Backdoor to socialized medicine?

[briansd1]

[quote=1stimebuy]

Anyone who’s been outside US knows this – single payer system is nothing to be feared about and ANY alternative to current U.S. insurance companies would be better.[/quote]

And with a single payer system, nothing precludes patients from getting additional insurance (or employers from providing additional insurance) if they want the very best of care.

That’s true, in Italy, France, Taiwan, Korea, etc…

[jpinpb]

[quote=investor]Insurance companies anticipate premiums to rise 200 to 300% in january. Limiting overhead to 15% with these other situations may mean that it is almost impossible to survive as an insurance company. The feds can then step in and offer health insurance as a one payer model. Is this the plan all along?[/quote]

More like the Feds will come in and bail them out. I see it now: We need to save the insurance company. Our lives depend upon it. They’re too big to fail.

[jpinpb]

[quote=investor]Insurance companies anticipate premiums to rise 200 to 300% in january. Limiting overhead to 15% with these other situations may mean that it is almost impossible to survive as an insurance company. The feds can then step in and offer health insurance as a one payer model. Is this the plan all along?[/quote]

More like the Feds will come in and bail them out. I see it now: We need to save the insurance company. Our lives depend upon it. They’re too big to fail.

[jpinpb]

[quote=investor]Insurance companies anticipate premiums to rise 200 to 300% in january. Limiting overhead to 15% with these other situations may mean that it is almost impossible to survive as an insurance company. The feds can then step in and offer health insurance as a one payer model. Is this the plan all along?[/quote]

More like the Feds will come in and bail them out. I see it now: We need to save the insurance company. Our lives depend upon it. They’re too big to fail.

[jpinpb]

[quote=investor]Insurance companies anticipate premiums to rise 200 to 300% in january. Limiting overhead to 15% with these other situations may mean that it is almost impossible to survive as an insurance company. The feds can then step in and offer health insurance as a one payer model. Is this the plan all along?[/quote]

More like the Feds will come in and bail them out. I see it now: We need to save the insurance company. Our lives depend upon it. They’re too big to fail.

[jpinpb]

[quote=investor]Insurance companies anticipate premiums to rise 200 to 300% in january. Limiting overhead to 15% with these other situations may mean that it is almost impossible to survive as an insurance company. The feds can then step in and offer health insurance as a one payer model. Is this the plan all along?[/quote]

More like the Feds will come in and bail them out. I see it now: We need to save the insurance company. Our lives depend upon it. They’re too big to fail.

[patb]

investor

You act like people don’t have medical expenses.

in general people have a certain amount of medical expenses per year. Doctors visits, accidents, prescriptions.

So they have these expenses, if the Insurance companies are limited to 15% overhead and are required to offer commoditized plans with exchanges
which is basically how P&C insurance works.
(Home, Auto) is all very commoditized, the difference
between Expected value and the insurance overhead should be nil.

[patb]

investor

You act like people don’t have medical expenses.

in general people have a certain amount of medical expenses per year. Doctors visits, accidents, prescriptions.

So they have these expenses, if the Insurance companies are limited to 15% overhead and are required to offer commoditized plans with exchanges
which is basically how P&C insurance works.
(Home, Auto) is all very commoditized, the difference
between Expected value and the insurance overhead should be nil.

[patb]

investor

You act like people don’t have medical expenses.

in general people have a certain amount of medical expenses per year. Doctors visits, accidents, prescriptions.

So they have these expenses, if the Insurance companies are limited to 15% overhead and are required to offer commoditized plans with exchanges
which is basically how P&C insurance works.
(Home, Auto) is all very commoditized, the difference
between Expected value and the insurance overhead should be nil.

[patb]

investor

You act like people don’t have medical expenses.

in general people have a certain amount of medical expenses per year. Doctors visits, accidents, prescriptions.

So they have these expenses, if the Insurance companies are limited to 15% overhead and are required to offer commoditized plans with exchanges
which is basically how P&C insurance works.
(Home, Auto) is all very commoditized, the difference
between Expected value and the insurance overhead should be nil.

[patb]

investor

You act like people don’t have medical expenses.

in general people have a certain amount of medical expenses per year. Doctors visits, accidents, prescriptions.

So they have these expenses, if the Insurance companies are limited to 15% overhead and are required to offer commoditized plans with exchanges
which is basically how P&C insurance works.
(Home, Auto) is all very commoditized, the difference
between Expected value and the insurance overhead should be nil.

[SK in CV]

If this is what you’ve been told, you’ve been told wrong.

The law provides that insurance sold to large group markets must have at least an 85% loss ratio, and those serving small groups and individuals must have at least an 80% medical loss ratio (MLR). The loss ratio is the percentage of premium dollar that pays for health care. If loss ratios do not meet these floors, then the shortfall must be refunded to policyholders. The remaining 15 to 20% is available for overhead and profit.

At least 15 states, already have similar regulations, or at least regulations which address MLRs.

In the late 80’s and early 90’s, when I did quite a bit of medical financing consulting, loss ratios hovered around 90% and above. Kaiser was pretty consistent in the 95% range. Over the last 20 years, those ratios have consistently fallen. Now they’re much more typically in the low 80’s and high 70’s. That extra 10 to 15% has all gone to pay exhorbitant overhead and profits, which have grown significantly faster than actual medical costs over the last 20 years.

[SK in CV]

If this is what you’ve been told, you’ve been told wrong.

The law provides that insurance sold to large group markets must have at least an 85% loss ratio, and those serving small groups and individuals must have at least an 80% medical loss ratio (MLR). The loss ratio is the percentage of premium dollar that pays for health care. If loss ratios do not meet these floors, then the shortfall must be refunded to policyholders. The remaining 15 to 20% is available for overhead and profit.

At least 15 states, already have similar regulations, or at least regulations which address MLRs.

In the late 80’s and early 90’s, when I did quite a bit of medical financing consulting, loss ratios hovered around 90% and above. Kaiser was pretty consistent in the 95% range. Over the last 20 years, those ratios have consistently fallen. Now they’re much more typically in the low 80’s and high 70’s. That extra 10 to 15% has all gone to pay exhorbitant overhead and profits, which have grown significantly faster than actual medical costs over the last 20 years.

[SK in CV]

If this is what you’ve been told, you’ve been told wrong.

The law provides that insurance sold to large group markets must have at least an 85% loss ratio, and those serving small groups and individuals must have at least an 80% medical loss ratio (MLR). The loss ratio is the percentage of premium dollar that pays for health care. If loss ratios do not meet these floors, then the shortfall must be refunded to policyholders. The remaining 15 to 20% is available for overhead and profit.

At least 15 states, already have similar regulations, or at least regulations which address MLRs.

In the late 80’s and early 90’s, when I did quite a bit of medical financing consulting, loss ratios hovered around 90% and above. Kaiser was pretty consistent in the 95% range. Over the last 20 years, those ratios have consistently fallen. Now they’re much more typically in the low 80’s and high 70’s. That extra 10 to 15% has all gone to pay exhorbitant overhead and profits, which have grown significantly faster than actual medical costs over the last 20 years.

[SK in CV]

If this is what you’ve been told, you’ve been told wrong.

The law provides that insurance sold to large group markets must have at least an 85% loss ratio, and those serving small groups and individuals must have at least an 80% medical loss ratio (MLR). The loss ratio is the percentage of premium dollar that pays for health care. If loss ratios do not meet these floors, then the shortfall must be refunded to policyholders. The remaining 15 to 20% is available for overhead and profit.

At least 15 states, already have similar regulations, or at least regulations which address MLRs.

In the late 80’s and early 90’s, when I did quite a bit of medical financing consulting, loss ratios hovered around 90% and above. Kaiser was pretty consistent in the 95% range. Over the last 20 years, those ratios have consistently fallen. Now they’re much more typically in the low 80’s and high 70’s. That extra 10 to 15% has all gone to pay exhorbitant overhead and profits, which have grown significantly faster than actual medical costs over the last 20 years.

[Author]

Posts