Reply With Quote
Have they ever lost money?
...so much so that given the choice between private health-care and VA care most veteran still choose VA care...as do career politicians...
Have they ever lost money?
The simple fact is that no matter how you approach it health care is going to be rationed in some way. There is no alternative.
Uh, yes, it does. 700 a year should cover almost half a year for most healthy individuals who are even just early 30s and younger.
It already is.
Other countries have found viable solutions that control costs and don't bankrupt people who are responsible, plus they provide better coverage...we can do better..
Medicare.
I don't think you understand how Insurance companies pay their claims. I seriously doubt they paid anywhere near 250,00 in claims.
The premium I pay for an individual in my group is $370. I shop it hard.
Granted, my groups average age is over 30.
Still, you accept that the "fine" is cheaper than buying insurance.
If an individual is GUARANTEED coverage if they pay the fine, what do you think rational individuals will do?
No Sherlock.
The people that pay for insurance get coverage. The ones that don't go to University Hospital and our property taxes pay for it.
Thanks, but I have an extremely good grasp of loss ratios.
As for what is an acceptable profit, I don't know. I think Spurm hit the nail on the head, however. Let people choose between medicare for all and private insurance and lets see how well they do. If public insurance is terrible then the market would dictate that most people would still spend their money on private insurance but I think we both know that wouldn't happen.
You are right Manny for the wrong reasons. It's just human nature to think "it won't happen to me". Thus, insurance seems totally frivolous and unnecessary until it DOES happen to you.
You can do shopping and find individual plans for well under 370 a month. I'm not sure if you have unhealthy people in your group who are driving the average price up but I'd imagine that is the case. (or you have some serious coverage - obviously higher levels of coverage drive up the price)
Yes, the fine is cheaper than buying insurance but you also don't get coverage with the fine so as a whole its wasted money when for 1200-1500 a year an individual who is my age can definitely get coverage.
I let my insurance license lapse something like 7 years ago but at one time I was a licensed agent in Texas and I sold health and life insurance for several years (actually to a lot of people like you CC - my company targeted farmers and ranchers).
The medical bills better have been in excess of 1 million for them to pay 250,000 in claims.
When insurance companies are required to cover pre-existing conditions from previously uninsured people that paid the fine they are essentially buying insurance for $700 a year.
Setting the bar that low was intentional. They know that rational young people won't buy insurance and it will destroy the insurance companies financially because they will lose the lower risk premiums.
My point still stands...why force the insurance companies to subsidize the uninsured? Why not just say Google that makes a 30% profit has to subsidize the uninsured?
Manny, they are public companies and their financials are a matter of public record. It still boils down to income/expenses.
I would rather not have to deal with them in the first place, which would make whatever their profits are irrelevant. I would have loved to see a mixed system, with a baseline package provided by the government and, optionally, if you wanted better/different service, then you could go to the private sector.
The comparison with Google is really silly too. First of all, it costs me zero to use Google. Second, Google doesn't get subsidized with my tax money. And lastly, Google isn't an insurance company with direct impact on a person's health.
What does this even mean? I'm simply pointing out that insurance companies do not pay what medical bills face value in the least. I currently work at a medical practice where various insurance companies pay maybe 1/3 of our standard rates (others pay more) and our rates are actually low compared to the average in the region.
When you say they paid out 250,000 in claims, then I'd have to believe for that to be true your medical bills were well in excess of 1 million because what they are billed and what they pay are two completely separate things.
Agreed. Which is a practice that ultimately raises the price for everyone else, because doctors now bill for 3 times as much seeing that they're only going to get paid 1/3 of the actual cost.
It's better to have watered-down, ty health care for ALL, rather than quality based on what you can afford.
That's just how liberals think.
It's not fair that some people are rich and others poor.
Exactly. This is the main reason why our prices are so out of whack when compared to the rest of the world (among other factors but this is the primary reason by far).
Honestly if your'e paying for a bill out of pocket you can negotiate it down relatively quickly and easily in the same manner that insurance companies do (sometimes even better - medical practices love cash) but many people don't know this.
That's very "free market" of you, Manny.
If that's what you really think, then why are you so opposed to have the 'watered-down, ty healthcare' compete against the 'quality' healthcare?
Wouldn't the quality healthcare win out?
I intentionally made the comparison with Google silly. But it boils down to your assumptions of the "greedy" insurance companies that should "pay" for the uninsured. Why is a company that has a 5% profit margin "greedy" and responsible for a public service (paying for the uninsured) when a company that makes a 30% profit margin isn't?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
