home
New Health Insurance Changes Take Effect | 87 comments (87 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

yes, you are missing something. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by nyrias on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 12:25:38 PM EST
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-fi-kids-health-insurance-20100921,0,799167.story

This article explains it.

And i quote "Insurers said they were acting because the new federal requirement could create huge and unexpected costs for covering children. They said the rule might prompt parents to buy policies only after their kids became sick, producing a glut of ill youngsters to insure"

This is called adverse selection.

Moral or not, the rule does have the potential of making the business not profitable.

Parent

Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by hookfan on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 12:51:09 PM EST
Insurance companies compete by limiting exposure to risk, making themselves as profitable as possible. They do not operate on the biblical golden rule, but on "he who has the gold,rules." We shouldn't be surprised at that. It's their required nature, under the rules we allow. And the rules we allow promotes gaming to make them profitable.
  What ticks me off no end, is that our reps allow and promote these rules, rather than do what is necessary to change the system to get us the help we need.
  We had our shot and still have a Rube Goldberg system that allows gaming. Well that's not exactly fair to Mr. Goldberg. His systems actually worked as intended. . .

Parent
What makes you think (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by PatHat on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 01:02:33 PM EST
the health care system isn't working as intended (by the politicians and those who elect them)?

Parent
Point taken (none / 0) (#49)
by hookfan on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 01:07:04 PM EST
 Guess I read our reps pr and took it as serious intent.

Parent
OK (none / 0) (#45)
by squeaky on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 12:52:05 PM EST
Then caseyOR's notion that children only policies are profitable, is false. According to the insurance company, child only policies are relatively rare.

Of course if Schwarzenegger signs the bill disallowing Insurance Companies in CA to sell very lucrative individual policies for 5 years, if they do not also offer children only policies, the Ins Cos will change their tune.

What stupid move for the insurance companies, very bad PR move.  This will blow up in their faces, imo.

Parent

Who'll make the dynamite? (none / 0) (#47)
by hookfan on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 01:02:28 PM EST
Not our reps on the national level, nor our president. They've already shown who their priority is. And don't you find it interesting that the Ins Cos are willing to take that in your face approach regardless of pr?
 Why are they so emboldened? Likely its because they have a pretty sure bet, they'll pay no price, or if they do they can pass it on to us. Hike, hike, hike those premiums,baby!! Yeah! We must keep the "legacy industries" profitable. . .
 

Parent
Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by squeaky on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 01:16:59 PM EST
I guess Politicians are going to have to do the math on this one.

Amount of cash from insurance lobby compared to the political currency gained form speaking out about protecting our children, particularly those who are gravely ill.

My guess is that they will still get the insurance $$$ but the political capital is too enticing for any sane politician to pass up the speeches about little jonnys and gillians who are being left to die by ruthless cold hearted Insurance companies.

Parent

Not suprising .. (none / 0) (#66)
by nyrias on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 02:19:58 PM EST
remember that bad PR is not a deterrent unless it is going to cost the company a lot of business.

It is different than a car company making an unsafe car. People usually don't switch insurance company because their insurers stop a certain coverage.

CA has the right approach. The only way to change behavior is to threaten the loss of a even a larger piece of the profit.

Parent

I think caseyOR meant (none / 0) (#50)
by Democratic Cat on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 01:10:41 PM EST
That under current rules the policies are profitable because most children don't get seriously sick, and insurance companies can deny coverage to those that are already sick. But if insurance companies can't deny coverage for a child's pre-existing conditions, then there would be an increase in the number of sick children who would be requesting these policies, and that might not be profitable. (Whether it would or not depends on the rates charged.)

I haven't heard much about Schwartzenegger's proposal, but I think California has done the same thing in other areas.  If you want to sell home insurance there, for example, I think you have to offer earthquake coverage. Now, it's so expensive I think most people don't actually buy the earthquake rider. But the insurance companies have to offer it.

Parent

Makes Sense (none / 0) (#52)
by squeaky on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 01:17:54 PM EST


Parent
Yes, that is the issue (none / 0) (#65)
by ruffian on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 02:15:55 PM EST
they were profitable when they could exclude kids with pre-existing conditions. Now that they can't, they apparently don't think they are worth offering. Or at least that is the 'blame HCR' excuse.

I think it is a by-product of the mandate-for-all implementation schedule being out of sync with the no-pre-existing conditions for children schedule.

Parent

Thank you, DemCat (none / 0) (#87)
by caseyOR on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 06:35:21 PM EST
That is what I meant. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

Parent
Its dumb (none / 0) (#79)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 04:20:53 PM EST
but probably still profitable.

Parent

New Health Insurance Changes Take Effect | 87 comments (87 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft