• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

The Dems/Libs Throwing Obama Under Bus!

Ok, I'm not here to defend Obama care, but I have to disagree. You live in Florida. Do you pay for hurricane insurance? Premiums go up by the hundreds of dollars every year, whether you have a claim or not. If you don't ever get hit, all those years of premiums go where? Car insurance premiums are expensive too. You may get a discount to be accident free, but your still paying. Insurance companies are not in business to be fair, they make money, the more taken in and the less out the better. btw that policy that was $7500, was that a private company. The only real winner in this mess is the insurance companies.

Allow me to enlighten you. There are two types of insurance. Your auto, house, and life insurance are referred to as Covered Risk insurance. The core concept of covered risk is that nothing bad is likely to happen to you. You're going to drive your car and not wreck it, your house isn't going to be destroyed, and you're not going to die an early death. There's a small risk you might, and an insurer calculates that risk, identifies a premium amount, and if nothing happens, they make money and if something does happen they lose money. This is the concept of insurance you seem well versed in.

There are very few Covered Risk health insurance policies as these faded out in the 1970s and 1980s and were pretty much gone by the 1990s. Almost all health insurance policies are what is known as Shared Risk, which differs from Covered Risk primarily in that Shared Risk insurers assume something is going to happen to you. You are going to get sick, you are going to need to see a doctor, you are going to need prescriptions, i.e., you're going to need money. Shared Risk also differs because with Covered Risk insurance, it is the insurer's money that is used to pay claims. With Shared Risk it is the money that members pay in every month in premiums that is used to pay the claims.

The reason health insurers had to move away from the Covered Risk model was the rates that providers (doctors, hospitals, DME suppliers, etc) charged kept going up and up and finally reached a point where a health insurer could no longer operate on a for profit basis and make any money because they would have to increase their premiums to a point where people could no longer afford them. That's why most insurers, including Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida (and every other BCBS except one in CA) became not-for-profit, member-owned, insurance co-ops over a decade ago. The only insurers that still operate as for-profits are those like Humana and Kaiser-Permanente that also operate hospitals and serve as providers. The insurance side works as a not-for-profit and the provider side works as a for-profit.

So contrary to your assumptions about health insurance, and those of lots of misinformed folks out there, health insurers do not make vast amounts of profits if people don't file claims. Most insurers only retain about 17 cents of every premium dollar that comes in. That's not profit, that 17 cents covers the costs of processing claims, customer service, etc., since they are not-for-profits. The other 83 cents goes right back out the door to the providers, which is why trying to reduce costs by pressuring insurers is a fool's errand when all the cost drivers are on the provider side. And to put this in perspective for you, the Health and Human Services Department, which processes Basic Medicare and Medicare Supplemental claims, retains about 28 cents of every dollar they bring in.

So you, me, and everyone else pays our premiums, and all that money is pooled into a shared risk fund, and when someone needs a claim paid the money is taken out of the fund to pay it. Our premiums are not based on profit requirements as they are with Covered Risk companies. They are determined by looking at the number of members in the pool, the previous year's costs per member/per month (called a PM/PM value), and developing a picture of what rate increases providers are going to be hitting patients with the next year. That sets a basic premium that can be adjusted for higher-risk individuals, group sales, etc., and people start paying in. If there is a surplus at the end of the year, all states allow that surplus to be rolled into the next year's premium to lower costs, invested to make improvements, or returned to members. If there is a loss at the end of the year, the insurer has to cover costs out of mandatory accounts they have to maintain by law to cover overages. So this whole notion that health insurers making money by denying claims is a lot of BS.

As the government is now learning the hard way, the reason insurers have had pre-existing conditions limits isn't because they want to screw sick people, it's because you can't have someone signing up for insurance, paying nothing into the pool, and taking thousands of dollars of benefits out of it. That would be like a bank allowing you to deposit $200 and withdraw $200,000... it wouldn't be open for long. Same deal with health insurance. Shared Risk only works if everyone is sharing equally in the risk, and paying into the pool while only a portion are taking money out. You drop the preexisting conditions requirements, and don't require everyone to join, you're going to have people waiting until they get sick to enroll, which means they start taking money out without putting any in, and it's not going to be long before the insurers end up like that bank I mentioned. This is why the Democrats are in a panic right now. They need tens of millions of healthy folks who won't be submitting claims to put money into the pool to cover the costs of the sick folks are are lining up to sign up, but the healthy folks aren't signing up and likely won't be. This is what will eventually cause the ACA to collapse, just as it would any private insurer.

As for the $7,500 deductible, when I worked for Blue Cross Blue Shield, we rolled out a new product called Healthcare Savings Accounts (HSA), which were classified as high-deductible plans because they had $2,500 to $3,500 deductibles for families. But these high deductibles meant very low premiums, usually well under $200/month, so employers could save money by opting not to pay say $400 a month for a family plan for an employee, but pay say $100, or 1/2 the regular premium, and put another $100 a month into each employee's HSA account, and over a year or two the employee would have enough money in their account to cover any deductible or costs, and that money was the employee's forever. It rolled over each year, earned interest, could be willed to family members, could be borrowed against, etc., and the employer got to reduce their benefits costs. The only downside was what was then considered a sky-high deductible, but now with the ACA requiring $7,500 to $13,500 deductibles for most Bronze plans, which most folks would go into, they make those $2,500-$3,500 deductibles look like peanuts. By the way, guess which type of plans were the first to be eliminated under the ACA? That's right... the HSAs.

Don't be brainwashed by all the chatter about insurance companies. The reason you've been hearing it was because in the 1990s, Hillary Clinton's Hillarycare effort did the right thing and focused on reducing healthcare costs by reducing the amount providers could charge, and once the providers realized she was going to be taking money away from them, they revolted and started telling their patients to call Congress and tell them no Hillarycare because it would mean they couldn't see them any more. So the patients called, Congress listened, and Hillarycare was DOA. That's why the Democrats have made things all about the "insurers and their greed" this time around. Many people hate their insurers because that's who they write the check to. They don't realize that 83% of that check is actually going to the doctors, and those are the guys who actually determine what your premiums are going to be.
 
Thank you, written like an insurer. Non profit? Did the ceo of BCBSF make 6.8 million in 2012.
 
Not non-profit... not-for-profit. Technically there are no non-profit companies as non-profits are usually groups, associations, etc., that are not engaging in business. The real difference between non-profit and not-for-profit is a non-profit operation is allowed to deduct 100% of their business expenses from their taxes, while a not-for-profit can't.

The distinction between a for-profit and not-for-profit is any profits that a not-for-profit company generates MUST be recycled back into the company, whereas a for-profit company can keep all it's profits and do whatever they want with them. That's why Covered Risk insurers like All State, State Farm, Geico, etc., are for profits. If they make a profit off of claims not being filed, it's there's to do whatever they want with. Any profits that a not-for-profit makes have to be recycled back into the company, which is why any surpluses say BCBSF makes are used to replenish/increase the contingency pools they have to maintain, are used to update customer service capabilities, or those funds can be used to reduce premiums.

As for salaries, they are an expense and yes the CEO of BCBSF makes a lot of money just like the CEO of any major business. But thanks to federal and state regulations, the head of an insurer has to be a doctor with business, management, and insurance experience, and there aren't a lot of those guys out there, so they get the bucks. Same deal at the other end of the scale. Entry-level customer service reps make about $11/hr, but thanks to government mandates, BCBSF must also be able to respond to a Medicare inquiry 24/7/365 and in any language that our members speak, so they have to hire people who are willing to work from midnight to eight, on the weekends and holidays, and speak and write say Portuguese, German, or Spanish, and English, and are smart enough to be able to capably use the dozen or so software programs a rep has to use. Guess how many of those folks are out there? Enough that those reps are demanding, and getting $40+ an hour because BCBSF has no choice... they have to have them by law.

Getting back to the real cost drivers, when I was at BCBSF we tried to implement a program called Medical Informatics (MI), which would track what every provider charged for any given service. The intention was if a member goes to a doctor who charges say $1,000 for some treatment, they shouldn't be paying the same premium as someone who goes to a doctor who charges $5,000 for that same treatment. The use of MI would enable us to see who was using lower-cost providers and we would be able to reduce their premiums. If you're going to a doctor with a well-established practice who charges less, why should you have to pay more because another member wants to go to a doctor who just opened a fancy new office and doubles his rates to cover the costs or just got divorced and tripled his rates to pay for alimony (which they can do)? Seems fair right? It sure did to us, but the minute the providers got wind of what we were doing the crap hit the fan and in a hurry! Many providers, especially the guys charging the highest rates, sent letters to BCBSF stating they would refuse to accept or treat BCBSF members if MI were implemented. Unlike the general public, the providers know the insurers aren't sitting on this huge bag of profit dollars and can afford to lose lots of members, and the providers know most people make insurance decisions not based on the insurer but on if their preferred provider accepts their insurance. So if doctors quit accepting BCBSF, members wouldn't go find another doctor they would find another insurer. So MI died a quick and sudden death, and the providers were again free to charge whatever they wanted and members were forced to pay higher premiums than they need to in order to cover the costs of members who wanted higher-priced services. This wasn't the insurer doing this, it was the providers, but who gets the blame? The insurer because they're the ones the premiums are paid to.

Going back to Hillarycare in the 1990s, she had the right idea. The government has the power to mandate to providers how much they will be paid for any given service to Medicare/Medicaid patients, but insurers don't. HHS can tell a doctor they'll pay him $1,000 to treat a leg injury, and that he can't charge the patient for the balance, but an insurer has to pay what the doctor charges, so there's no limits on what a doctor can charge for a service, which is what's been driving insurance costs up. Insurers have been working on 16-18% pass throughs all along, so their costs have remained the same since the 1990s. It's the 83% of premium dollars going to the providers that has been increasing every year, and when those costs go up, premiums go up. What Clinton wanted to do was enable insurers to place limits like CMS does, which is why the providers and AMA spiked it.
 
I didn't mean to monopolize the thread (I think someone was talking about a bus or something). You obviously know what you are talking about on insurance. I think it is good that 87% of premiums go to health care services, but I think that could be better for a non,-excuse me not-for-profit company. I read that back in 1993, the average medical loss ratio for insurers was around 95% and then in recent years it was close to 80%.
Don't get me wrong, I really don't have a problem with insurance companies, in fact I have been with BCBS forever (your welcome). In earlier years, my employer and I paid plenty of money in premiums and I barely used the insurance. I wish I had all that money that was paid on my behalf. Now that I am older, I am starting to use the insurance more, that's just the way it is. Will I ever use the insurance enough to get use of those 35 years or so of payments? I hope NOT.
I have the preferred patient care and as long as I go to an in-network provider, BCBS dictates what they are allowed to charge me for services. Around here, there's no shortage of in-network providers yet. Kind of like socialized medicine on a smaller scale.
I don't know what the answer is, but at least for about two more years, I'm stuck with a monthly premium that's close to three times more than any mortgage payment I ever had.
 
I'm not a CPA, but a tax credit does not get limited by how much taxes you owe. It is different than a deduction, which lowers the income your tax is calculated from. A tax credit is used after your tax due is calculated and then gets applied to what you owe and you get refunded the rest. For example, the person who only owes $600 in taxes and has a $3000 tax credit will get a refund check of $2400.

There was a story CNN was reporting about how a woman out west had emailed the White House saying how grateful and thankful she was that as a single mom she was going to be able to afford insurance for the first time ever, and Obama read her email at his "everything's just ducky" press conference. Then the woman finds out the software her state uses to calculate her "subsidy" was way off and she was told her subsidy would be reduced, then she got a letter saying it had been eliminated, and now she was so upset because she can't afford the insurance without using a subsidy.

What's not being reported in this story is this woman is like millions of Americans who think this mythical "subsidy" is some sort of discounted premium and it isn't. It's a tax credit, not a discount. They're thinking if they have a $300/month premium, and a $250/month tax credit, that they will only pay $50/month, and that's not what's going to happen. They are going to pay $300/month starting in January. They can claim their tax credit on next year's tax return and reduce their taxes owed by $3,000, but they're going to be paying $300/month starting in January, not the $50 they expect. So if this woman couldn't afford to pay $300/month with no subsidies, she wouldn't be able to afford that premium with subsidies now because it would also be $300.

What's worse is the people who do qualify for subsidies are people who also don't pay a lot of income tax. A tax credit is only valuable if you pay more in taxes than the credit it for. If you owe $4,000 in taxes, and have a $3,000 tax credit, you lower the amount you pay the government to $1,000. But if you're poor and pay $400 - $600 or so in taxes, that tax credit only nets you $400 - $600, which isn't much subsidizing after paying $3,600 in premiums. These fools are thinking they're getting subsidized and they are in for a very rude shock in a few months.

- - - Updated - - -

My BCBS plan that I am renewing in Dec is an HSA plan. I'm in NJ though, so maybe it's different than Florida. But apparently, it's not eliminated by the ACA.

Allow me to enlighten you. There are two types of insurance. Your auto, house, and life insurance are referred to as Covered Risk insurance. The core concept of covered risk is that nothing bad is likely to happen to you. You're going to drive your car and not wreck it, your house isn't going to be destroyed, and you're not going to die an early death. There's a small risk you might, and an insurer calculates that risk, identifies a premium amount, and if nothing happens, they make money and if something does happen they lose money. This is the concept of insurance you seem well versed in.

There are very few Covered Risk health insurance policies as these faded out in the 1970s and 1980s and were pretty much gone by the 1990s. Almost all health insurance policies are what is known as Shared Risk, which differs from Covered Risk primarily in that Shared Risk insurers assume something is going to happen to you. You are going to get sick, you are going to need to see a doctor, you are going to need prescriptions, i.e., you're going to need money. Shared Risk also differs because with Covered Risk insurance, it is the insurer's money that is used to pay claims. With Shared Risk it is the money that members pay in every month in premiums that is used to pay the claims.

The reason health insurers had to move away from the Covered Risk model was the rates that providers (doctors, hospitals, DME suppliers, etc) charged kept going up and up and finally reached a point where a health insurer could no longer operate on a for profit basis and make any money because they would have to increase their premiums to a point where people could no longer afford them. That's why most insurers, including Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida (and every other BCBS except one in CA) became not-for-profit, member-owned, insurance co-ops over a decade ago. The only insurers that still operate as for-profits are those like Humana and Kaiser-Permanente that also operate hospitals and serve as providers. The insurance side works as a not-for-profit and the provider side works as a for-profit.

So contrary to your assumptions about health insurance, and those of lots of misinformed folks out there, health insurers do not make vast amounts of profits if people don't file claims. Most insurers only retain about 17 cents of every premium dollar that comes in. That's not profit, that 17 cents covers the costs of processing claims, customer service, etc., since they are not-for-profits. The other 83 cents goes right back out the door to the providers, which is why trying to reduce costs by pressuring insurers is a fool's errand when all the cost drivers are on the provider side. And to put this in perspective for you, the Health and Human Services Department, which processes Basic Medicare and Medicare Supplemental claims, retains about 28 cents of every dollar they bring in.

So you, me, and everyone else pays our premiums, and all that money is pooled into a shared risk fund, and when someone needs a claim paid the money is taken out of the fund to pay it. Our premiums are not based on profit requirements as they are with Covered Risk companies. They are determined by looking at the number of members in the pool, the previous year's costs per member/per month (called a PM/PM value), and developing a picture of what rate increases providers are going to be hitting patients with the next year. That sets a basic premium that can be adjusted for higher-risk individuals, group sales, etc., and people start paying in. If there is a surplus at the end of the year, all states allow that surplus to be rolled into the next year's premium to lower costs, invested to make improvements, or returned to members. If there is a loss at the end of the year, the insurer has to cover costs out of mandatory accounts they have to maintain by law to cover overages. So this whole notion that health insurers making money by denying claims is a lot of BS.

As the government is now learning the hard way, the reason insurers have had pre-existing conditions limits isn't because they want to screw sick people, it's because you can't have someone signing up for insurance, paying nothing into the pool, and taking thousands of dollars of benefits out of it. That would be like a bank allowing you to deposit $200 and withdraw $200,000... it wouldn't be open for long. Same deal with health insurance. Shared Risk only works if everyone is sharing equally in the risk, and paying into the pool while only a portion are taking money out. You drop the preexisting conditions requirements, and don't require everyone to join, you're going to have people waiting until they get sick to enroll, which means they start taking money out without putting any in, and it's not going to be long before the insurers end up like that bank I mentioned. This is why the Democrats are in a panic right now. They need tens of millions of healthy folks who won't be submitting claims to put money into the pool to cover the costs of the sick folks are are lining up to sign up, but the healthy folks aren't signing up and likely won't be. This is what will eventually cause the ACA to collapse, just as it would any private insurer.

As for the $7,500 deductible, when I worked for Blue Cross Blue Shield, we rolled out a new product called Healthcare Savings Accounts (HSA), which were classified as high-deductible plans because they had $2,500 to $3,500 deductibles for families. But these high deductibles meant very low premiums, usually well under $200/month, so employers could save money by opting not to pay say $400 a month for a family plan for an employee, but pay say $100, or 1/2 the regular premium, and put another $100 a month into each employee's HSA account, and over a year or two the employee would have enough money in their account to cover any deductible or costs, and that money was the employee's forever. It rolled over each year, earned interest, could be willed to family members, could be borrowed against, etc., and the employer got to reduce their benefits costs. The only downside was what was then considered a sky-high deductible, but now with the ACA requiring $7,500 to $13,500 deductibles for most Bronze plans, which most folks would go into, they make those $2,500-$3,500 deductibles look like peanuts. By the way, guess which type of plans were the first to be eliminated under the ACA? That's right... the HSAs.

Don't be brainwashed by all the chatter about insurance companies. The reason you've been hearing it was because in the 1990s, Hillary Clinton's Hillarycare effort did the right thing and focused on reducing healthcare costs by reducing the amount providers could charge, and once the providers realized she was going to be taking money away from them, they revolted and started telling their patients to call Congress and tell them no Hillarycare because it would mean they couldn't see them any more. So the patients called, Congress listened, and Hillarycare was DOA. That's why the Democrats have made things all about the "insurers and their greed" this time around. Many people hate their insurers because that's who they write the check to. They don't realize that 83% of that check is actually going to the doctors, and those are the guys who actually determine what your premiums are going to be.
 
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top