Coming Revolution in Health Insurance

[Guest]

The acquisition cost of marketing direct exceeds the cost of marketing through brokers.

Is that a guess or do you have some data to substantiate that. Do you have numbers?

No argument from me... I just want to be able to repeat this and know I'm on a firm foundation and not just sending out blue smoke.

Al

 

[Winter_123]

Maybe, but that is only temporary.

Personally, I would challenge the 30% figure. There are nominal savings on admin . . . maybe 5 - 8% at best. Medicare reimbursements are around 88% of carrier rates and Medicaid about 10% lower than Medicaid.

Absent addressing health care inflation, which none of the proposals do, any savings would be lost in 2 years.

And what about the lack of PCP's? No one talks about that. PCP"s are already on the low end of the income scale and in short supply. If everyone is reimbursed at Medicare/Medicaid levels there will be even fewer and demand for services will outstrip supply.

This is already happening in Massachusetts where the wait to see a PCP for a "newly insured" can be 4 - 6 months.

I also don't buy the "we don't need brokers" argument. FWIW, most carriers market direct already and guess what? The acquisition cost of marketing direct exceeds the cost of marketing through brokers. So if you eliminate brokers admin costs will go even higher and there will be fewer players.

Blue is the only carrier that can market direct with any success. The other carriers pick up business but not at the same clip as Blue. Here in GA roughly 60% of their individual business comes from brokers. Other carriers like GR and H1 get less than 8% of business direct with the remainder coming from brokers.

The public perception that brokers add a layer of expense and no value is (mostly) our own fault. Too many peddlers, not enough real agents.

Those are all good points, along with the numerous other push-backs that many of us have made here over the years. Unfortunately I dont think there is any program proposed or enacted in Washington now or in the near future that will be stopped based on a rational analysis of the data.

This certainly is not limited to healthcare. If Obama and Pelosi decide that a high speed rail line is groovy and green then that is going to happen. Nevermind about how Amtrak has worked out cost-wise. The health care changes are coming and it will be expensive beyond comprehension but that will not stop it. I thought for a while that competing expenditures would cause Obama to have to back off but that is just the way my mind works. For everyone else, including Obama, they argue that that we throw a trillion at something new every other week now, so how can we ignore healthcare?

And the lib argument that we would fund it with the dollars that are going to Iraq is silly now. First of all, we are only partially withdrawing, leaving 50,000 there. Second of all, we just ramped up the investment in Afganistan.

How about that improved energy grid? Gotta have that. And we own GM now or soon and it has been determined that the Volt is not a money maker anytime in the next decade but Pelosi wants it kept in production. Gotta have that too.

Again, I just dont think cost or expense are going to change anything here. Until the Chinese wont lend us anymore I mean.

 

[Guest]

By definition, he's not off, perhaps extreme in suggesting it air it on prime time.

Treason is defined as an act of disloyalty against a nation or national sovereign by a citizen of that nation. It is usually treated very seriously by the penal system, as a single calculated act of treason can utterly destabilize an entire government. In most countries, conviction of high treason is accompanied with a death sentence, a long term of imprisonment, or a substantial fine. Someone who commits treason is called a traitor. Anyone can be a traitor, including ordinary citizens, members of the government, or active duty military.

This is sickening. You disgrace us all, each an every one of us. If I owned this board you would be banned for life. This goes way beyond the issue of "free speech."

Originally Posted by emptyeternity

We need a revolution alright, first we start off by charging this and the last administration with Treason, Round them all up on prime time, and go down the line putting a bullet in each head. Man that would be great!!
​

 

[Justin Bilyj]

Im glad you quoted me rob, seems like we dont have free speech on the board

 

[Guest]

Im glad you quoted me rob, seems like we dont have free speech on the board

What in the world would give you the idea you have "free speech" on this board or any other board... or in my house or any other house. If you said what you said at my dinner table you'd be out on your ass in a Hollywood minute.

The moderators have the right to censor anyone and everyone.

If you want to stand on the street corner and hold a sign saying what you wrote here, that's fine. No one in authority can stop you (unless you are disturbing the peace.)

If you want to write a book or movie script with your hate talk, that's fine as well... although no one HAS to publish it if they don't want to... but you can publish it yourself if you have the funds.

Your speech here is a free as Sam says it is. If you don't like it, start your own board.

 

[GreenSky]

seems like we dont have free speech on the board

I was just starting to think you were growing up. If I had any respect for you, I would be disappointed.

Rick

 

[OHInsAGNT]

If ALL plans are GI, with or without the mandate, expect a revolt that will eclipse the tea parties that occurred yesterday. If you think health insurance is expensive now, just wait until carriers are compelled to accept everyone.

Without doing the math, my instinct is that health insurance costs could actually be reduced by requiring EVERYONE to have it. You just provide subsidy to those who can't afford it.

People who don't qualify for insurance are the ones who try everything to get it. They aren't as numerous as you think, as many are on medicaid or group insurance. We just happen to interact with them a lot. The free-riders in the system are young people that don't have medical expenses and don't buy it (100% profit if they are compelled to buy) and emergency room frequenters.

A big contributor to health care/insurance costs (besides rediculous tort law in some states) are uninsured non-payers.

If medical facilities start to receive payment, costs such as legal collection and charge off reduce, thereby reducing prices charged to insurers. If healthy people are compelled to be insured, insurers increase profits.

Our probably is that we don't MAKE people have health insurance.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Discussion About Government-Run Public Plan Option

DeParle said her definition is "something that’s sponsored by the government and therefore has very low, almost non-existent administrative costs compared to the others, it doesn’t have the need to have brokers out selling, it wouldn’t have the need to have a lot of costs and profits the way private plans do." (emphasis added)

The more the government has to do with it though, the worse it will be. We don't need government UNHEALTH care. We need to legislate out the economic free loaders with some government financial support.

 

[somarco]

data to substantiate that.

"Insiders" at GR & H1 have told me about their in house operation. I have no reason to doubt it.

 

[OHInsAGNT]

Unfortunately I dont think there is any program proposed or enacted in Washington now or in the near future that will be stopped based on a rational analysis of the data.

That's the most intelligent analysis made thus far in the thread.

 

[somarco]

my instinct is that health insurance costs could actually be reduced by requiring EVERYONE to have it.

As states started mandating auto insurance rates did not drop. Why should it be any different with health insurance?

If everyone, and you will never achieve 100%, has health insurance you will pick up folks who are young & healthy. Those under 30 (including children) make up as much as a third of the uninsured.

Those numbers will help but when you add in the uninsurable, there is not enough premium to offset the losses from that crowd.

Unless of course you raise rates considerably, think double for starters, to cover expected losses.