California's Prop 45

[nylife11023]

I actually don't think too differently. But my hold up is I trust the government to do the right thing way less than I trust the free market to perform more effectively.

I agree about market vs. government.

I don't know beans about health insurance. I only know what the average voter and buyer of it knows.

I come from an 'insurance family' so I knows something about the industry. Consider what was going on in health insurance in the five years before Obamacare. Rates were rising twice inflation, acceptance (underwriting?) became terribly restrictive, deductibles became much higher, coverage became less, and prescription drugs had become a luxury.

There was no effort or incentive to reform. Health carrier profits were huge (look at the stock charts for those of you who are investors,) home-office salaries were six and seven figures (at least as reported in the annual reports of public companies,) agent comp was excellent (20% I'm told?,) providers were raking in the money... we had a basically stagnant, corrupt system paid for by the wealthy individuals and corporations who could afford coverage. Everyone else (well, at least a lot of people) lost their homes, retirement accounts, and life savings if they had a bad accident or sickness.

OK, we have a new mess now, but messes can be fixed when there is someone (something) "in control" who / which can (has the incentive to) fix them. So would I give the insurance commissioner the power to rule on rates? Sure. Why not? I don't see much incentive for the carriers to NOT raise them as high as they can go. Their mantra is 'greed is good."

The health insurance industry did not change until they were forced to by the political (not economic) process. For a lot of people it was change for the worse, but for most (well, at least me and mine) it was change for the better... or we'd be seeing President Romney running for re-election about now (which might not be a bad thing everything considered!)

And yes, I agree the average voter = low-info voter. But it has always been that way... nothing new here. Our system is supposed to be based on the 'will of the people" through their elected representatives. Somehow we've muddled through 200+ years with this system of low-info voters making the decisions on whom to represent them. Being young, I've only voted in a few elections so I'm no expert, but the system seems to work.

Compared to most of you I'm just starting out... but from what I've learned from working with young people and which I myself believe, it's that government has a lot more legitimacy than the private sector in just about everything except a few tech and retail companies (i.e. Apple, Samsung, LL Bean, Nordstroms, etc.) I find that insurance companies are about on par with Comcast or the cell-phone carriers when it comes to 'trust' and 'love.'

I believe (because I see it) that people closer to my age have more 'trust' that a Rand Paul or a Hillary Clinton cares more about their problems than an Aetna or Humana... or any insurance agent for that matter. :-(

 

[AgentWillN]

I agree about market vs. government. I don't know beans about health insurance. I only know what the average voter and buyer of it knows. I come from an 'insurance family' so I knows something about the industry. Consider what was going on in health insurance in the five years before Obamacare. Rates were rising twice inflation, acceptance (underwriting?) became terribly restrictive, deductibles became much higher, coverage became less, and prescription drugs had become a luxury. There was no effort or incentive to reform. Health carrier profits were huge (look at the stock charts for those of you who are investors,) home-office salaries were six and seven figures (at least as reported in the annual reports of public companies,) agent comp was excellent (20% I'm told?,) providers were raking in the money... we had a basically stagnant, corrupt system paid for by the wealthy individuals and corporations who could afford coverage. Everyone else (well, at least a lot of people) lost their homes, retirement accounts, and life savings if they had a bad accident or sickness. OK, we have a new mess now, but messes can be fixed when there is someone (something) "in control" who / which can (has the incentive to) fix them. So would I give the insurance commissioner the power to rule on rates? Sure. Why not? I don't see much incentive for the carriers to NOT raise them as high as they can go. Their mantra is 'greed is good." The health insurance industry did not change until they were forced to by the political (not economic) process. For a lot of people it was change for the worse, but for most (well, at least me and mine) it was change for the better... or we'd be seeing President Romney running for re-election about now (which might not be a bad thing everything considered!) And yes, I agree the average voter = low-info voter. But it has always been that way... nothing new here. Our system is supposed to be based on the 'will of the people" through their elected representatives. Somehow we've muddled through 200+ years with this system of low-info voters making the decisions on whom to represent them. Being young, I've only voted in a few elections so I'm no expert, but the system seems to work. Compared to most of you I'm just starting out... but from what I've learned from working with young people and which I myself believe, it's that government has a lot more legitimacy than the private sector in just about everything except a few tech and retail companies (i.e. Apple, Samsung, LL Bean, Nordstroms, etc.) I find that insurance companies are about on par with Comcast or the cell-phone carriers when it comes to 'trust' and 'love.' I believe (because I see it) that people closer to my age have more 'trust' that a Rand Paul or a Hillary Clinton cares more about their problems than an Aetna or Humana... or any insurance agent for that matter. :-(

Wow, that is a lot of information from a person who "doesn't know beans about Health Insurance."

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. There is a bigger picture here!

 

[nylife11023]

Wow, that is a lot of information from a person who "doesn't know beans about Health Insurance."

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. There is a bigger picture here!

First of all, I read the NY Times and the WSJ each day. I'm just repeating here what I've read. It's not like anything I've said is some 'secret' industry insider knowledge.

Second, as for government taking away... to quote a line from a song (before my time) called "Like a Rolling Stone" ... that I hear on the oldies station often: "When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose."

I assume you read about the new Hep-C drug from Gilead called Sovaldi which costs $1,000 a pill, or $84,000 for a typical 12-week course of treatment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/b...tis-c-drug-from-gilead-wins-fda-approval.html

Will the health carrier drug plans cover it? Probably not. (If you were a new MBA working for a health carrier and worked up the spreadsheets, would YOU recommend covering it... if you want to keep your job?)

If you need the drug and can't afford it whom do you turn to? What if you are just outraged about this cost, whom would you contact? A health insurance company or health insurance agent? Maybe you and those your age would but very few in my gen. would.

We would turn to a Rand Paul or a Hillary Clinton... someone in government to redress the kind of greed we see everyday in the private sector.

I find that MANY (not all) older people are more interested in who gets (political) credit for the result while younger people just care about the result itself and are not concerned about left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative and all the other meaningless slogans that are told to us by our so-called 'wiser elders.'

 

[GreenSky]

I would agree with everything nylife wrote, except I can't. Mainly because he's wrong. And a socialist.

Rick

 

[axeman462]

Good or bad doesn't matter. The idiots who elect nobody but socialists in this state will think it's a great thing.

And our commie insurance commissioner will reject every rate increase.

Single payer in 3 years.

Rick

why dont you move to a slightly less socialist state?

 

[GreenSky]

why dont you move to a slightly less socialist state?

There are a number of reasons including my wife's job. But I can't imagine living in Kalifornia when she retires.

Unfortunately, the entire country is bordering on socialism. An island in the Bahamas would be my best choice.

Rick