A Health Insurance Exchange Will End Broker Based IFP?

[djs]

See, I guess I view this differently. I don't have enough numbers to work, so let me make some up (why not, every politician does anyway, reality is not a requirement).

I view this as a great opportunity. As a P&C person, my world is a bit different, and this will blend in.

Let's start with my positioning. I pitch myself as an insurance professional. I will take care of your families insurance needs, from home, auto, life, health, business, etc. I don't make enough money on any one component, but overall, I do pretty well.

I also service everything, so that part is in place already.

Simplifying health insurance makes my life easier. Getting paid less, but selling more works well for me (not as well as getting paid more and selling more). Fewer brokers work well for me.

I'm a little selfish here, but I see my life getting simpler, not more complicated.

Dan

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Right now I'm shaking my Magic 8 ball in hopes of finding a true answer to what's coming up for the health insurance industry.

If that doesn't work I understand if I grind up some chicken bones and tea leaves that might give me the answer.

Aside from that, it's fun watching the hourly posts about what's going to or not going to happen.

 

[stuy119]

It's tough to know exactly what will happen, but I'll guarantee this much - if there is more than one option for a health plan available, SOMEONE needs to be a conduit between the carrier and the policyholder. If this doesn't happen, the system will only bog down even further than it currently is.

I see agents as a necessary cog in the wheel, much like with every other line of insurance. We won't become extinct, but we'll have to differentiate ourselves more than others and a ton of the driftwood will be out of the business.

And neither of those bother me. But, I'm a realist and I'm prepared to be "fired" by the current administration and am prepared if that is the case.

 

[Dave020]

Looks like AP got a sneak peak:



DEMS PROPOSAL WOULD REQUIRE ALL TO HAVE HEALTH COVERAGE

Associated Press Online -

May 15: House Democrats are crafting a plan that would require all Americans to carry health insurance and would help families making less than $88,000 pay the premiums. Employers, too, would have to help foot the bill.

It's the latest development in President Barack Obama's push to fix the ailing U.S. health care system by getting the government more deeply involved.

Obama has said the final legislation must rein in costs, guarantee choice of health plans and medical providers, and ensure that all Americans have access to affordable coverage. But he's leaving it to Congress to work out the details.

Responding to a question at a town hall-style meeting in New Mexico on Thursday, Obama said he expects a plan from Congress that will be a "vast improvement" over the current system.

A document obtained by The Associated Press provides an early look at where Democratic leaders in the House are heading as they try to meet an ambitious July 31 deadline for passing their version of the legislation. The Senate is working on a similar plan, with some key differences, on the same timetable.

The plan by the House Energy and Commerce Committee would build on the current system in which employers, government and individuals share responsibility for health insurance.

But it would make major changes: Individuals and employers would face new obligations to help pay for coverage. Insurers would operate under stricter consumer protections. And the government would take added responsibilities for setting insurance rules and providing financial help to low- and middle-income families.

"It's a sensible, mainstream proposal," said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., a member of the fiscally conservative group of Democrats known as the Blue Dogs. "If we do something along those lines we will be in the right ball park."

But Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., questioned the proposed requirements that individuals get coverage and employers help pay. "Clearly the individual and employer mandates will come at great cost, and part of what we want to do is create an affordable plan for everybody," said Camp.

Momentum for a health care overhaul built this week after Obama obtained a pledge from medical providers to find $2 trillion in savings over 10 years to help pay for his plan.
Even before any legislation has been officially introduced, lawmakers are grappling with dozens of thorny issues. On Thursday, the Senate Finance Committee met behind closed doors for eight hours to debate whether their bill should include the choice of a government insurance plan for middle-income families.

Insurers, hospitals and employers oppose the concept, and so do most Republicans. The senators' long discussion brought them no closer to agreement, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and top Republican Chuck Grassley later told reporters.

But Grassley wouldn't rule out a deal. "We might be able to find a consensus," he said, adding that new ideas were discussed, including an approach that would trigger a government-sponsored plan only if private insurance companies weren't offering good enough options. The House plan does include a government insurance program to compete with private companies. It would be financed by premium payments, not taxpayer dollars.

Insurers are strongly opposed to a government-sponsored plan, saying it would drive them out of business. Democrats say a public plan would help everybody by injecting competition into a health care market that in many areas is dominated by a handful of major insurers.

The summary of the House proposal says one of its main goals is to "minimize disruption" for people who already have coverage by allowing them to keep their coverage. All Americans would be protected by an annual limit on out-of-pocket costs, a safeguard already in the best private plans.

Individuals would be required to get coverage, either through an employer or government plan, or on their own. That's something Finance Committee senators now have basically agreed on, as well, Baucus and Grassley said.

Employers would be required to provide coverage or pay the government a percentage of payroll under the House Democrats' plan. The issue continues to divide senators.

 

[Winter_123]

"Obama has said the final legislation must rein in costs, guarantee choice of health plans and medical providers, and ensure that all Americans have access to affordable coverage. But he's leaving it to Congress to work out the details."

Refer to my previous comment about Obama not having any plan so he will just entertain motions from the floor. We are a year away from any real legislation, at best. At the same time, for some, it will feel like we are moving at lightening speed because the reality that change is coming is setting in at that speed. They are going rock and roll through the summer, then I can guarantee you that there will be some jive about "agreeing upon a set of guiding principles" by some date which will later get moved out to Christmas. The "guiding principles" jive will give the illusion of progress, and maybe it is who knows, but it will be a long, long way from gritty legislation, which then must be converted into even grittier rulemaking. It's coming though, and on the medium term horizon, but not at the end of the summer or before the first of the year or anything like that. Not if you think in terms of how long it will be before a real live client signs up for a real live reformed plan. That is down the road a bit.

My view anyway, and I have been wrong about several things already today.

 

[djs]

Insurers are strongly opposed to a government-sponsored plan, saying it would drive them out of business. Democrats say a public plan would help everybody by injecting competition into a health care market that in many areas is dominated by a handful of major insurers.

I wonder if a government sponsored plan would play by the same rules? If it does, it doesn't help. If it doesn't, it's not good for the carriers (and really doesn't accomplish what it claims to).

I also still doubt that a mandated health coverage tax comes into play. It is doubtful most politicians have the political will to pull this off. Common sense also dictates this will actually increase the overall cost (more consumers of care), though making it appear 'lower' by spreading the bill around.

Interesting twists and turns on an hourly basis. None of it really matters at this point.

Dan

 

[dgoldenz]

Sure would be interesting to see what they do to people who just plain don't want to pay for the coverage or can't afford it under a mandate....throw them in jail? Make them pay a fine they can't afford either? Tax their paycheck when they make jack s-hit as it is? Etc. etc.

 

[YouGotMyMoney]

I have an sincere question..

If Obama's plans for Universal Healthcare are going to completely change the way agents do biz and much they are able to earn, why haven't the ins companies stopped advancing commissions? Or are they planning to but arent saying anything yet?

 

[CHUMPS FROM OXFORD]

If they sincerely felt that they would not be paying commissions six months from now, they probably would stop.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

The reality is more like this;

First, Obama doesn't want a universal system like Canada or the UK - it's not even on the table.

More likely we go GI which keeps the individual players in the business but obviously changes commissions.

What would happen is carriers like World, Imerica, Assurant, etc...would issue GI plans with a much higher OOP and fewer benefits and still advance commissions and pay more than carriers with more name recognition.

Aetna, BX, etc...would likely comp under 5% for GI plans as-earned only. Other carriers would comp say 10% advanced.

It would be a situation like Mega in Mass. Basically, it would turn into an ethics battle. Do you sell that 5K OOP Aetna plan for 2.5% as-earned or sell GR's 15K OOP plan for 10% advanced.

Carriers with extremely strong brand recognition in their states, like Carefirst in MD (that already only pays $18/mo comp) would likely just spiff and agent $50 or so per app, run incessant ads on tv (like to do now) and get 50% of the market to call into their sales center.