When will the Insurance Lobby force us to have Medical insurance like the did Auto insurance? Forced auto insurance, seat belt laws, helmet laws, child safety seats, laws and regulations, all brought upon us by insurance companies who use government regulation to maximize their profits. Isn't it only a matter of time before they get their friends in Washington to make Health Insurance Mandatory? Or is that the republican plan for reform?
_____________________
insurance
Moderators: Josh, independent guy
-
rasemariya
- Insurance Journal Fan
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:07 am
insurance
Last edited by rasemariya on Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: insurance
Maybe you should check your "facts" before spewing your rhetoric.
Re: insurance
An interesting concept... forced medical insurance.
In Washington State we made auto liability insurance mandatory back in the '80s. At the time 10% of all drivers involved in an accident had no insurance. Almost 30 years later we have... you guessed it... 10% of all drivers involved in an accident still do not have liability insurance!!!
It won't work with medical insurance, either. Some people are simply insurance adverse. Doesn't matter what kind of you're talking about. And, some people are really off the grid. Shadow figures like criminals and druggies and illegals. And, depending on the statistics you review, there is only +/- 10% of the population un-insured for medical coverage now...
There is not a lot of doubt that we need health care reform. But, simply forcing insurance on those that really don't want it is not the answer. If congress grew some balls they could make substantial changes to the way drug companies and other providers do business. For instance, the PPO idea was great at the time. Get a big group of insureds and negotiate a discount for each service. Well, it was such a great idea that it sprouted a whole new industry of medical administrators. Now that every provider has twenty or thirty different prices for every proceedure they perform they have to have the support staff to service all the contracts! I had a hospital administrator tell me once that the medical administration field was graduating five times more people than actual medical providers!
How about this for reform... no more PPOs. All providers become fee for service only, and then they have to set their price. One price. They decide how much they are worth, set the price and that's it. You'll get rid of about 30% of the overhead! Just my two cents!
Wayne Lunday, LUTCF, CLU, ChFC
In Washington State we made auto liability insurance mandatory back in the '80s. At the time 10% of all drivers involved in an accident had no insurance. Almost 30 years later we have... you guessed it... 10% of all drivers involved in an accident still do not have liability insurance!!!
It won't work with medical insurance, either. Some people are simply insurance adverse. Doesn't matter what kind of you're talking about. And, some people are really off the grid. Shadow figures like criminals and druggies and illegals. And, depending on the statistics you review, there is only +/- 10% of the population un-insured for medical coverage now...
There is not a lot of doubt that we need health care reform. But, simply forcing insurance on those that really don't want it is not the answer. If congress grew some balls they could make substantial changes to the way drug companies and other providers do business. For instance, the PPO idea was great at the time. Get a big group of insureds and negotiate a discount for each service. Well, it was such a great idea that it sprouted a whole new industry of medical administrators. Now that every provider has twenty or thirty different prices for every proceedure they perform they have to have the support staff to service all the contracts! I had a hospital administrator tell me once that the medical administration field was graduating five times more people than actual medical providers!
How about this for reform... no more PPOs. All providers become fee for service only, and then they have to set their price. One price. They decide how much they are worth, set the price and that's it. You'll get rid of about 30% of the overhead! Just my two cents!
Wayne Lunday, LUTCF, CLU, ChFC
Re: insurance
I don't they will ever force that upon us. I agree with eliminating the PPO option, great idea. But the real reason I think health insurance will never be mandatory is the fact that living without is nearly a form of population control. Kind of only the strong/rich will survive type ideal. May seem like a bit of stretch, but in this decade nothing seems out of the realm of possibilities.
Todd Cook : Indianapolis, IN : Golden Rule
Re: insurance
How about this idea, no medical care for anyone that is not an American?
How about Tort Reform? How about less government intrusion into our Free Market Economy System? How is the government doing with Social Security? How about their attempt into the mortgage world? Problem is that they are not business people. They are policicians - Tell the people what they want to here then go do something different.
Why is the Chinease Trade agreement still in tact? They flood our country with bad products and kill the manufacturing sector leaving thousands on the umemployment line. Rip that up and watch Employment Rates rise. Keep these foreign trade agreements in place and watch UnEmployment Rates continue to climb.
How about Tort Reform? How about less government intrusion into our Free Market Economy System? How is the government doing with Social Security? How about their attempt into the mortgage world? Problem is that they are not business people. They are policicians - Tell the people what they want to here then go do something different.
Why is the Chinease Trade agreement still in tact? They flood our country with bad products and kill the manufacturing sector leaving thousands on the umemployment line. Rip that up and watch Employment Rates rise. Keep these foreign trade agreements in place and watch UnEmployment Rates continue to climb.
Re: insurance
where did you get your numbers from? 10%wlunday wrote:An interesting concept... forced medical insurance.
In Washington State we made auto liability insurance mandatory back in the '80s. At the time 10% of all drivers involved in an accident had no insurance. Almost 30 years later we have... you guessed it... 10% of all drivers involved in an accident still do not have liability insurance!!!
It won't work with medical insurance, either. Some people are simply insurance adverse. Doesn't matter what kind of you're talking about. And, some people are really off the grid. Shadow figures like criminals and druggies and illegals. And, depending on the statistics you review, there is only +/- 10% of the population un-insured for medical coverage now...
There is not a lot of doubt that we need health care reform. But, simply forcing insurance on those that really don't want it is not the answer. If congress grew some balls they could make substantial changes to the way drug companies and other providers do business. For instance, the PPO idea was great at the time. Get a big group of insureds and negotiate a discount for each service. Well, it was such a great idea that it sprouted a whole new industry of medical administrators. Now that every provider has twenty or thirty different prices for every proceedure they perform they have to have the support staff to service all the contracts! I had a hospital administrator tell me once that the medical administration field was graduating five times more people than actual medical providers!
How about this for reform... no more PPOs. All providers become fee for service only, and then they have to set their price. One price. They decide how much they are worth, set the price and that's it. You'll get rid of about 30% of the overhead! Just my two cents!
Wayne Lunday, LUTCF, CLU, ChFC
-
gregcw
- Insurance Journal Addict
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:29 pm
- Location: Newport Oregon
Re: insurance
His numbers were for people INVOLVED in an accident NOT people driving without insurance.Aries3883 wrote:where did you get your numbers from? 10%wlunday wrote:An interesting concept... forced medical insurance.
In Washington State we made auto liability insurance mandatory back in the '80s. At the time 10% of all drivers
involved in an accident had no insurance. Almost 30 years later we have... you guessed it... 10% of all drivers involved in an accident still do not have liability insurance!!!
Wayne Lunday, LUTCF, CLU, ChFC
Last edited by gregcw on Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gregcw
Re: insurance
Apparently you do not live in MA. The state requires mandatory health insurance and if you have none you pay a penalty when you file your state taxes.
Re: insurance
Labrys, my accident numbers refer to car insurance. The figures were from a Safeco study of over a 20-yr study, I believe. They are still pretty accurate today, in Washington State anyway. The point I was making is that even in states like MA, there will be some folks that fall through the cracks. So, no matter what is "mandated", you'll never get 100% compilance.
About five or six years ago the health industry did a study of un-insured people, and found that many were easily able to pay for a policy, but simply choose not to. This was close to 30% of the un-insured. It was a personal choice. In the industry's eyes, this amounts to being self-insured, not un-insured. Using this study they are saying that the number (at the time) of un-insureds changed from 42 milion (15% of the population) to under 30 million, which is under 10% of the actual population. Is it a fair arguement? You decide and then tell your Representatives and Senators.
The other point I was making is that we've allowed the system to become so administratively over-burdened that a very significant portion of "health-care cost" has nothing to do with actually delivering care. Picture a grocery store with 25 different prices for every product on the shelf. 25 different prices for a loaf of bread or can of beans. At one time it seemed like a good idea... but now, in retrospect, it's stupid and expensive. Changing this is just one way to save and there are lots more ways I've not shared. My ideas are not THE ANSWER, but should be a part of the overall reform. Again, just my two cents...
Wayne Lunday, LUTCF, CLU, ChFC
About five or six years ago the health industry did a study of un-insured people, and found that many were easily able to pay for a policy, but simply choose not to. This was close to 30% of the un-insured. It was a personal choice. In the industry's eyes, this amounts to being self-insured, not un-insured. Using this study they are saying that the number (at the time) of un-insureds changed from 42 milion (15% of the population) to under 30 million, which is under 10% of the actual population. Is it a fair arguement? You decide and then tell your Representatives and Senators.
The other point I was making is that we've allowed the system to become so administratively over-burdened that a very significant portion of "health-care cost" has nothing to do with actually delivering care. Picture a grocery store with 25 different prices for every product on the shelf. 25 different prices for a loaf of bread or can of beans. At one time it seemed like a good idea... but now, in retrospect, it's stupid and expensive. Changing this is just one way to save and there are lots more ways I've not shared. My ideas are not THE ANSWER, but should be a part of the overall reform. Again, just my two cents...
Wayne Lunday, LUTCF, CLU, ChFC
Re: insurance
I think it's funny that Nebraska tried to be omitted from the health care bill. After the bill passed, revisions were made that included Nebraska in bill. Auto insurance is very important, and health insurance will be handled in a different way. I think that in no way does this prevent or restrict any type of capitalism. Insurers can still be competitive and every day people can still make choices.
Re: insurance
Forcing insurance works in some cases, not so much in others. The level of uninsured drivers do not seem to drop if insurance is required as there is no way to truly enforce it. In British Columbia (Canada) your license plate renewal includes purchasing insurance. If your plates are expired so is your insurance coverage. I'd imagine that there are still ways around that - for instance, pay monthly and then stop paying. However, you won't get away with that for more than a year or two before they force you to go with a full annual payment.
It seems to me, however, that it's those folks who choose not to buy insurance who cost society the most. Joe Schmoe is driving drunk & without insurance, injures a couple of people in an accident. He's already a loser with no money and he's now made someone else pay for the injuries he has caused.
It's going to be the same with Obamacare. The same schmoe who is too lazy/cheap/poor/insurance adverse who does not want to purchase the federally required health insurance comes down with some dread disease that costs thousands to treat. Suddenly he wants the best treatment without having to pay for it so we fork out big $$ through Medicaid because he's poor.
So what's the difference? Health care "reform" won't really make any difference in levels of care. The homeless who can't afford to pay for health insurance are now branded as criminals so they won't go get health care. Right now they don't get health care because they are scared that they can't pay the bill. What's the difference?
I know, the difference is the government taking over the healthcare industry. I pay more taxes. Other than that little will change.
It seems to me, however, that it's those folks who choose not to buy insurance who cost society the most. Joe Schmoe is driving drunk & without insurance, injures a couple of people in an accident. He's already a loser with no money and he's now made someone else pay for the injuries he has caused.
It's going to be the same with Obamacare. The same schmoe who is too lazy/cheap/poor/insurance adverse who does not want to purchase the federally required health insurance comes down with some dread disease that costs thousands to treat. Suddenly he wants the best treatment without having to pay for it so we fork out big $$ through Medicaid because he's poor.
So what's the difference? Health care "reform" won't really make any difference in levels of care. The homeless who can't afford to pay for health insurance are now branded as criminals so they won't go get health care. Right now they don't get health care because they are scared that they can't pay the bill. What's the difference?
I know, the difference is the government taking over the healthcare industry. I pay more taxes. Other than that little will change.
Kevin Rasmussen AU, CIC
Re: insurance
I agree with the post above.. This "forced" health insurance certainly doesn't impede on capitalism. In a sense, I feel that the goal is to promote capitalism in this way: Avoiding medical debt will put money back into the hands of consumers, therefor stimulating the economy. After all, bankruptcy is most commonly caused by medical debt. I understand that there will still be a problem after the bill takes effect, but as Americans why not try to protect each other by offering Medical Insurance?
Re: insurance
Maybe before the next election, we should identify who is / were attorneys and not vote for them. Maybe Tort Reform could have a chance.
Maybe, without attorney interference, we can get the English system of law in place - you sue me, you lose, you cover all cost including lost wages ect...
And the Easter Bunnny is real.
Maybe, without attorney interference, we can get the English system of law in place - you sue me, you lose, you cover all cost including lost wages ect...
And the Easter Bunnny is real.
Re: insurance
Is it a problem if they make insurance mandatory for everyone? After all, each person needs it anyway. Especially health insurance and long term care.
-
racheljames
- Insurance Journal Fan
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:32 pm
Re: insurance
This is a good idea actually but I hope the government can make insurance more affordable to those who are financially challenged. Insurance products like health insurance and long term care insurance are important these days since people are living much longer and will need medical attention and assistance in their daily living activities. In my opinion, h having a long term care policy is important these days since it provides comprehensive coverage for facilities like adult day care, nursing homes and the likes. Since it is expensive, people should consider the financial rating of the company they'll choose. A good long term care insurance company should possess qualities like financial stability and can pay for claims according to http://www.ltcoptions.com/long-term-car ... companies/. This can help consumers find a carrier that can cover all their expenses once they start receiving long-term care either at home or inside a facility.