With regards to cobra, I have heard of people who get sick and have to pay $800. a month for health insurance. Of course if you cannot work you probably will run out of money at some point before you die from your illness. I dont know why the premiums are not suspended when you cannot work due to illness like you get with a disability waiver of premium on life insurance, I would never sell a life policy without this rider, why cant we get it on health insurance? I will tell you why, health insurance now is set up more like term life insurance than permanent life insurance. They dont want to pay your claims. Get sick and we want you to let your policy cancel due to your inability to pay the premium when old or sick. If your young and healthy we want to cover you, but again we want your deductible to be so high as to not provide payment for your healthcare. But hey, look how much we saved you by being a part of our group on the allowed amount versus the billed amount. LOL… It is a game that is costing us a fortune. Either the doctors billing us an extordinary amount or health insurers not covering anything. LETS GET REAL COST REDUCTIONS IN THIS SYSTEM!
too bad Harry Reid hasnt learned that we just dont want this health care reform jammed down our throats. If they cant fix Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, what makes them think they have the answers for health care reform?
The exemption exists so that the law of large numbers can work. Without it, small carriers would not have access to statistical data necessary to set proper rates. I would like Ms. Slaughter to explain how limiting access to such data will increase competition. It will not – we will end up with fewer and larger providers. In the end, the consumer will be harmed.
This is about setting up an environment where a public option is necessary. Just wish she’d be honest about her motives.
Repeal as proposed by the house would eliminate “joint industry activity” which includes sharing loss data.
This is the primary reason why insurers have a legitimate anti-trust exemption. Most carriers simply cannot generate enough loss experience on their own; therefore, they must rely on industry loss data to set their pricing.
Key words are cost reductions.
1. Doctors dont need to make millions a year.
2. Lawyers should not make millions sueing doctors.
3. Drug companys should sell us the drugs for the same cost as they do Canada, France.
4. Health insurers should not be able to charge higher premiums for Cobra, so the unemployed can not afford to keep their coverage. Hello!, Sick people can not work!
5. Senate and House members should have the same coverage as anyone else in the country.
6. It is unconstitutional to make someone buy a product and yes, the constitution still has meaning in our nation.
Cobra premiums and coverages are the same as when you were employed. There is a provision that the former employer can charge up to 2% administration fee to handle the paperwork, billing to former employee, etc…
The anti-trust exemption allows insurers to combine their data through statistical reporting. Each individual insurer does not have enough loss experience to determine prices; when the industry is allowed to combine data, the law of large numbers allows carriers to set rates that are not excessive or inadequate. Other industries are not allowed to collaborate in this way when setting prices due to anti-trust laws. By removing the anti-trust exemption for insurers, they would not be allowed to combine their data anymore. This means that only the largest companies are able to continue doing business, small carriers do not have the data to know whether they are systematically over or underpricing their policies, until it’s too late. The anti-trust exemption actually INCREASES competition, and removing it would DECREASE competition. It’s not really that difficult to understand, but our elected representatives would actually have to think about it.
Bravo. Well said. However I doubt doctors will take a pay cut without kicking and screaming first. Although I agree that helping the sick and saving lives shouldn’t be about profit motivation.
So B.O. says, “move methodically and that the American people understand exactly what’s in the bill”. Hello! Ya think? Maybe if they would have taken their time to educate maybe they would have had some sort of chance of passing some sort of reform, instead why eduacte the American people, let’s just jam it down their throat since the other side can’t filibuster. Now that the tide has all of a sudden turned he wants to proceed as they should have in the beginning. Oh yeh, now that is change we can believe in. Can someone please tell me what has changed? We do not need a social worker in the white house, we need a leader. Regardless of party, just give give us a leader, someone we can believe in.
Holy eloguence! Pat Beranger should send that comment directly to the House of Representatives; PCIAA members have been urging congress to drop this inane idea, which supposedly was to punish health insurers for not getting on the band wagon….dammit, I am at the point where I want something done about healthcare; I don’t see how this was supposed to help that legislation at all…and Ms. Slaughter should know better…wonder who is buying her lunch these days?
I agree with that; seems to me that the system got broken when the “BLUES” accrued surpluses…how does a quasi-government run insurance company get a surplus, if not by overcharging or underpaying? they are supposed to be non-profit public entities. If they priced coverage to actual cost, they could pass that savings along or increase their market share, thereby “using” the surplus, as it was intended, to increase capacity. Don’t give me that crap about needing funds for a “rainy day”, because any and all catastrophes present the same challenge, regardless of how much cash they may have in surplus, OR NOT. The whole thing stinks, imagine asking a dying man to pay for the very cure he needs and withholding it for non-payment? but that is what is going on when they deny claims for long tern illness or pre-existing conditions…don’t call it health “care”, they don’t CARE at all…it all about money, honey!
It would appear that Pelosi et al are motivated by hubris to punish anyone not agreeing with their vision of health system social engineering. That puts health insurance companies at the top of the Enemy List and that’s why she wants to remove them from state regulatory authority.
“Use Senate reconciliation and expand Medicare via the Senate’s buy-in provisions. The CBO has already signed off on this as a means of saving money.
More importantly, if more Americans can do a buy-in with Medicare, it creates more cost control (because there’s a genuine “public option” competitor).
It also helps to solve the problems of pre-existing conditions, because Medicare does not deny coverage on this basis.
Allowing a Medicare buy-in to Americans under 65 would give people a genuine alternative to private insurance and thereby render the pre-existing question moot.
It would also lower Medicare costs by expanding the risk pool of patients (the great bulk of medical expenses are accounted for by a small number of people, mostly the elderly, requiring very expensive treatment).
And it would substantially enhance the global competitiveness of American corporations. After all, in what other country in the world is health care a marginal cost of production for business?” – Roosevelt Institute Marshall Auerback
With regards to cobra, I have heard of people who get sick and have to pay $800. a month for health insurance. Of course if you cannot work you probably will run out of money at some point before you die from your illness. I dont know why the premiums are not suspended when you cannot work due to illness like you get with a disability waiver of premium on life insurance, I would never sell a life policy without this rider, why cant we get it on health insurance? I will tell you why, health insurance now is set up more like term life insurance than permanent life insurance. They dont want to pay your claims. Get sick and we want you to let your policy cancel due to your inability to pay the premium when old or sick. If your young and healthy we want to cover you, but again we want your deductible to be so high as to not provide payment for your healthcare. But hey, look how much we saved you by being a part of our group on the allowed amount versus the billed amount. LOL… It is a game that is costing us a fortune. Either the doctors billing us an extordinary amount or health insurers not covering anything. LETS GET REAL COST REDUCTIONS IN THIS SYSTEM!
too bad Harry Reid hasnt learned that we just dont want this health care reform jammed down our throats. If they cant fix Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, what makes them think they have the answers for health care reform?
The exemption exists so that the law of large numbers can work. Without it, small carriers would not have access to statistical data necessary to set proper rates. I would like Ms. Slaughter to explain how limiting access to such data will increase competition. It will not – we will end up with fewer and larger providers. In the end, the consumer will be harmed.
This is about setting up an environment where a public option is necessary. Just wish she’d be honest about her motives.
What Pat said is exactly right. All this would do is make it difficult for small insurers to compete.
Not sure I understand why eliminating the exemption will prevent smaller insurers from accessing statistical data. Can someone explain?
Repeal as proposed by the house would eliminate “joint industry activity” which includes sharing loss data.
This is the primary reason why insurers have a legitimate anti-trust exemption. Most carriers simply cannot generate enough loss experience on their own; therefore, they must rely on industry loss data to set their pricing.
Key words are cost reductions.
1. Doctors dont need to make millions a year.
2. Lawyers should not make millions sueing doctors.
3. Drug companys should sell us the drugs for the same cost as they do Canada, France.
4. Health insurers should not be able to charge higher premiums for Cobra, so the unemployed can not afford to keep their coverage. Hello!, Sick people can not work!
5. Senate and House members should have the same coverage as anyone else in the country.
6. It is unconstitutional to make someone buy a product and yes, the constitution still has meaning in our nation.
7. Allow carriers to sell policies across state lines.
Cobra premiums and coverages are the same as when you were employed. There is a provision that the former employer can charge up to 2% administration fee to handle the paperwork, billing to former employee, etc…
The anti-trust exemption allows insurers to combine their data through statistical reporting. Each individual insurer does not have enough loss experience to determine prices; when the industry is allowed to combine data, the law of large numbers allows carriers to set rates that are not excessive or inadequate. Other industries are not allowed to collaborate in this way when setting prices due to anti-trust laws. By removing the anti-trust exemption for insurers, they would not be allowed to combine their data anymore. This means that only the largest companies are able to continue doing business, small carriers do not have the data to know whether they are systematically over or underpricing their policies, until it’s too late. The anti-trust exemption actually INCREASES competition, and removing it would DECREASE competition. It’s not really that difficult to understand, but our elected representatives would actually have to think about it.
Bravo. Well said. However I doubt doctors will take a pay cut without kicking and screaming first. Although I agree that helping the sick and saving lives shouldn’t be about profit motivation.
The House-passed bill, H.R. 3962, Section 262 includes the following:
“‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to–
‘(A) collecting, compiling, classifying, or disseminating historical loss data;
‘(B) determining a loss development factor applicable to historical loss data; or
‘(C) performing actuarial services if doing so does not involve a restraint of trade.”
Does this not let small insurers do what they need to do?
So B.O. says, “move methodically and that the American people understand exactly what’s in the bill”. Hello! Ya think? Maybe if they would have taken their time to educate maybe they would have had some sort of chance of passing some sort of reform, instead why eduacte the American people, let’s just jam it down their throat since the other side can’t filibuster. Now that the tide has all of a sudden turned he wants to proceed as they should have in the beginning. Oh yeh, now that is change we can believe in. Can someone please tell me what has changed? We do not need a social worker in the white house, we need a leader. Regardless of party, just give give us a leader, someone we can believe in.
http://www.actuary.org/pdf/casualty/ahcaa_nov09.pdf
Holy eloguence! Pat Beranger should send that comment directly to the House of Representatives; PCIAA members have been urging congress to drop this inane idea, which supposedly was to punish health insurers for not getting on the band wagon….dammit, I am at the point where I want something done about healthcare; I don’t see how this was supposed to help that legislation at all…and Ms. Slaughter should know better…wonder who is buying her lunch these days?
I agree with that; seems to me that the system got broken when the “BLUES” accrued surpluses…how does a quasi-government run insurance company get a surplus, if not by overcharging or underpaying? they are supposed to be non-profit public entities. If they priced coverage to actual cost, they could pass that savings along or increase their market share, thereby “using” the surplus, as it was intended, to increase capacity. Don’t give me that crap about needing funds for a “rainy day”, because any and all catastrophes present the same challenge, regardless of how much cash they may have in surplus, OR NOT. The whole thing stinks, imagine asking a dying man to pay for the very cure he needs and withholding it for non-payment? but that is what is going on when they deny claims for long tern illness or pre-existing conditions…don’t call it health “care”, they don’t CARE at all…it all about money, honey!
It would appear that Pelosi et al are motivated by hubris to punish anyone not agreeing with their vision of health system social engineering. That puts health insurance companies at the top of the Enemy List and that’s why she wants to remove them from state regulatory authority.
“Use Senate reconciliation and expand Medicare via the Senate’s buy-in provisions. The CBO has already signed off on this as a means of saving money.
More importantly, if more Americans can do a buy-in with Medicare, it creates more cost control (because there’s a genuine “public option” competitor).
It also helps to solve the problems of pre-existing conditions, because Medicare does not deny coverage on this basis.
Allowing a Medicare buy-in to Americans under 65 would give people a genuine alternative to private insurance and thereby render the pre-existing question moot.
It would also lower Medicare costs by expanding the risk pool of patients (the great bulk of medical expenses are accounted for by a small number of people, mostly the elderly, requiring very expensive treatment).
And it would substantially enhance the global competitiveness of American corporations. After all, in what other country in the world is health care a marginal cost of production for business?” – Roosevelt Institute Marshall Auerback