most (if not all) states already.
They also sell Worker's Compensation Insurance and currently underwrite many States High Risk Health Pools.
Quote:
Health insurance market concentration
The US health insurance market is highly concentrated, as leading insurers have carried out over 400 mergers from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. In 2000, the two largest health insurers (Aetna and UnitedHealth Group) had total membership of 32m covered lives. By 2006 the top two insurers, WellPoint and UnitedHealth, had total membership of 67m lives. The two companies together had more than 36% of the national market for commercial health insurance.
The AMA has said that it "has long been concerned about the impact of consolidated markets on patient care." A 2007 AMA study found that in 299 of the 313 markets surveyed, one health plan accounted for at least 30% of the combined health maintenance organization (HMO)/preferred provider organization (PPO) market.
The US Department of Justice has recognised this percentage of market control as conferring substantial monopsony power in the relations between insurer and physicians.[70]
I think in order for this to work, a minimum level of coverage needs to exist for each policy tier. States currently dictate the minimum level of coverage for their citizens, there should be no reason why we can't expand that to the national level.
I'm also for cafeteria style plans. Currently in Illinois, any insurance I buy requires coverage for infertility treatment. I don't want, will never use, and don't need to pay for coverage that will not benefit me in any way. Things like that should be added to a basic policy ala carte.
I do agree with the other posters that there has to be regulation. Minimum standards have to be set to ensure quality coverage at fair prices. Also, anti-trust/anti-monopoly regulations so we don't end up with 3 major insurers that dictate to us what we are going to pay.
I really think this could work if we had regulations in place. It could drive down the cost of insurance if you are able to choose what coverage you want and are willing to pay for. Some people want pregnancy coverage, but does it make sense to make grandma pay for that if she's obvious not going to be having kids?
One thing people have to realize also is that it's the price of care that has gone up exponentially. That is what has caused people's insurance plans to increase in the double digits. Insurance companies are not making double digit profits, they typically raise their rates to keep pace with the rising cost of health care. Insurance companies as a whole have a 3.3% profit margin. We also need to focus on the cost of care, not just the cost of insurance.
One thing people have to realize also is that it's the price of care that has gone up exponentially. That is what has caused people's insurance plans to increase in the double digits. Insurance companies are not making double digit profits, they typically raise their rates to keep pace with the rising cost of health care. Insurance companies as a whole have a 3.3% profit margin. We also need to focus on the cost of care, not just the cost of insurance.
No doubt the cost of health care has gone up and it that cost needs to be controlled.
But, Wellpointe had a 91% profit last year,... still, they've raised their premium rates by 20% - 40% NATIONWIDE
Allowing the Market to Control itself does NOT work!
and, btw...
Cafeteria plans are great if you're healthy.
But, let's for instance, take this scenario....
A person doesn't need maternity care, or infertility treatment.
But, let's say they've had cancer in their past.....
Do you really think that a cafeteria plan is going to help them?
It's estimated that 44% of Americans have some kind of health issue that would make them "undesirable" in a free market, for profit, third party health insurance system.
You people just don't seem to get it.
My individual policy, which I can't afford to use because of it's $5,000 deductible is going up 19.53% this year.
I had no claims last year. Saw no doctors, at all.
Still, my policy that I can't afford to use will cost me over $4100 dollars next year.
NO WONDER THEY MADE A 91% PROFIT !
Oh yeah, btw, it's Anthem BCBS... who already sells in almost all (if not all) states.
Last edited by World Citizen; 02-14-2010 at 10:02 AM..
No doubt the cost of health care has gone up and it that cost needs to be controlled.
But, Wellpointe had a 91% profit last year,... still, they've raised their premium rates by 20% - 40% NATIONWIDE
Allowing the Market to Control itself does NOT work!
and, btw...
Cafeteria plans are great if you're healthy.
But, let's for instance, take this scenario....
A person doesn't need maternity care, or infertility treatment.
But, let's say they've had cancer in their past.....
Do you really think that a cafeteria plan is going to help them?
It's estimated that 44% of Americans have some kind of health issue that would make them "undesirable" in a free market, for profit, third party health insurance system.
You people just don't seem to get it.
My individual policy, which I can't afford to use because of it's $5,000 deductible is going up 19.53% this year.
I had no claims last year. Saw no doctors, at all.
Still, my policy that I can't afford to use will cost me over $4100 dollars next year.
NO WONDER THEY MADE A 91% PROFIT !
Oh yeah, btw, it's Anthem BCBS... who already sells in almost all (if not all) states.
I really don't know where you are getting your figures from. California law specifies that $.70 of every dollar be spent on direct medical care expenses. That leaves the remaining 30% for administrative costs, overhead, and profit. Wellpointe did NOT have a 91% profit.
Quote:
Wellpoint, though, isn't typical. Through September, for all of its insurance companies, it managed to keep medical expenses down to 83.3% of premiums and administration down to 9.3%. This gave it a 6.3% profit margin.
With regard to your maternity and infertility coverage statements, you are confusing the pre-existing condition of having cancer (and needing coverage for treatment for that) with optional maternity and infertility coverage. Cafeteria style plans allow you to choose what elective coverage you want, but regulation still needs to be put in place to ensure that pre-existing conditions are covered. One issue has nothing to do with the other. Like I stated in my previous post, I propose that a national minimum standard of coverage be set that would include all pre-existing conditions and all routine coverage. Allow people to add on vision, dental, orthodontic, infertility, maternity, etc... if they so choose to.
Health Insurance should NOT be a 3rd Party, For Profit Business
Interesting article. I especially like the last paragraph is interesting in light of the almost 40% increase in California -- as compared to other states 20% increase.
It seems to read like a disclaimer....
Quote:
California, unlike every other state, doesn't release sufficient details of its registered insurance companies to examine the profitability levels. It is, therefore, impossible to establish the precise margins that the insurer operates with or the appropriateness.
In the meantime, Poizner did want to remind Californians that they do have over 70 insurers from which to choose.
regarding pre-existing conditions...
No. I'm not confusing pre-existing conditions. My point exactly was pre-existing conditions.
Cafeteria plans only help healthy people.
btw - I've priced Dental Coverage as an addition to my policy. It costs as much or more than paying for everything out of pocket.
Last edited by World Citizen; 02-14-2010 at 11:16 AM..
I really don't know where you are getting your figures from. California law specifies that $.70 of every dollar be spent on direct medical care expenses. That leaves the remaining 30% for administrative costs, overhead, and profit. Wellpointe did NOT have a 91% profit.
With regard to your maternity and infertility coverage statements, you are confusing the pre-existing condition of having cancer (and needing coverage for treatment for that) with optional maternity and infertility coverage. Cafeteria style plans allow you to choose what elective coverage you want, but regulation still needs to be put in place to ensure that pre-existing conditions are covered. One issue has nothing to do with the other. Like I stated in my previous post, I propose that a national minimum standard of coverage be set that would include all pre-existing conditions and all routine coverage. Allow people to add on vision, dental, orthodontic, infertility, maternity, etc... if they so choose to.
I imagine there is some way around that "70%" rule. From all I have read about this issue, it sure sounds like it.
I do not cry for the insurance companies "low" profits. That is profit to the shareholders, mind you, not money left over to pay the workers, etc.
When credit card companies were deregulated and allowed to compete across state lines, they just moved to the states that allowed them the fewest restrictions. Are credit card customers better off now than they were before the companies were deregulated? I don't think so.
I imagine the same thing would happen with health insurance companies if they were allowed to compete across state lines. It would be a race to the bottom in terms of the benefits they offer. I'm not against deregulation, but I also don't think it'll help much.
I sincerely doubt that competition across state lines will make any real difference.
I imagine there is some way around that "70%" rule. From all I have read about this issue, it sure sounds like it.
I do not cry for the insurance companies "low" profits. That is profit to the shareholders, mind you, not money left over to pay the workers, etc.
I don't really know, but even the most vile of insurance companies (ie., Wellpointe) average well above that 70%. Wellpointe seems to be on the lower end of $$ spent on direct medical care, but even that is around 80-84%.
I'm not concerned about insurance companies "low" profits either, I'm merely pointing out that it is the cost of care that is driving up premiums, not sickening profit by the insurance industry. Every company and industry has a right to earn and turn a profit, and I don't see 1-6% profit margins as being overly greedy.
Our focus needs to be on reducing the cost of direct medical care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by World Citizen
regarding pre-existing conditions...
No. I'm not confusing pre-existing conditions. My point exactly was pre-existing conditions.
Cafeteria plans only help healthy people.
btw - I've priced Dental Coverage as an addition to my policy. It costs as much or more than paying for everything out of pocket.
A cafeteria plan simply allows you to add specific coverage onto your basic policy. How does that only help healthy people? Do you suggest that every type of coverage be mandated nationally? Everyone should pay for maternity coverage and infertility treatments too? What about plastic surgery or elective surgical procedures? Should we all pay for those services regardless of whether we will ever use them?
People who want additional services beyond basic medical coverage should pay for that. I should not be forced to pay for my neighbor's boob job or my cousin's infertility treatments.
A cafeteria plan simply allows you to add specific coverage onto your basic policy. How does that only help healthy people? Do you suggest that every type of coverage be mandated nationally? Everyone should pay for maternity coverage and infertility treatments too? What about plastic surgery or elective surgical procedures? Should we all pay for those services regardless of whether we will ever use them?
People who want additional services beyond basic medical coverage should pay for that. I should not be forced to pay for my neighbor's boob job or my cousin's infertility treatments.
A cafeteria plan has to do with health coverage offered by employers... period.
They don't cover boob jobs unless someone's had breast cancer... very few cover elective procedures.
I'm sorry. Discussing a "cafeteria plan" is just diverting the attention off the OP's question.
Buying health care across state lines is NOT going to help consumers.
Cafeteria plans are not what's been effected by Anthem's 20-40% rate hike, either.
Individual policies are.
Cafeteria plans are just more of the same industry supplied "solutions" that are not solutions.
In the end, the Insurance Company is the only one who benefits from their kinds of solutions.
Last edited by World Citizen; 02-14-2010 at 01:47 PM..
It's pretty obvious. New technology in the medical system means that there are huge capital costs for the new devices and they must be supported...
That's a silly presumption. Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough
...In addition, there are new tests and procedures that can be prescribed for conditions that would have been treated without them before. It's not a matter of technology reducing the cost of doing the same thing, as in other areas.
Yes it is, just look at lasik eye surgery. It's not covered under insurance and the price continues to drop. Why?!
Because people shop around, and doctors compete for the lowest prices.
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.
let's get honest...
