I had previously stayed out of these forums, as I heard about all the personal attacks that occur....
I thought I had found a thread that had intelligent discussion, void of people calling others names....
I guess I was mistaken.
o"s speech tonite
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
I had previously stayed out of these forums, as I heard about all the personal attacks that occur....
I thought I had found a thread that had intelligent discussion, void of people calling others names....
I guess I was mistaken.
Mags,
Most of your points are correct.The only thing is the Government get more and the public get screwed.Why should the average US citizen get lower wages for benefits,when most good companies could afford to adjust for cost of living,but dont.
As far as your comment about Government employers??Im lost on that one?They settle for lower wages for better benefits??No they dont:
President Obama's call last year for "shared sacrifice" doesn't extend to federal employees, at least based on the details of his administration's 2010 budget released this week.
At a time when the official unemployment rate is nearing double digits, and 6.35 million people are receiving unemployment benefits, the U.S. government is on a hiring binge.
Executive branch employment ? 1.98 million in 2009, excluding the Postal Service and the Defense Department ? is set to increase by 15.6 percent for the 2010 fiscal year. Most of that is thanks to the Census Bureau hiring 102,000 temporary workers, but not counting them still yields a net increase of 2 percent in one year.
There's little belt-tightening in evidence in Washington, D.C.: Counting benefits, the average pay per federal worker will leap from $72,800 in 2008 to $75,419 next year.
Meanwhile, according to Forbes' layoff tracker, there have been 558,087 layoffs since November 2008 at large public companies; even local school districts aren't immune. That's just a sliver of the total unemployed, which government data estimate to be 8.6 percent of the workforce, or an alternate method of reckoning that counts discouraged workers puts at 20 percent.
Some of the Feds' hiring increases have been stunning. If you look at the four-year period from 2006 to 2010, the number of Homeland Security employees has grown by 22 percent, the Justice Department has increased by 15 percent, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can claim 25 percent more employees. (These figures assume that Congress adopts Mr. Obama's 2010 budget without significant changes.)
A 39-page "dimensions" document accompanying the White House's 1,380-page appendix offers justifications for each new hire. Homeland Security says its new employees will "increase border security." The Agency for International Development wants to improve "the management and stewardship of foreign assistance programs." The Smithsonian Institution wants "additional security guards." And so on.
The final evidence that it's a good time to have a .gov e-mail address? Civilian government employees are set to enjoy a 2 percent raise. Not only are private sector workers are struggling to keep their jobs, but their earnings are stagnating and pay cuts are no longer uncommon.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Eddie, I'm not defending the insurance companies but the things you said about them could be said about lawyers as well. There are bad apples in every industry and for you to generalize isn't fair just like it isn't fair for people to say "all" lawyers are (you plug in what people say here).
Also, you said something about being required to carry auto insurance. Aren't we going to be REQUIRED to carry insurance under O's plan or face fines of up to 3800 per year? What's the difference?
You always one up me. :142smilie Eddie help me out with something. My girl is pretty intelligent when it comes to school work. Her father is pretty close to brilliant. They both have absolutely no street smarts or maybe common sense is a better word. How can this be? You ever come across people who are really intelligent that fall for this neo-con logic? My girls father thinks his drive is what makes him smarter then most and i told him maybe he was blessed with a better memory then most. He said hog wash. I told him to let me see him run a 4.4 40. He said what do you mean Sponge. I said i could train every day of my life and im not gonna run a 4.4 40 and neither is his ass so shut the fuck up with this shit how everyone is equally as smart.
Sorry Muff--not used to you having coherant question.
1st lets get rid of some of the smoke Gumby been blowin up peoples ass while accusing
others of it..
Insurance is portable everywhere in U.S. -If you go from one group to another and don't go over 62 days without coverage--you have credit for your pre ex from prior coverage.
If you get hired and company has group coverage you can not be turned down regardless of your health.
Now individual plans are diff story however if you have an individual plan and develop condition I have never seen or written a plan that they can cancel--most are guaranteed renewable or conditionally renewable--the later means they can cancel plan only if they cancel all plans like it in state.
now to be fair--while they can't cancel they can make the premium unafforadble.
Now to answer your question on what I'd do to bring cost down. Thats been question every admin has had and no answers yet--
The 1st I do is tied to tort reform--and forcing medical and insurance fields to pass savings to consumer and not pad their own pockets.
Do I think public should not have right to compensation for malpractice-of course not--but arbitration board with salaried lawyers and physician on boards would save tons--over 50% going into pockets of others not to mention savings on cost of frivolous suits.
Next I'd like to see small groups being able to join large pools across state lines.You'd have much more competition and small groups with major claim would have standard increase vs claim ratio increase.
Another big issue I've spoke of before that dfinately needs to be addressed is those coming off a group need to be guaraneed
coverage on an individual basis. I experience this problem every month and is next to larceny in my view.
A:nsured retires and comes off group--after 18 months of cobra insurance company refuses to cover him or
B: group is termed for lets say non payment--they can pick and choose who they insure and cobra doesnot apply.
both situations are bad-but fortunately in Ky we have guaranteed issue pool that has to take you--many times their premium is less than regular insurance with rated premium.
I would make this guaranteed issue pool--country wide which would also lower cost.
In a nutshell--I would like to see some of these savings we been promised actually implemented and see if they work--then maybe talk about changing things--
--as it is I have to go on history--and that is our gov plans medicare/medicade have 20 years of experience and they are literally bankrupting us--it will take more than someone promising they can start new bigger plan from scratch and all the probs we had with existing plans will magcally disappear. Now if someone can show me a gov program on anything that hasn't ran on deficits--I'll reconsider.
I believe individuals in this situation are HIPAA eligibiles, and have the right to obtain a policy on a guaranteed issue basis within 60 days of COBRA expiration.
Sure it is cheaper for the high risk pool in KY. Funding is not limited to member premiums, but rather are a combination of those premiums, tobacco settlement receipts, annual assessments on insurers and stop loss carriers and federal grant funds.
In 2007 (the last full year I have data), only 43% of the costs came from member premiums. 31% came from the tobacco settlement - and that fund will run dry, as it was a one time award.
In other words, it is not nearly self supporting based on member premiums - it needs to be subsidized heavily to stay solvent. So to do this nationwide would also require heavy subsidies.
Currently premiums are set at 130% of the commerical insurance rate - which you are correct in that I'm sure this is much less than the individuals would be offered in the commercial marketplace. But as you can see from above, those 130% premiums are well below where they would need to be for this population.
Thanks Mags--
I learned something new today on your 2nd issue that I was not aware of (funding on GI pool/ky) that certainly sheds new light on subject.
--and speaking of sheding new light on subject it would have been nice the otherday after O finished his rant on deceptions from those opposing healthcare--if they could have put the truth as subtitles under his insurance examples/deceptions-
I think you'll like this article by Scott Harrington for article in WSJ-
By SCOTT HARRINGTON
In his speech to Congress last week, President Barack Obama attempted to sell a reform agenda by demonizing the private health-insurance industry, which many people love to hate. He opened the attack by asserting: "More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day."
Clearly, this should never happen to anyone who is in good standing with his insurance company and has abided by the terms of the policy. But the president's examples of people "dropped" by their insurance companies involve the rescission of policies based on misrepresentation or concealment of information in applications for coverage. Private health insurance cannot function if people buy insurance only after they become seriously ill, or if they knowingly conceal health conditions that might affect their policy.
Traditional practice, governed by decades of common law, statute and regulation is for insurers to rely in underwriting and pricing on the truthfulness of the information provided by applicants about their health, without conducting a costly investigation of each applicant's health history. Instead, companies engage in a certain degree of ex post auditing?conducting more detailed and costly reviews of a subset of applications following policy issue?including when expensive treatment is sought soon after a policy is issued.
This practice offers substantial cost savings and lower premiums compared to trying to verify every application before issuing a policy, or simply paying all claims, regardless of the accuracy and completeness of the applicant's disclosure. Some states restrict insurer rescission rights to instances where the misrepresented or concealed information is directly related to the illness that produced the claim. Most states do not.
To highlight abusive practices, Mr. Obama referred to an Illinois man who "lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about." The president continued: "They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."
Although the president has used this example previously, his conclusion is contradicted by the transcript of a June 16 hearing on industry practices before the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigation of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The deceased's sister testified that the insurer reinstated her brother's coverage following intervention by the Illinois Attorney General's Office. She testified that her brother received a prescribed stem-cell transplant within the desired three- to four-week "window of opportunity" from "one of the most renowned doctors in the whole world on the specific routine," that the procedure "was extremely successful," and that "it extended his life nearly three and a half years."
The president's second example was a Texas woman "about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne." He said that "By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size."
The woman's testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist's chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application.
These two cases are presumably among the most egregious identified by Congressional staffers' analysis of 116,000 pages of documents from three large health insurers, which identified a total of about 20,000 rescissions from millions of policies issued by the insurers over a five-year period. Company representatives testified that less than one half of one percent of policies were rescinded (less than 0.1% for one of the companies).
If existing laws and litigation governing rescission are inadequate, there clearly are a variety of ways that the states or federal government could target abuses without adopting the president's agenda for federal control of health insurance, or the creation of a government health insurer.
Later in his speech, the president used Alabama to buttress his call for a government insurer to enhance competition in health insurance. He asserted that 90% of the Alabama health-insurance market is controlled by one insurer, and that high market concentration "makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly?by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates."
In fact, the Birmingham News reported immediately following the speech that the state's largest health insurer, the nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, has about a 75% market share. A representative of the company indicated that its "profit" averaged only 0.6% of premiums the past decade, and that its administrative expense ratio is 7% of premiums, the fourth lowest among 39 Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans nationwide.
Similarly, a Dec. 31, 2007, report by the Alabama Department of Insurance indicates that the insurer's ratio of medical-claim costs to premiums for the year was 92%, with an administrative expense ratio (including claims settlement expenses) of 7.5%. Its net income, including investment income, was equivalent to 2% of premiums in that year.
In addition to these consumer friendly numbers, a survey in Consumer Reports this month reported that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama ranked second nationally in customer satisfaction among 41 preferred provider organization health plans. The insurer's apparent efficiency may explain its dominance, as opposed to a lack of competition?especially since there are no obvious barriers to entry or expansion in Alabama faced by large national health insurers such as United Healthcare and Aetna.
Responsible reform requires careful analysis of the underlying causes of problems in health insurance and informed debate over the benefits and costs of targeted remedies. The president's continued demonization of private health insurance in pursuit of his broad agenda of government expansion is inconsistent with that objective.
Mr. Harrington is professor of health-care management and insurance and risk management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
I learned something new today on your 2nd issue that I was not aware of (funding on GI pool/ky) that certainly sheds new light on subject.
--and speaking of sheding new light on subject it would have been nice the otherday after O finished his rant on deceptions from those opposing healthcare--if they could have put the truth as subtitles under his insurance examples/deceptions-
I think you'll like this article by Scott Harrington for article in WSJ-
By SCOTT HARRINGTON
In his speech to Congress last week, President Barack Obama attempted to sell a reform agenda by demonizing the private health-insurance industry, which many people love to hate. He opened the attack by asserting: "More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day."
Clearly, this should never happen to anyone who is in good standing with his insurance company and has abided by the terms of the policy. But the president's examples of people "dropped" by their insurance companies involve the rescission of policies based on misrepresentation or concealment of information in applications for coverage. Private health insurance cannot function if people buy insurance only after they become seriously ill, or if they knowingly conceal health conditions that might affect their policy.
Traditional practice, governed by decades of common law, statute and regulation is for insurers to rely in underwriting and pricing on the truthfulness of the information provided by applicants about their health, without conducting a costly investigation of each applicant's health history. Instead, companies engage in a certain degree of ex post auditing?conducting more detailed and costly reviews of a subset of applications following policy issue?including when expensive treatment is sought soon after a policy is issued.
This practice offers substantial cost savings and lower premiums compared to trying to verify every application before issuing a policy, or simply paying all claims, regardless of the accuracy and completeness of the applicant's disclosure. Some states restrict insurer rescission rights to instances where the misrepresented or concealed information is directly related to the illness that produced the claim. Most states do not.
To highlight abusive practices, Mr. Obama referred to an Illinois man who "lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about." The president continued: "They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."
Although the president has used this example previously, his conclusion is contradicted by the transcript of a June 16 hearing on industry practices before the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigation of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The deceased's sister testified that the insurer reinstated her brother's coverage following intervention by the Illinois Attorney General's Office. She testified that her brother received a prescribed stem-cell transplant within the desired three- to four-week "window of opportunity" from "one of the most renowned doctors in the whole world on the specific routine," that the procedure "was extremely successful," and that "it extended his life nearly three and a half years."
The president's second example was a Texas woman "about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne." He said that "By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size."
The woman's testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist's chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application.
These two cases are presumably among the most egregious identified by Congressional staffers' analysis of 116,000 pages of documents from three large health insurers, which identified a total of about 20,000 rescissions from millions of policies issued by the insurers over a five-year period. Company representatives testified that less than one half of one percent of policies were rescinded (less than 0.1% for one of the companies).
If existing laws and litigation governing rescission are inadequate, there clearly are a variety of ways that the states or federal government could target abuses without adopting the president's agenda for federal control of health insurance, or the creation of a government health insurer.
Later in his speech, the president used Alabama to buttress his call for a government insurer to enhance competition in health insurance. He asserted that 90% of the Alabama health-insurance market is controlled by one insurer, and that high market concentration "makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly?by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates."
In fact, the Birmingham News reported immediately following the speech that the state's largest health insurer, the nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, has about a 75% market share. A representative of the company indicated that its "profit" averaged only 0.6% of premiums the past decade, and that its administrative expense ratio is 7% of premiums, the fourth lowest among 39 Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans nationwide.
Similarly, a Dec. 31, 2007, report by the Alabama Department of Insurance indicates that the insurer's ratio of medical-claim costs to premiums for the year was 92%, with an administrative expense ratio (including claims settlement expenses) of 7.5%. Its net income, including investment income, was equivalent to 2% of premiums in that year.
In addition to these consumer friendly numbers, a survey in Consumer Reports this month reported that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama ranked second nationally in customer satisfaction among 41 preferred provider organization health plans. The insurer's apparent efficiency may explain its dominance, as opposed to a lack of competition?especially since there are no obvious barriers to entry or expansion in Alabama faced by large national health insurers such as United Healthcare and Aetna.
Responsible reform requires careful analysis of the underlying causes of problems in health insurance and informed debate over the benefits and costs of targeted remedies. The president's continued demonization of private health insurance in pursuit of his broad agenda of government expansion is inconsistent with that objective.
Mr. Harrington is professor of health-care management and insurance and risk management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
DTB:
That is a very good article, and most of those facts are well known to the folks that actually understand the industry and the risks of making dramatic change.
The media is still giving Obama a free pass, and pretty much let him say whatever they want - even if they are widely exaggerated statements.
It is most frustrating to see him use the presidency as a pulpit to push his pet project, without equal time (and equal avenues to discuss) ideas that are much better than what Obama wants.
People forget about the main principle of his reform (and pretty much of every piece of legislation he pushes) - it is ALL about redistribution of income. That's what this plan will do. He keeps talking about lowering cost, but the plain truth is anyone with good coverage today and that makes a reasonable amount of money ($100K +) very likely will pay more under the new system. WHY? Because he will cost shift to the high income earners to pay for those who can't afford coverage. Some may say that is fair, some will not.
The biggest change I see is that in the past we used to reward those who took care of themselves and had lower health care costs via lower rates. That won't matter anymore - now the amount you pay will not be based on how well you take care of yourself, but rather, on how much you make.
All part of the "Great Redistributor's" plan....
I may be wrong and definitely ignorant on the intricacies of how insurance companies manage health coverage but...
It sure appears to me that it's not how well you take care of yourself but instead how many other people are in your pool. Blanket bombing meets blanket coverage. I believe this is so the insurance company can redistribute the premiums.
99 employees help cover the cost of the sick guy down in accounting while the doc has yet to find anything wrong in their colons.
Am I wrong here? (asked out of ignorance, not rhetorical)
One of my forum favorites (sarcastic) said that the American dream is to get a job with a big corporation so you don't have to worry about insurance. Layinwood doesn't have that luxury, he runs his own shop. My wife and I got to experience the joy of COBRA (sarcastic) and now run our accounting business (no employees) and luckily hopped on to a self employed pool that was offered locally. That cut our premium in half from what we paid with Cobra but still costs more than our last car payment. Our rates have increased continuously without a single claim. I'm 99% sure that my premium payment is being redistributed. I can live with that but let's not pretend that the government's agenda is any different than what we have now.
We are a society of hypocrites and I'm as guilty as anyone, but damnit, (meant to imply emphasis) health care is not a luxury nor is it a byproduct of capitalism. The rant can wait.
One other ignorant question I have. Why is there not a bigger drop in premium when increasing the deductible? And is it vice versa? Example ? we pay 600ish with a $1000 deductible and want to increase the deductible to $2500. The net reduction was about $24 off the premium. On the flip side, can I do away with my deductible and pay an extra $10 a month in premium?
It sure appears to me that it's not how well you take care of yourself but instead how many other people are in your pool. Blanket bombing meets blanket coverage. I believe this is so the insurance company can redistribute the premiums.
99 employees help cover the cost of the sick guy down in accounting while the doc has yet to find anything wrong in their colons.
Am I wrong here? (asked out of ignorance, not rhetorical)
One of my forum favorites (sarcastic) said that the American dream is to get a job with a big corporation so you don't have to worry about insurance. Layinwood doesn't have that luxury, he runs his own shop. My wife and I got to experience the joy of COBRA (sarcastic) and now run our accounting business (no employees) and luckily hopped on to a self employed pool that was offered locally. That cut our premium in half from what we paid with Cobra but still costs more than our last car payment. Our rates have increased continuously without a single claim. I'm 99% sure that my premium payment is being redistributed. I can live with that but let's not pretend that the government's agenda is any different than what we have now.
We are a society of hypocrites and I'm as guilty as anyone, but damnit, (meant to imply emphasis) health care is not a luxury nor is it a byproduct of capitalism. The rant can wait.
One other ignorant question I have. Why is there not a bigger drop in premium when increasing the deductible? And is it vice versa? Example ? we pay 600ish with a $1000 deductible and want to increase the deductible to $2500. The net reduction was about $24 off the premium. On the flip side, can I do away with my deductible and pay an extra $10 a month in premium?
Yes, this is gonna be fun...
Exactly. The whole idea of insurance is to spread risk among a large number of people, so nobody is "wiped out" due to an uplanned and catastrophic event. People are "pooled" with a like group of people. Speaking of the individual marketplace (which I know most about), everyone is subject to underwrtiing, so people don't wait until they get sick to buy coverage. Like any insurance (life/auto/home), you must have the insurance before the catastrophic event, not wait until it occurs and THEN buy the insurance. Kinda like buying home insurance AFTER your house burns down. Obviously that doesn't work.
Thanks Mags for the response. True asset to the forum.
It did help, your concise writing style is a breath of fresh air. Philosophically, I still have differences but I have a better understanding of how things work.
It did help, your concise writing style is a breath of fresh air. Philosophically, I still have differences but I have a better understanding of how things work.
You are welcome.
Obviously not everyone agrees on this issue, but I don't mind sharing knowledge that I have - whether it helps or not is up to each individual I guess....
Josh your price diff on diff between 1000 and 2500 sure does seem out of kelter--most the time the diff between by taking the higher will save money over the 1,500 diff of deductibles.
Give me a couple of ages and I will run quote on them tomorrow when I'm at office and put up quote here.
--------------------------------------
in the mean time a little on "the lie' that congress has been in uproar over today.
Reason Wilson said lie--while the provision said no illegals--there was no way to enforce--kinda like illegals being provised sacntuary cities.
--and when conservatives called them on it prior to O's speech to put in amendment that would require proof of citizensship-- O and crew refused--alla ACORN/Dems no ID voting stance.
--so we each can make or own mind up on whether O was lying or not when he said
" health care would not apply to those who are here illegally."
Give me a couple of ages and I will run quote on them tomorrow when I'm at office and put up quote here.
--------------------------------------
in the mean time a little on "the lie' that congress has been in uproar over today.
Reason Wilson said lie--while the provision said no illegals--there was no way to enforce--kinda like illegals being provised sacntuary cities.
--and when conservatives called them on it prior to O's speech to put in amendment that would require proof of citizensship-- O and crew refused--alla ACORN/Dems no ID voting stance.
--so we each can make or own mind up on whether O was lying or not when he said
" health care would not apply to those who are here illegally."
rates for couple age 49 at various deductibles.
Used middle of the the road "standard rating.
</TR><TR><TH>
Wisconsin rates higher than Ky for basically same plan
</TR><TR><TH>
Used middle of the the road "standard rating.
[FONT=Arial,Verdana,Tahoma]Prepared on: 9/16/2009 Effective Date: 9/16/2009 [/FONT]
<TABLE border=4 width="90%" align=center><TBODY><TR align=middle><TD colSpan=8>Kentucky Individual Quote</TD></TR><TR><TH colSpan=7>Monthly Payment Option</TH></TR><TR align=middle><TH colSpan=7>Warren County</TH></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Medical Product</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Premier 80 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Premier 80 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Premier 80 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Premier 80 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Premier 80 </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Medical Deductible</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$250 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$500 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$1,000 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$1,500 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$2,500 </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Rx</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Comprehensive Drug Plan</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Comprehensive Drug Plan</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Comprehensive Drug Plan</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Comprehensive Drug Plan</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Comprehensive Drug Plan</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Maternity</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Mental Health</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD></TR><TR><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Medical Rate</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$572.97</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$541.44</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$487.92</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$428.45</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$364.53</TD></TR><TR><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Calculated Risk Factor</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>0.688 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>0.688 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>0.688 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>0.688 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>0.688 </TD></TR><TR align=middle><TD colSpan=7>(Calculated Risk Factor may vary by deductible options) </TD></TR>
</TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=4 width="90%" align=center><TBODY><TR><TH></TH><TH>Name
</TH><TH>Rating Tier
</TH><TH>Factor
</TH><TH>Gender
</TH><TH>Age
</TH><TH>Dental
</TH><TH>Life
</TH></TR><TR><TH>Applicant
</TH><TD>joe</TD><TD align=middle>Standard One</TD><TD align=middle>0.688</TD><TD align=middle>M</TD><TD align=middle>49</TD><TD align=middle>No</TD><TD align=middle>No</TD> </TR><TR><TH>
Spouse
</TH><TD>mary</TD><TD align=middle>Standard One</TD><TD align=middle>0.688</TD><TD align=middle>F</TD><TD align=middle>49</TD><TD align=middle>No</TD><TD align=middle>No</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Wisconsin rates higher than Ky for basically same plan
[FONT=Arial,Verdana,Tahoma]Prepared on: 9/16/2009 Effective Date: 9/16/2009 [/FONT]
<TABLE border=4 width="80%" align=center><TBODY><TR align=middle><TD colSpan=8>Wisconsin Individual Quote</TD></TR><TR><TH colSpan=7>Monthly Payment Option</TH></TR><TR align=middle><TH colSpan=7>Green County</TH></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Medical Product</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Premier 80 (PPO) </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Premier 80 (PPO) </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Premier 80 (PPO) </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Premier 80 (PPO) </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Medical Deductible</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$500 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$1,000 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$1,500 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$2,500 </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Rx</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Comprehensive Drug Plan</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Comprehensive Drug Plan</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Comprehensive Drug Plan</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Comprehensive Drug Plan</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Maternity</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD></TR><TR><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Medical Rate</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$787.56</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$734.79</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$643.17</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$557.47</TD></TR><TR><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Calculated Risk Factor</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>0.688 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>0.688 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>0.688 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>0.688 </TD></TR><TR align=middle><TD colSpan=7>(Calculated Risk Factor may vary by deductible options) </TD></TR>
</TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=4 width="90%" align=center><TBODY><TR><TH></TH><TH>Name
</TH><TH>Rating Tier
</TH><TH>Factor
</TH><TH>Gender
</TH><TH>Age
</TH><TH>Dental
</TH><TH>Life
</TH></TR><TR><TH>Applicant
</TH><TD>Joe</TD><TD align=middle>Standard One</TD><TD align=middle>0.688</TD><TD align=middle>M</TD><TD align=middle>49</TD><TD align=middle>No</TD><TD align=middle>No</TD> </TR><TR><TH>
Spouse
</TH><TD>mary</TD><TD align=middle>Standard One</TD><TD align=middle>0.688</TD><TD align=middle>F</TD><TD align=middle>49</TD><TD align=middle>No</TD><TD align=middle>No</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
33 (m) and 31.5 (f) (running joke)
Agree that it was a bullshit quote but again they dont care about my coverage, they care about my money.
What's my play back at them?
Agree that it was a bullshit quote but again they dont care about my coverage, they care about my money.
What's my play back at them?
[FONT=Arial,Verdana,Tahoma]Prepared on: 9/16/2009 Effective Date: 9/16/2009 [/FONT]
<TABLE border=4 width="90%" align=center><TBODY><TR align=middle><TD colSpan=8>Kentucky Individual Quote</TD></TR><TR><TH colSpan=7>Monthly Payment Option</TH></TR><TR align=middle><TH colSpan=7>Warren County</TH></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Medical Product</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Premier 80 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Premier 80 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Premier 80 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Premier 80 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Premier 80 </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Medical Deductible</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$250 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$500 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$1,000 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$1,500 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$2,500 </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Rx</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Comprehensive Drug Plan</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Comprehensive Drug Plan</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Comprehensive Drug Plan</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Comprehensive Drug Plan</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>Comprehensive Drug Plan</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Maternity</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Mental Health</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>No </TD></TR><TR><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Medical Rate</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$352.33</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$320.21</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$273.51</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$236.54</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>$201.34</TD></TR><TR><TH bgColor=#cccccc vAlign=center align=middle>Calculated Risk Factor</TH><TD vAlign=center align=middle>0.688 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>0.688 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>0.688 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>0.688 </TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle>0.688 </TD></TR><TR align=middle><TD colSpan=7>(Calculated Risk Factor may vary by deductible options) </TD></TR>
</TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=4 width="90%" align=center><TBODY><TR><TH></TH><TH>Name
</TH><TH>Rating Tier
</TH><TH>Factor
</TH><TH>Gender
</TH><TH>Age
</TH><TH>Dental
</TH><TH>Life
</TH></TR><TR><TH>Applicant</TH><TD>Joe</TD><TD align=middle>Standard One</TD><TD align=middle>0.688</TD><TD align=middle>M</TD><TD align=middle>33</TD><TD align=middle>No</TD><TD align=middle>No</TD>
</TR><TR><TH>Spouse
</TH><TD>Jane</TD><TD align=middle>Standard One</TD><TD align=middle>0.688</TD><TD align=middle>F</TD><TD align=middle>32</TD><TD align=middle>No</TD><TD align=middle>No</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Most companies give discounts on new business and while you'd think they give you break for being with them a long time that is not the case.
Most co have quarterly trends that increase premium. Something I would look at is getting quote/coverage from another company and going back to co you favor the following year--most times rates will be less than what you were paying with them previous year.
However sometimes the best intentions can bite you. I was with Anthem BC BS for bout 14 years and used this tactic to reduce my rate. In the 6 months I was with different carrier BC BS gave rebates to all their insureds per premiums paid/length of coverage. Insurds had cash or stock option. To make long story short cost me about a $2,800 refund for my 6 month absence.
Last edited:
Mags,
You?ve added a lot of good information to this thread but I?ve gotta disagree with some of your statements and/or assumptions. Your statements appear to defend the industry you worked in and that?s understandable; however, many Americans like myself believe that single-payer ?Medicare-for-All? healthcare in America would be less objectionable than the runaway for-profit healthcare system we have today.
1. You argued that ?the government pays substantially less to Medicare/Medicaid providers than those providers charge the insurance companies? because the government can demand they do so.?
IMO, that?s precisely why single-payer was the only chance we had to significantly reduce healthcare costs in this country. Unfortunately, Obama issued the insurance industry a stay of execution months ago by giving up on single-payer and, IMO the public option?s on life support as well.
2. You argued that with a public option, ?fewer doctors would go into the field, since payment levels would drop significantly overall and we?d ultimately face a doctor shortage.?
This is an assumption on your part. I could just as easily argue that the vast majority of doctors and nurses enter the field because it?s their calling and they can?t imagine doing anything else. I could also argue that many doctors who?ve left medicine have done so because they?ve grown weary of insurance company bureaucrats telling them what procedures they can and cannot perform and from filling out different forms for over 1300 different private insurers in this country.
3. You said that Obama?s statement that ?Preventative coverage and services save this country money by catching diseases early? is a LIE.
Can you offer some proof that this statement is in fact a lie?
4. You said that Obama?s statement that ?Insurance companies cancel you when you get sick? is a LIE. As evidence, you offered the HIPAA act.
I think you took the statement out of context in that Obama was actually referring to the practice of recission. As recission is a disturbingly growing trend with some insurance companies, in this context, the statement is undeniably TRUE.
5. In more than one post, you argued that ?You must buy insurance BEFORE you get sick/total your car? or the system will never work.
Your auto/health insurance analogy doesn?t work for me. Of course, it?s necessary to purchase auto insurance before you have an accident. For obvious reasons, it has to work that way. However, with health insurance, if no one will insure the sick, what do they do? Why in a country as rich as ours should our tax dollars provide medical coverage for the aged and the poor ONLY? Why should healthcare costs continue to account for more than 60% of all personal and family bankruptcies in this rich nation of ours?
6. You stated that ?on average, 0.5% of policies that are issued to individuals are rescinded due to the person who applied lying on their application?. You then stated that you ?truly believe that the vast majority of insurance companies act with integrity and treat their customers well?.
Just my opinion, but you appear to be somewhat cynical of your fellow Americans and naively trusting of big corporations to me.
7. You stated that Medicare/Medicaid are ?unfunded right now? and that you ?have 0% confidence that the government could run a healthcare system for the rest of us?.
As long as we?re talking percentages, personally, I have EVERY confidence that Big Healthcare, Big Insurance and Big Pharma will continue to raise the cost of healthcare in America to maximize profits for 1% of the population while we, the remaining 99%, continue to struggle to hold on to what?s left of our middle-class lives.
8. You stated that you ?whole heartedly agree that we need a way to help those today who don?t have coverage because they can?t afford it? but that you ?don?t think a government run system is the way to do it?.
What?s your alternative?
Btw Mags, I hope this post didn?t come off as confrontational because that wasn?t my intention. I just think we disagree on some fundamental principles of government and it?s place in our society.
And fwiw, I agree with you completely on your analysis of the Favre saga.
You?ve added a lot of good information to this thread but I?ve gotta disagree with some of your statements and/or assumptions. Your statements appear to defend the industry you worked in and that?s understandable; however, many Americans like myself believe that single-payer ?Medicare-for-All? healthcare in America would be less objectionable than the runaway for-profit healthcare system we have today.
1. You argued that ?the government pays substantially less to Medicare/Medicaid providers than those providers charge the insurance companies? because the government can demand they do so.?
IMO, that?s precisely why single-payer was the only chance we had to significantly reduce healthcare costs in this country. Unfortunately, Obama issued the insurance industry a stay of execution months ago by giving up on single-payer and, IMO the public option?s on life support as well.
2. You argued that with a public option, ?fewer doctors would go into the field, since payment levels would drop significantly overall and we?d ultimately face a doctor shortage.?
This is an assumption on your part. I could just as easily argue that the vast majority of doctors and nurses enter the field because it?s their calling and they can?t imagine doing anything else. I could also argue that many doctors who?ve left medicine have done so because they?ve grown weary of insurance company bureaucrats telling them what procedures they can and cannot perform and from filling out different forms for over 1300 different private insurers in this country.
3. You said that Obama?s statement that ?Preventative coverage and services save this country money by catching diseases early? is a LIE.
Can you offer some proof that this statement is in fact a lie?
4. You said that Obama?s statement that ?Insurance companies cancel you when you get sick? is a LIE. As evidence, you offered the HIPAA act.
I think you took the statement out of context in that Obama was actually referring to the practice of recission. As recission is a disturbingly growing trend with some insurance companies, in this context, the statement is undeniably TRUE.
5. In more than one post, you argued that ?You must buy insurance BEFORE you get sick/total your car? or the system will never work.
Your auto/health insurance analogy doesn?t work for me. Of course, it?s necessary to purchase auto insurance before you have an accident. For obvious reasons, it has to work that way. However, with health insurance, if no one will insure the sick, what do they do? Why in a country as rich as ours should our tax dollars provide medical coverage for the aged and the poor ONLY? Why should healthcare costs continue to account for more than 60% of all personal and family bankruptcies in this rich nation of ours?
6. You stated that ?on average, 0.5% of policies that are issued to individuals are rescinded due to the person who applied lying on their application?. You then stated that you ?truly believe that the vast majority of insurance companies act with integrity and treat their customers well?.
Just my opinion, but you appear to be somewhat cynical of your fellow Americans and naively trusting of big corporations to me.
7. You stated that Medicare/Medicaid are ?unfunded right now? and that you ?have 0% confidence that the government could run a healthcare system for the rest of us?.
As long as we?re talking percentages, personally, I have EVERY confidence that Big Healthcare, Big Insurance and Big Pharma will continue to raise the cost of healthcare in America to maximize profits for 1% of the population while we, the remaining 99%, continue to struggle to hold on to what?s left of our middle-class lives.
8. You stated that you ?whole heartedly agree that we need a way to help those today who don?t have coverage because they can?t afford it? but that you ?don?t think a government run system is the way to do it?.
What?s your alternative?
Btw Mags, I hope this post didn?t come off as confrontational because that wasn?t my intention. I just think we disagree on some fundamental principles of government and it?s place in our society.
And fwiw, I agree with you completely on your analysis of the Favre saga.
