California to get a 59% increase on insurance premiums

[Elta]

I think BasketCase is not chronically ill.

Well, leaving mental health aside, I suppose you are are right.


Moderator Action: Warned for flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[eyrei]

So basically this company is poorly managed and should go under soon...I'm sure there are other insurance companies that will be happy to fill the void....

 

[El_Machinae]

There's good reason to think that conclusion is not true, and that there's actually a problem with the system.

The reason why Blue Cross's premiums have gone up is belt-tightening by those who actually cannot afford to get sick. They used to have premiums to mitigate disaster, but cannot afford them any longer. Blue Cross cannot reduce the cost of their premiums in order to recapture this pool: the prices are determined by competent actuaries. So, Blue Cross has lost a revenue pool. The only people who cannot afford to drop coverage are people who know that they already need it. So, Blue Cross's costs aren't going down, because the people who're collecting their needed benefits aren't going to drop the policy.

What's going to happen when the economy recovers? Well, people will buy new insurance. They're not going to buy it from Blue Cross, they're going to buy it from new companies whose actuaries attempt to give them cheap insurance for them. These new companies never have motive to accept Blue Cross's desperate clients, because those are the expensive clients. What this means is that new companies will start up with 'healthy clients', Blue Cross will continue to lose healthy clients to the new companies, and the costs will be increasingly born by those who are truly desperate.

So, the reason why Blue Cross will fail is not due to mismanagment, but because the actually sick people will becoming increasingly kicked to the curb and abandoned. And the new companies will continue to endeavor to make profits off of the healthy while avoiding the sick.

This is a failure of the free market and healthy insurance. It's not a success. The only aspect being served by the free market theory is agreeing that, yes, health care is an elastic product.

 

[Richard Cribb]

You think, or you know....? How bout you refrain from speculating. Though I'll give you this: I have filed claims on my health insurance a few times; I have been in the hospital. See above--I took care of it myself instead of relying on a bevy of bureaucratic knuckleheads.

I think as in I think. But I am enough of an old fox to be quite sure that it would be most unlikely that somebody with such a cavalier attitude to this issue should be in such a condition.
But judging from your answer, it seems that I was right. It seems like you most of the time is both sound and happy, at least enough to carry on your Cool Hand Luke routine frequently enough on an internet forum.
How I should interpret your last sentence is beyond my poor imagination. I myself is chronically ill - as in every day. Sort of a walking medical textbook really. I am need of a lot of treatment and tests every year. I get those quickly and without any difficult procedures on the basis of it being my right as a citizen.They are performed by highly skilled medical people. What that should have with bureaucracy I can't really understand.
I suppose you quite simply are quite clueless in regard to this.
You see, in my country people don't face personal bankrupcy due to health problem. Neither do we have to quarrel with bureacratic knuckleheads in the insurance business regarding covering of medical treatment. We get easy access to this because it is our right. Which especially the chronical ill have reasons to be happy for. After all, health care is mainly for the sick.

 

[Mise]

There are two reasons to get insurance. The first reason is disaster mitigation. You pay a bit into a common pool so that you're covered if some disaster happens, it's not devastating. Simple economics is that if you can afford to survive the disaster without insurance, then you should not get insurance. Ostensibly, you expect to pay more in premiums than you receive in compensation, or the company isn't viable. It's only because you cannot handle the consequences of disaster that you would get insurance. The second reason is being sneaky. The goal there is to pay less in premiums than you collect in benefits. This requires you to trick the actuaries.

The reason why Blue Cross's premiums have gone up is belt-tightening by those who actually cannot afford to get sick. They used to have premiums to mitigate disaster, but cannot afford them any longer. Blue Cross cannot reduce the cost of their premiums in order to recapture this pool: the prices are determined by competent actuaries. So, Blue Cross has lost a revenue pool. The only people who cannot afford to drop coverage are people who know that they already need it. So, Blue Cross's costs aren't going down, because the people who're collecting their needed benefits aren't going to drop the policy.

This is why it's so different from the public option.

What's going to happen when the economy recovers? Well, people will buy new insurance. They're not going to buy it from Blue Cross, they're going to buy it from new companies whose actuaries attempt to give them cheap insurance for them. These new companies never have motive to accept Blue Cross's desperate clients, because those are the expensive clients. What this means is that new companies will start up with 'healthy clients', Blue Cross will continue to lose healthy clients to the new companies, and the costs will be increasingly born by those who are truly desperate.

So, the reason why Blue Cross will fail is not due to mismanagment, but because the actually sick people will becoming increasingly kicked to the curb and abandoned. And the new companies will continue to endeavor to make profits off of the healthy while avoiding the sick.

This is a failure of the free market and healthy insurance. It's not a success. The only aspect being served by the free market theory is agreeing that, yes, health care is an elastic product.

Add to that: a public option is actually cheaper than the current system due to a variety of factors. So, this premium hike is hurting sick people disproportionately. And maintaining the current system is merely a way of making sure that the whole country pays more for healthcare than it needs.

This is why it's so different from the public option.

Very interesting post!! Makes a lot of sense, learnt something new here.

 

[JerichoHill]

Well, leaving mental health aside, I suppose you are are right.

This is a rather poor comment to make and is in bad taste.

 

[warpus]

An insurance company, whose purpose is to make money, still will lose millions after this rate hike. You really think the government will be as efficient? Hell no. They'll lose trillions insuring the country if we all go 'public'.

You didn't read the article?

They are raising premiums because a substantial group of people has dropped coverage.

Again: If there were more people signed up, the costs would be less.

And by the way, if your insurance provider does this.. In the U.S... what is preventing you from going to a competitor, who charges less? That's what private healthcare is supposed to be all about, right? The free market? So why is this such a big deal?

 

[Elta]

This is a rather poor comment to make and is in bad taste.

His name is BasketCase, were his name something else I would concede your point that it is in bad taste. However, his name is BasketCase and on that note to your sir I say mlehhha

 

[.Shane.]

Moderator Action: Too many personal attacks and general rudeness, so this thread gets a time out. If anyone has something useful to post, PM me no sooner than 12 hours from now and I will consider reopening. If I do reopen, I expect better behavior.

Thanks

 

[.Shane.]

Moderator Action: Got a request to reopen, so here goes. Please don't make me come back to this thread again, because if I do, I'm bringing friends. Not the nice kind.

Good luck and behave.

Embargo OFF!

 

[LAnkou]

I can see the point in BasketCase posts about the cost of the care...If each time a doctor operates, he wouldn't cost thousands of $, HMO's wouldn't have huge care cost and people wouldn't have to pay high health insurance.

But since there is free market on care too, why doesn't health insurance ask for people to get to the cheapest doctor (on a price/result basis)?

I've never been in the US so i never experienced HMO's, but when i watched Sicko from Michael Moore, i was quite amazed by several things:
-the amount of profit from HMO's (not the case of blue shield visibly)
-how health insurance companies could reject care to people (and having them dying)
-how health insurance companies could kick people out because of "pre-existing conditions" or whatever thing they would find and can use...

When i watch american shows linked to hospitals, there are always a third of a season about some people having insurance issues...I never watched that in non-american shows!

Are you american people afraid of being sick? If I were you and if what i know of your system is true, i surely would be...

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Informed Customer as a value in the free marker refers to customer being informed about competition and the details of the service or good provided, not the reasons why supply goes down and costs go up.

I see no authority on which behalf one can decide what the customer has to care about and what not. And I see many reasons why a lie about whatever aspect of a product is not helping the free market to unfold.

Furthermore businesses are expected to maximize profit, so it is not dishonest for them not to mention this obvious fact.

No, but to claim it has no influence is.

 

[Aegis]

I know that the health care reform bill made it so that the insurance carriers cannot hike annual rates any more than 10% per year, but I do not believe it kicks in until 2014. Here at the business I work at, rates have gone up by 15% for the last three years, however this year's renewal was only 5%.

But responding to this most recent increase the company said, "our individual market medical costs are rising rapidly due to higher provider prices, increased utilization, and the fact that healthier people are dropping coverage during a bad economy," the company said.

Translation: Our profit margin is not as high as we'd like it to be since we can no longer collect premiums on healthy constituents who have dropped their policy, so we're raising your rates to make up the difference.

 

[galdre]

health care should be non-profit

 

[Souron]

I see no authority on which behalf one can decide what the customer has to care about and what not. And I see many reasons why a lie about whatever aspect of a product is not helping the free market to unfold.

Businesses have a right to privacy just like individuals. It just must not interfere with the proper function of the economy. The reasoning that a business uses to make decisions does not affect the economy. Only the actual choice does.

Now in this case there are some regulations, so the companies do have to be honest to the regulatory body.

No, but to claim it has no influence is.

Yeah, but that's not the case.

 

[Aegis]

Forcing the insurance companies to compete with a government-run rival flies in the face of the free market & capitali....Oh, wait.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Businesses have a right to privacy just like individuals. It just must not interfere with the proper function of the economy. The reasoning that a business uses to make decisions does not affect the economy. Only the actual choice does.

Again, on what authority do you say so? Why should it be that way? On what grounds a consumer makes decisions does not depend on what grounds you or any other deems it to. It is a free market, remember?
That is not to say I argue against privacy, I argue against deception.

So a company has every right to shut up about many things. Like why they increase the price. But does this equal the right to lie about many things? Why the hell should it? Now I know that you don't see the company lying about the price increase, but it certainly does. I'll get to that right away.

Yeah, but that's not the case.

So if I have a basket of apples and bananas and I ate 8 apples and one banana, it is a lie to say I ate no bananas but it is not a lie to say I only ate apples? How so?

To say increase x is caused by factor y even thou factor y only accounts for a part of x (which was the supposition used by me in the first post) is just the same thing.

This may not be a lie in its purest and simplest shape but actually in a deformed shape to hide that it is a lie, but it is a lie nevertheless (unless you can explain why in my example no bananas does not equal only apples regarding its dishonest and fraudulent essence).

 

[Torgny]

Insurance companies in USA has made health care very, very expensive. Health care in USA is most expensive in the world per capita. Americans pay for example almost twice the price per capita for health care compared to Britain. In Britain health care is largely run by government, and it includes all people. If a politician misbehaves he can be sacked in the next election. But insurance companies can continue to run a system that makes health care very expensive

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Well the American people could sack the politicians for creating a system that allows such a health care mess in the first place, or as it admittedly is a little late for that sack the ones that allow it's continuance. But constructing a health care of efficiency and being a fascist hell hole are not too distant, so their caution is warranted. Right?

 

[Oerdin]

You didn't read the article?

They are raising premiums because a substantial group of people has dropped coverage.

Again: If there were more people signed up, the costs would be less.

And by the way, if your insurance provider does this.. In the U.S... what is preventing you from going to a competitor, who charges less? That's what private healthcare is supposed to be all about, right? The free market? So why is this such a big deal?

Most people get health insurance from their employer who signs a multiyear contract so individuals don't routinely shop for health insurance per say. Sure, once every couple of years the employer will go over their choices and can change but that's a slow and inefficient version of competition.

BTW you're right that the larger the insurance pool (the number of people with the insurance) the smaller the cost to each person. That's why national health insurance works so well with such substantially lower costs; there is no way to get a larger pool then every single person in a country.