Forums | MacLife

It's a worst-case scenario the insurers are playing up.  I think it would take a massive shift to the "public option"/"government run care"/"socialized medicine"/insert buzzword here for them to start the price hikes they are threatening.

It is still possible, however, that in the face of rising public shifts to the government option that insurers would be forced to raise prices in order to turn a profit margin.

We've got 'em right where we want 'em.

Seriously.

They are their own worst argument against both the status quo and the Baucus Debacle Bill. ONLY the public option will contain costs. They've just admitted what will happen if they're left to their own devices.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

MysticCow wrote:

It's a worst-case scenario the insurers are playing up.  I think it would take a massive shift to the "public option"/"government run care"/"socialized medicine"/insert buzzword here for them to start the price hikes they are threatening.

It is still possible, however, that in the face of rising public shifts to the government option that insurers would be forced to raise prices in order to turn a profit margin.

Fascinating analysis.

In the face of customers voting with their feet, insurers will lure them back by ... raising premiums?

Because they still have to turn a profit and make shareholders happy.  So they either cut services or raise premiums in order to make their shareholders happy.

It's not worth the paper it's written on.  The health insurers paid Pricewaterhouse to scare people with a "study" just like Big Tobacco did in the early 1990's.  I mean, can you be any more transparent?

I saw an article link earlier today about the White House pushback against the insurancecos.

MysticCow wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

MysticCow wrote:

It's a worst-case scenario the insurers are playing up.  I think it would take a massive shift to the "public option"/"government run care"/"socialized medicine"/insert buzzword here for them to start the price hikes they are threatening.

It is still possible, however, that in the face of rising public shifts to the government option that insurers would be forced to raise prices in order to turn a profit margin.

Fascinating analysis.

In the face of customers voting with their feet, insurers will lure them back by ... raising premiums?

Because they still have to turn a profit and make shareholders happy.  So they either cut services or raise premiums in order to make their shareholders happy.

You baffle me sometimes.

The industry has a flat trend. The only way they can increase profits is to get more clients. The way that the Insurance co.s have done that in the past, and currently is by raiding the clientele of their competition, not by going to the mass of uninsured.

Thus they haven't mined the possibilities.  They are lazy and complacent in that regard. Their profits are well within margin, they need to rethink how to get customers. They also need to standardized paperwork across the industry to cut costs. Currently the only cost cutting they do is by telling doctors and hospitals what reimbursement rates they will do.

I believe it does.

I like the idea of giving "red states" the ability to opt out of the public option and put their money (politically speaking) where their mouths are.  Of course, when push came to shove (like with stimulus money) I doubt there'd be much follow through.

whoopsie!  Accounting Firm Admits Cost Savings Left Out Of Report Prepared For AHIP Report

I'm starting to think that PriceWaterhouse is owned by Dick Armey.

I just hope Baucus thinks shutting out all the Dems on his committee and pissing off the progressives is worth the single Republican vote he managed to get.

sturner wrote:

The industry has a flat trend. The only way they can increase profits is to get more clients. The way that the Insurance co.s have done that in the past, and currently is by raiding the clientele of their competition, not by going to the mass of uninsured.

Thus they haven't mined the possibilities.

Actually, they have. The usual way; sneakily. Lobbyists.

Senate proposals put premium on healthy living
Bills could put workers under pressure to lose weight, stop smoking

(WP) Get in shape or pay a price.

That's a message more Americans could hear if the health care reform bills passed by the Senate Finance and Health committees become law.

By more than doubling the maximum rewards and penalties that companies can apply to employees who flunk medical evaluations, the bills could put workers under intense financial pressure to lose weight, stop smoking or even lower their cholesterol.

The initiative, largely eclipsed in the health care debate, builds on a trend that is already in play among some corporations and that more workers will see in the packages they bring home during this month's open enrollment. Some employers offer lower premiums to people who complete personal health assessments; others offer only limited benefit packages to smokers.

The current legislative effort takes the trend a step further. It is backed by major employer groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. It is opposed by labor unions and groups devoted to combating serious illnesses, such as the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American Diabetes Association.

A colossal loophole?
President Obama and members of Congress have declared that they are trying to create a system in which no one can be denied coverage or charged higher premiums based on their health status. The health insurance lobby has said it shares that goal. However, so-called wellness incentives could introduce a colossal loophole. In effect, they would permit insurers and employers to make coverage less affordable for people exhibiting risk factors for problems like diabetes, heart disease and stroke.

"Everybody said that we're going to be ending discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But this is in effect discrimination again based on preexisting conditions," said Ann Kempski of the Service Employees International Union.

A former insurance exec has turned whistleblower on the industry's pledge to support reform, knowing they were lying, but I've yet to hear of any effect. It's recent, tho.