Supreme Court Health Care Ruling

[Jonathan Randall]

Tried that line of logic earlier and for some reason, the loss of freedom doesn't seem to phase him since he gets what he wants/needs in the short-term. Someday everyone will learn to zealously guard their liberty as much as their self-interest. Sadly though, that will only be when liberty is gone.

I was under the impression that it was already gone...

[Ramirez]

okay so no one seems to to be happy with the current system or obamacare...has anyone thought about alternatives?

A Canadian universal health insurance...a UK universal health care (the doctors are on salary instead of fee for service)... etc?

I can see why Obama ended up with a hybrid system... insurance companies would be superfluous under the UK or Canadian model...political suicide

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Jonathan Randall]

okay so no one seems to to be happy with the current system or obamacare...has anyone thought about alternatives?

A Canadian universal health insurance...a UK universal health care (the doctors are on salary instead of fee for service)... etc?

I can see why Obama ended up with a hybrid system... insurance companies would be superfluous under the UK or Canadian model...political suicide

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

First, like the Webmaster wrote, remove interstate restrictions on insurance companie - different regions of the country often have different risk factors and spreading the risks across states would enable insurance companies to insure more people.

Second, something like this, albeit on a national level:

http://accesstohealthcare.org/home.asp

I've known people in Nevada who have used this program as a stop-gap measure between insurance coverage. Trust me, Erik, something like this would do far more to help you in your current situation than Obamacare.


In the end, though, it is a complicated problem with no easy solutions. Eliminating high-fructose corn syrup from our diets would be a great, first step. Another would be ending the shotgun testing physicians use (largely to limit their own potential liability). Great rid of attorneys like former Presidential Candidate John Edwards (by limiting lawyers take from lawsuits to a reasonable level).

[Abbax8]

Another thing occured to me. All employees are covered by a form of health insurance, Workers Compensation. If you get injured on the job, your covered. Now Accident Insurance is different than Health Insurance which also covers Sickness and sometimes Wellness. The emplyees contribution to work comp is usually minimal, a percent or so of pay. Some genius somewhere should be able to figure out how to take the current groups of work comp employees, bundle them and bid on health insurance for them. Since most employees are young, the cost of coverage would be lower. For those with pre-exisiting conditions, the risk to the insurance company should be more than covered by the size of the group that will not file claims. Family members could be covered by riders like they are in other forms of insurance. Discounts could be given for healthy choices, waiting periods voluntarily selected for treatments, etc. Participation would be voluntary, but with 30,000,000 uninsured that is a huge pool to draw from even if all of that number are not currently employed. The pool could be made larger by allowing non-employees to join via affiliation like they do in Credit Unions and such.

Insurance is all about numbers. In life insurance,the companies know how many people will die this year, they just don't have the specific names. Health insurance is similar. They can gage the cost accurately if all factors are stable. I'm beginning to believe the reason why we do not have universal coverage is because there are too many factions protecting their turf, private and public included. Insurance companies control Billions of dollars, much more than the banks that have been making the news lately. Emplyees funnel money to them on a regular basis. Congress, State and Federal, pass laws that effect the flow of cash. Hospitals, doctors, lawyers, unions, all have a stake in the how and where the money flows. To find an answer, follow the money ! No one I know wants to deny necessary care for anyone, not even illegal aliens. But required care in this day an age has long since passed necessary care thanks to laws passed by the government that were pushed by lobbyist of Big Pharma. Choices and freedom - try not to vaccinate your kids against Chicken Pox ! Colon Cancer screenings ? Yeah they do catch some cancers early and make treatments easier. But the screening itself is not without risk. We live in a country that warns of skin cancer butwhere insurance companies provides reduced gym memberships to facilities with tanning beds. That's pretty schizo !

I'm no expert and I do not have the answers. I don't think anyone has all the questions or the necessary data either. It is such a convoluted mess I think it is almost impossible to solve, like a Gordian Knot. It really should not so complicated.

Dennis

[Ramirez]

Good post Dennis, i assume workmens comp in the US is like canada...single payor. In any case what you wrote is what I've been trying to point out, the insurance companies will get a massive amount of cashflow and most of the insureds won't be making claims.

My guess is the insurance companies demanded that everyone purchase life insurance in order to prevent anti selection, basically only getting the poor risks. Ann I'm fairly sure that faced with a choice of the current scheme or the government setting up a single payor rival plan backed by taxation that this scheme is much preferable for them.




Sent from my MZ604 using Tapatalk 2

[shinbushi]

Yes, Dave, that's a very valid concern. I'd like to know more about what the changes mean for your business.

As a martial art school I have only 1 employee a 16 yr old girl and for that I have to have unemployment insurance. The rest are 1099 contractors.

[sean_stonehart]

Another thing occured to me. All employees are covered by a form of health insurance, Workers Compensation. If you get injured on the job, your covered. Now Accident Insurance is different than Health Insurance which also covers Sickness and sometimes Wellness. The emplyees contribution to work comp is usually minimal, a percent or so of pay. Some genius somewhere should be able to figure out how to take the current groups of work comp employees, bundle them and bid on health insurance for them. Since most employees are young, the cost of coverage would be lower. For those with pre-exisiting conditions, the risk to the insurance company should be more than covered by the size of the group that will not file claims. Family members could be covered by riders like they are in other forms of insurance. Discounts could be given for healthy choices, waiting periods voluntarily selected for treatments, etc. Participation would be voluntary, but with 30,000,000 uninsured that is a huge pool to draw from even if all of that number are not currently employed. The pool could be made larger by allowing non-employees to join via affiliation like they do in Credit Unions and such.

<>
Dennis

Yeah but WC doesn't function like that. I've been in the industry almost all of my career, early on in a claims office & now back end IT.

WC is mandatory (at least in GA where I live) for any company with more than 3 employees on the payroll. A lot of construction companies / general contractors will require the subcontractors to carry their own WC coverage. WC is broken into different coverage types that cover everything from a paper cut to death & everything (literally) in between if it happens on the job or as a result of your job as defined & within reason. But the crux is it's only for employees injured. There are funds set up to reimburse the insurance carrier / self insurer if an employee has a pre-existing condition to offset the new occurance of an injury based on that pre-existing condition. How it relates to employers hiring people with pre-existing conditions, I can't say. But there is relief for the insurance company in those circumstances which in turn is passed on to the policy holder by being able to offset the cost of the policy.

But... this insurance is just to get you better & back to work. It's not a maintenance insurance or primary care insurance. It's only for the job.

[Abbax8]

Russ,
I'm not sure I see the difference. I know WC only covesr the employee. I was saying that WC is an example of universal coverage at least for employees when they are on the job. My thoughts were that something like that could be used as a template to expand coverage to non-accident related claims.

Insurance companies also do not retain full liabilty for claims. They purchase re-insurance. It happens in Life, Property & Casualty and I would be shocked if the Health Insurance industry did not spread the risk through re-insurance.

Dennis

[Erik]

As a martial art school I have only 1 employee a 16 yr old girl and for that I have to have unemployment insurance. The rest are 1099 contractors.

No option to hire her as a temp/1099 without benefits? Just wondering.

Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe in CA workers' comp is paid for by private insurance purchased by the company? Is this incorrect (in CA)? Do companies pay tax instead and the state pays for workers' comp?

[Erik]

Russ,
I'm not sure I see the difference. I know WC only covesr the employee. I was saying that WC is an example of universal coverage at least for employees when they are on the job. My thoughts were that something like that could be used as a template to expand coverage to non-accident related claims.

I believe that's the concept behind single payer plans.

Insurance companies also do not retain full liabilty for claims. They purchase re-insurance. It happens in Life, Property & Casualty and I would be shocked if the Health Insurance industry did not spread the risk through re-insurance.

Can you describe more about how re-insurance works, Dennis?

[Abbax8]

I believe that's the concept behind single payer plans.

Can you describe more about how re-insurance works, Dennis?

If you purchase say a million dollar life insurance policy from Travelers, they will take that risk and cover it by buying a policy from one of the companies that sell re-insurance. They may purchase a million dollars in coverage or a portion of it. That way they spread their risk of you dying among other insurers. It's really not complicated. Of course, it can be made complicated for other reasons, like bundling policies and selling them as investments.

Re-insurers do not issue these policies to the public, they are only sold to other insurance companies.

Dennis

[Abbax8]

Erik,

Totally crazy idea to propose to you. You said everyone in your industry is a temp. I would imagine their are a ton of people working for all the different companies. Consider the possibilty of joining together to form a buying cooperative for the sole purpose of providing insurance for people in your industry. It would take a lot of work, but initially what would be needed is to see how many people would like to pursue such a venture, and you guys could do that by e-mail. If you found you had several thousand interested, then the next step would be to organize some form of coop for that purpose, would probably need a lawyer for that. Then canvas insurance companies to see who wants several thousand new customers.

This idea sort of follows how fraternal insurance companies first formed for life insurance purposes.

Dennis

[Erik]

Great idea, Dennis. Engineers aren't quite there (in terms of teaming up like this) yet but there might be some demand for this. I'll look into it.

Thanks for explaining the re-insurance mechanism.

[Ramirez]

you can hire consulting actuaries and underwriters to value the risks, you will also need to invest the cash flows to pay off future liabilities....the best bet is to find an insurer willing to issue a group policy like that

You might want to look internationally for an insurance company...I doubt any us company would do it

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[CEB]

We wouldn't touch it.

It would have to a foreign company. At least a foreign insurer would be in better political position to tell the US to F off when they start to change the rule by which the pricing assumptions were designed.

US companies would be under to much political leverage with the Federal Govt even though we are supposed to fall under the State and NAIC regulatory contrls and not the federal govt.

If we ran our annuity business like the feds run social security our senior management and principle actuaries would be in prison.

[Ramirez]

a little levity.... Americans so annoyed at Obamacare that they threaten to move to Canada....
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Deci...611/story.html
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[torbjork]

insurance companies would be superfluous under the UK or Canadian model...political suicide

Not for long - more and more people here are buying private health insurance in order to not have to wait for indefinite periods before receiving treatment, and/or to make sure they get the treatment they need, as opposed to the treatment that a politically motivated committee has decided the healthcare system can afford. Just thought I'd mention this as the US debate seems to be a little either-or.

I still think that Obamacare is a strange concept, but from what I understand the idea is that it's a first step towards a universal system. Not sure I think it's such a good idea.

[Webmaster]

I hope folks are listening. Torbjorn is telling us about our future and it's not as rosy as some may like. The other part of our future is Greece, and Obamacare will hasten our arrival at its status.

[TonyU]

I hope folks are listening. Torbjorn is telling us about our future and it's not as rosy as some may like. The other part of our future is Greece, and Obamacare will hasten our arrival at its status.

I agree. Sometimes it takes someone from the outside looking in to see things as they are instead of as they want it to be.

[Don Roley]

I still think that Obamacare is a strange concept, but from what I understand the idea is that it's a first step towards a universal system.

Well, it was sold as something that would keep the private insurance companies afloat. But this article,

The Hidden Bomb In Obamacare.

points out how insurance companies will have to go under, leaving the government as the sole provider of insurance.

Many folks are crowing about this and looking forward to the death of the evil capitalistic companies. They kept silent about it during the debate, but now they are not trying to conceal anything.

I don't know whether this was by plan, or the government weenies that wrote this have no idea of how the medical field works. Of course, I don't expect the insurance companies to go down without a fight. Since they can't get rid of some non-medical jobs like maintenance and security, any other job that can be moved to a Bangladeshi call center will be. If the government is reasonable and changes this rule, they may still survive. But if they do something like that, the screaming about helping insurance companies ripping off the little folks will be deafening.