Conservatives don't know what insurance is or what insurance companies do.

[Billy_Kinetta]

No, it's about you because you don't the facts. I'm licensed in Property Casualty and Life and Health. Insurance no matter what form is about risk and it's transference. The fact that you deny that shows that you know nothing about Insurance.

OK, but lumping together all forms of insurance into one thing is dishonest, and even you know that. The different kinds of insurance (auto, home, life, health, pet, etc.) are all regulated differently. We are talking specifically health insurance. And the "risk" involved. So what is the actual "risk" that insurance companies charge as much as a 20% fee for? The "risk" to their profits. It's just a teabaggery way of saying "protect insurer profits". A single-payer has no such motive, therefore there is little "risk" to be mitigated.

"risk and its transference" - LOL! What a crock of shit.

Here's what an insurance company actually does:

• Administration

That's it. That's all they do. They administrate payments from the premium pool you and thousands, millions of others pay into. For this administration, they take as much as 20% of every dollar you pay for themselves. That's 20 cents of every dollar you pay in premiums that doesn't pay for your health care at all. It goes right into the pocket of the insurer. And it's not like insurance companies do anything to improve or enhance your care. Far from it...they restrict and prohibit care. Medicare serves the exact same function as insurance companies (many of whom, I'm sure you know, use Medicare as a template anyway), but does it for a fraction of the overhead (20% vs. 3%). So why are we paying an insurance company a 20% service fee to do the same thing Medicare does for 3% overhead? It's a rip-off and I'm sure even you know it.

On top of that, multiple insurers means the bargaining power lies with the providers and drug companies, who can use their leverage to play insurers off one another, cheating you out of care you may need. In a single-payer system, the bargaining power and leverage lies with the single payer, who can then use its leverage to bargain for cheaper prices. When payors outnumber providers, providers have the leverage. When providers outnumber payers, the payers have the leverage. Why do you not want patients to have the leverage to bargain for cheaper health care costs?

 

[Doc1]

You're just diggin

No, it's about you because you don't the facts. I'm licensed in Property Casualty and Life and Health. Insurance no matter what form is about risk and it's transference. The fact that you deny that shows that you know nothing about Insurance.

OK, but lumping together all forms of insurance into one thing is dishonest, and even you know that. The different kinds of insurance (auto, home, life, health, pet, etc.) are all regulated differently. We are talking specifically health insurance. And the "risk" involved. So what is the actual "risk" that insurance companies charge as much as a 20% fee for? The "risk" to their profits. It's just a teabaggery way of saying "protect insurer profits". A single-payer has no such motive, therefore there is little "risk" to be mitigated.

"risk and its transference" - LOL! What a crock of shit.

Here's what an insurance company actually does:

• Administration

That's it. That's all they do. They administrate payments from the premium pool you and thousands, millions of others pay into. For this administration, they take as much as 20% of every dollar you pay for themselves. That's 20 cents of every dollar you pay in premiums that doesn't pay for your health care at all. It goes right into the pocket of the insurer. And it's not like insurance companies do anything to improve or enhance your care. Far from it...they restrict and prohibit care. Medicare serves the exact same function as insurance companies (many of whom, I'm sure you know, use Medicare as a template anyway), but does it for a fraction of the overhead (20% vs. 3%). So why are we paying an insurance company a 20% service fee to do the same thing Medicare does for 3% overhead? It's a rip-off and I'm sure even you know it.

On top of that, multiple insurers means the bargaining power lies with the providers and drug companies, who can use their leverage to play insurers off one another, cheating you out of care you may need. In a single-payer system, the bargaining power and leverage lies with the single payer, who can then use its leverage to bargain for cheaper prices. When payors outnumber providers, providers have the leverage. When providers outnumber payers, the payers have the leverage. Why do you not want patients to have the leverage to bargain for cheaper health care costs?

"OK, but lumping together all forms of insurance into one thing is dishonest, and even you know that. The different kinds of insurance (auto, home, life, health, pet, etc.) are all regulated differently. We are talking specifically health insurance. And the "risk" involved. So what is the actual "risk" that insurance companies charge as much as a 20% fee for? The "risk" to their profits. It's just a teabaggery way of saying "protect insurer profits". A single-payer has no such motive, therefore there is little "risk" to be mitigated.

"risk and its transference" - LOL! What a crock of shit"

You're just digging a deeper hoe for yourself. All of that is Chapter one in every line you learn about. All insurance is simply the transference of a risk in exchange for money, that's it. The policy is a legally binding contract between a person and the Insurer. You pay the 500 buck s a month they accept the responsibility of pay for any problems while the policy/contract is in force. Sorry kid, you're just ignorant.

"That's it. That's all they do. They administrate payments from the premium pool you and thousands, millions of others pay into. For this administration, they take as much as 20% of every dollar you pay for themselves. That's 20 cents of every dollar you pay in premiums that doesn't pay for your health care at all. It goes right into the pocket of the insurer. "

The ACA stipulates that 80 cents of every dollar goes to pay claims. That leaves 20 cents of every dollar they take in to pay for their overhead costs. Labor, Sales, paper, electricity, etc. You really can't be this stupid kid. They have to pay all of their insurances, they have to all of their employees, they have to pay all costs associated with Workmen's Comp, Unemployment Insurance, any Insurance they provide to their employees all the wat down the line. All on that 20 cents.

"Medicare serves the exact same function as insurance companies (many of whom, I'm sure you know, use Medicare as a template anyway), but does it for a fraction of the overhead (20% vs. 3%). So why are we paying an insurance company a 20% service fee to do the same thing Medicare does for 3% overhead? "

Nope, now I'm sure of it, you are that stupid. Medicare in and of itself is ok, but sorely lacking without a supplement bought from those companies you despise.

"On top of that, multiple insurers means the bargaining power lies with the providers and drug companies, who can use their leverage to play insurers off one another, cheating you out of care you may need. In a single-payer system, the bargaining power and leverage lies with the single payer, who can then use its leverage to bargain for cheaper prices. When payors outnumber providers, providers have the leverage. When providers outnumber payers, the payers have the leverage. Why do you not want patients to have the leverage to bargain for cheaper health care costs".

Too simplistic, but then that's how you think. You don't even know who sets the pricing kid. Since the ACA any increase under 10% must be approved by whatever State the carrier is in. 10% and above must be submitted to HHS for approval. Why are insurers pulling out of the ACA altogether?

 

[Doc1]

No, it's about you because you don't the facts. I'm licensed in Property Casualty and Life and Health. Insurance no matter what form is about risk and it's transference. The fact that you deny that shows that you know nothing about Insurance.

OK, but lumping together all forms of insurance into one thing is dishonest, and even you know that. The different kinds of insurance (auto, home, life, health, pet, etc.) are all regulated differently. We are talking specifically health insurance. And the "risk" involved. So what is the actual "risk" that insurance companies charge as much as a 20% fee for? The "risk" to their profits. It's just a teabaggery way of saying "protect insurer profits". A single-payer has no such motive, therefore there is little "risk" to be mitigated.

"risk and its transference" - LOL! What a crock of shit.

Here's what an insurance company actually does:

• Administration

That's it. That's all they do. They administrate payments from the premium pool you and thousands, millions of others pay into. For this administration, they take as much as 20% of every dollar you pay for themselves. That's 20 cents of every dollar you pay in premiums that doesn't pay for your health care at all. It goes right into the pocket of the insurer. And it's not like insurance companies do anything to improve or enhance your care. Far from it...they restrict and prohibit care. Medicare serves the exact same function as insurance companies (many of whom, I'm sure you know, use Medicare as a template anyway), but does it for a fraction of the overhead (20% vs. 3%). So why are we paying an insurance company a 20% service fee to do the same thing Medicare does for 3% overhead? It's a rip-off and I'm sure even you know it.

On top of that, multiple insurers means the bargaining power lies with the providers and drug companies, who can use their leverage to play insurers off one another, cheating you out of care you may need. In a single-payer system, the bargaining power and leverage lies with the single payer, who can then use its leverage to bargain for cheaper prices. When payors outnumber providers, providers have the leverage. When providers outnumber payers, the payers have the leverage. Why do you not want patients to have the leverage to bargain for cheaper health care costs?

Emotion and feeling, no fact. He is insurance illiterate.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No, it's about you because you don't the facts. I'm licensed in Property Casualty and Life and Health. Insurance no matter what form is about risk and it's transference. The fact that you deny that shows that you know nothing about Insurance.

OK, but lumping together all forms of insurance into one thing is dishonest, and even you know that. The different kinds of insurance (auto, home, life, health, pet, etc.) are all regulated differently. We are talking specifically health insurance. And the "risk" involved. So what is the actual "risk" that insurance companies charge as much as a 20% fee for? The "risk" to their profits. It's just a teabaggery way of saying "protect insurer profits". A single-payer has no such motive, therefore there is little "risk" to be mitigated.

"risk and its transference" - LOL! What a crock of shit.

Here's what an insurance company actually does:

• Administration

That's it. That's all they do. They administrate payments from the premium pool you and thousands, millions of others pay into. For this administration, they take as much as 20% of every dollar you pay for themselves. That's 20 cents of every dollar you pay in premiums that doesn't pay for your health care at all. It goes right into the pocket of the insurer. And it's not like insurance companies do anything to improve or enhance your care. Far from it...they restrict and prohibit care. Medicare serves the exact same function as insurance companies (many of whom, I'm sure you know, use Medicare as a template anyway), but does it for a fraction of the overhead (20% vs. 3%). So why are we paying an insurance company a 20% service fee to do the same thing Medicare does for 3% overhead? It's a rip-off and I'm sure even you know it.

On top of that, multiple insurers means the bargaining power lies with the providers and drug companies, who can use their leverage to play insurers off one another, cheating you out of care you may need. In a single-payer system, the bargaining power and leverage lies with the single payer, who can then use its leverage to bargain for cheaper prices. When payors outnumber providers, providers have the leverage. When providers outnumber payers, the payers have the leverage. Why do you not want patients to have the leverage to bargain for cheaper health care costs?

Emotion and feeling, no fact. He is insurance illiterate.

Mmmhmm, he sure is.

And you are a far more patient man than I.

 

[Doc1]

Insurance 101, whether it's Life and Health, Property casualty, ANYTHING starts with what insurance is and does. It mitigates risk by accepting payments for taking responsibility for the risk. That's fundamental to the concept.

 

[The Derp]

You're just digging a deeper hoe for yourself. All of that is Chapter one in every line you learn about. All insurance is simply the transference of a risk in exchange for money, that's it. The policy is a legally binding contract between a person and the Insurer. You pay the 500 buck s a month they accept the responsibility of pay for any problems while the policy/contract is in force. Sorry kid, you're just ignorant.

Sigh...what is the actual function an insurance company serves? Administration. That's it. How much reimbursement is administrated is determined first by the insurer's bottom line, full stop. So you keep saying the same thing different ways; "risk" in this scenario is quite literally the "risk" to the insurer's profits. Insurance companies make money the more they deny reimbursements. So the "risk assessment" in this regard is not a generalized, vague, ambivalent "risk" like you're trying to portray, but rather literally the risk to the profits of the insurer. That's what they're mitigating. They're mitigating the risk to their profits while convincing you otherwise. I don't debate what insurance is, what I am debating is the role insurance companies play in your health care, which is minimal since all they're doing is administration.

The ACA stipulates that 80 cents of every dollar goes to pay claims. That leaves 20 cents of every dollar they take in to pay for their overhead costs. Labor, Sales, paper, electricity, etc. You really can't be this stupid kid. They have to pay all of their insurances, they have to all of their employees, they have to pay all costs associated with Workmen's Comp, Unemployment Insurance, any Insurance they provide to their employees all the wat down the line. All on that 20 cents.

LOL! Hilarious you think that. No, the 20 cents of every dollar you pay goes to overhead, but again, you are being deliberately vague and ambivalent as to what that overhead means. What it really means is profits, assets, executive compensation, and stock buybacks. That's what they're using that money for. Medicare's overhead is 3% vs. insurance company overhead at 20%. So how come it costs an insurance company nearly 7 times as much to do the same thing Medicare does? PROFITS, COMPENSATION, ASSETS, BUYBACKS. That's what. An insurance company has literally nothing to do with your actual care. All they do is administrate reimbursement for that care, or restrict your access to it.

Nope, now I'm sure of it, you are that stupid. Medicare in and of itself is ok, but sorely lacking without a supplement bought from those companies you despise.

Right, and why do there have to be supplements? Simple; Medicare is underfunded to meet its needs. That's why Medicare has to contract out...that's why there are supplemental plans like Medicare Part-D that Conservatives gave us in 2003 that prevented Medicare from using its leverage to negotiate for cheaper drugs. Why on earth would Medicare be prohibited from doing that? Simple; Conservatives who wrote Medicare Part-D were in the pockets of the drug companies and thus, protect their profits at our expense. It makes no logical sense to prohibit Medicare from negotiating for cheaper drugs...the fact they cannot proves that Conservatives are too consumed with protecting the profits of drug companies, who contributed heavily to their campaigns, including that of Bush the Dumber, who signed Part-D into law. "Health professionals" (Re: Executives) were the #5 contributor to Bush's campaign in 2004, one year after he passed Part-D, according to Open Secrets. Coincidence? I don't believe in coincidences.

Too simplistic, but then that's how you think. You don't even know who sets the pricing kid. Since the ACA any increase under 10% must be approved by whatever State the carrier is in. 10% and above must be submitted to HHS for approval. Why are insurers pulling out of the ACA altogether?

Hey douchebag, why do you think all the single-payer, first-world nations spend half as much of a % of GDP than we do on health care? It is specifically because they have single payer systems and we do not. And the person who ultimately sets premium pricing is the state insurance commissioner. So if you live in a red state, like I do, you will have a Conservative insurance commissioner who will do all he can to undermine the law he's ideologically opposed to. Anytime there's a massive rate increase, it has to be approved by the insurance commissioner in most, if not all states. You know this, of course, so why are you playing dumb?

Insurers are pulling out of the ACA because they don't get to merge. In fact, insurers deliberately lie about dropping out of the exchanges. Like Aetna just got caught doing. Were you aware of that? Why do you trust insurance companies to tell you the truth? Are you that naive? My real question is, since these guys are lying, and you are parroting their lines, wouldn't that make you a liar too? So why should I trust or believe anything you say? The very folks you are defending deliberately lied to people about their reasons for leaving the exchanges. Because they poisoned that well, we cannot trust anything they, or their clueless surrogates say. It's unfortunate, but that's the time we live in now. Conservatives lie all the time. Is it really hard to believe they would cast their lot in with liars?

 

[debbiedowner]

I wonder if he is a sock for Edward who likes to start these threads? I tried to play along but I am not here to school (which I've tried) a non client. I guess he thinks us broker's and agent's are making a killing selling health insurance these days. LOL

BTW life, health, variable annuity, P & C. 95% health and Medicare plans. 5% ancillary products. Nothing on P & C, don't even know why I keep up my CE on that one.

 

[The Derp]

Insurance 101, whether it's Life and Health, Property casualty, ANYTHING starts with what insurance is and does. It mitigates risk by accepting payments for taking responsibility for the risk. That's fundamental to the concept.

Which I haven't denied, if you paid attention to anything I wrote.

 

[The Derp]

I wonder if he is a sock for Edward who likes to start these threads? I tried to play along but I am not here to school (which I've tried) a non client. I guess he thinks us broker's and agent's are making a killing selling health insurance these days. LOL

You're not? That's strange since 24,000,000 people now have coverage who didn't before. So either you're really shitty at your job, or you're lying.

 

[Doc1]

You're just digging a deeper hoe for yourself. All of that is Chapter one in every line you learn about. All insurance is simply the transference of a risk in exchange for money, that's it. The policy is a legally binding contract between a person and the Insurer. You pay the 500 buck s a month they accept the responsibility of pay for any problems while the policy/contract is in force. Sorry kid, you're just ignorant.

Sigh...what is the actual function an insurance company serves? Administration. That's it. How much reimbursement is administrated is determined first by the insurer's bottom line, full stop. So you keep saying the same thing different ways; "risk" in this scenario is quite literally the "risk" to the insurer's profits. Insurance companies make money the more they deny reimbursements. So the "risk assessment" in this regard is not a generalized, vague, ambivalent "risk" like you're trying to portray, but rather literally the risk to the profits of the insurer. That's what they're mitigating. They're mitigating the risk to their profits while convincing you otherwise. I don't debate what insurance is, what I am debating is the role insurance companies play in your health care, which is minimal since all they're doing is administration.

The ACA stipulates that 80 cents of every dollar goes to pay claims. That leaves 20 cents of every dollar they take in to pay for their overhead costs. Labor, Sales, paper, electricity, etc. You really can't be this stupid kid. They have to pay all of their insurances, they have to all of their employees, they have to pay all costs associated with Workmen's Comp, Unemployment Insurance, any Insurance they provide to their employees all the wat down the line. All on that 20 cents.

LOL! Hilarious you think that. No, the 20 cents of every dollar you pay goes to overhead, but again, you are being deliberately vague and ambivalent as to what that overhead means. What it really means is profits, assets, executive compensation, and stock buybacks. That's what they're using that money for. Medicare's overhead is 3% vs. insurance company overhead at 20%. So how come it costs an insurance company nearly 7 times as much to do the same thing Medicare does? PROFITS, COMPENSATION, ASSETS, BUYBACKS. That's what. An insurance company has literally nothing to do with your actual care. All they do is administrate reimbursement for that care, or restrict your access to it.

Nope, now I'm sure of it, you are that stupid. Medicare in and of itself is ok, but sorely lacking without a supplement bought from those companies you despise.

Right, and why do there have to be supplements? Simple; Medicare is underfunded to meet its needs. That's why Medicare has to contract out...that's why there are supplemental plans like Medicare Part-D that Conservatives gave us in 2003 that prevented Medicare from using its leverage to negotiate for cheaper drugs. Why on earth would Medicare be prohibited from doing that? Simple; Conservatives who wrote Medicare Part-D were in the pockets of the drug companies and thus, protect their profits at our expense. It makes no logical sense to prohibit Medicare from negotiating for cheaper drugs...the fact they cannot proves that Conservatives are too consumed with protecting the profits of drug companies, who contributed heavily to their campaigns, including that of Bush the Dumber, who signed Part-D into law. "Health professionals" (Re: Executives) were the #5 contributor to Bush's campaign in 2004, one year after he passed Part-D, according to Open Secrets. Coincidence? I don't believe in coincidences.

Too simplistic, but then that's how you think. You don't even know who sets the pricing kid. Since the ACA any increase under 10% must be approved by whatever State the carrier is in. 10% and above must be submitted to HHS for approval. Why are insurers pulling out of the ACA altogether?

Hey douchebag, why do you think all the single-payer, first-world nations spend half as much of a % of GDP than we do on health care? It is specifically because they have single payer systems and we do not. And the person who ultimately sets premium pricing is the state insurance commissioner. So if you live in a red state, like I do, you will have a Conservative insurance commissioner who will do all he can to undermine the law he's ideologically opposed to. Anytime there's a massive rate increase, it has to be approved by the insurance commissioner in most, if not all states. You know this, of course, so why are you playing dumb?

Insurers are pulling out of the ACA because they don't get to merge. In fact, insurers deliberately lie about dropping out of the exchanges. Like Aetna just got caught doing. Were you aware of that? Why do you trust insurance companies to tell you the truth? Are you that naive? My real question is, since these guys are lying, and you are parroting their lines, wouldn't that make you a liar too? So why should I trust or believe anything you say? The very folks you are defending deliberately lied to people about their reasons for leaving the exchanges. Because they poisoned that well, we cannot trust anything they, or their clueless surrogates say. It's unfortunate, but that's the time we live in now. Conservatives lie all the time. Is it really hard to believe they would cast their lot in with liars?

I wasn't vague about anything, I spelled it out very nicely.

". And the person who ultimately sets premium pricing is the state insurance commissioner"

Prior to the ACA yes. Now all increases are divided into two categories, over 10% and HHS must approve it, under 10 % and the State Commisssioner can approve, but then that's twice I've told you that now.

"Anytime there's a massive rate increase, it has to be approved by the insurance commissioner in most, if not all states. "

I know you're just ignorant and not lying here, again, I've explained this to you twice. LOL, Aetna just pulled out of all the exchanges period. Whether you believe me or not is immaterial kid, you have no idea as to what you are talking about. I've been doing this for 17 years. I'm not "defending" anyone kid, I'm just telling what the law is and how it works. The ACA was designed to crash the system and it's doing just fine. You'll get your Single Payer but you'll just have to be patient.

 

[Doc1]

Insurance 101, whether it's Life and Health, Property casualty, ANYTHING starts with what insurance is and does. It mitigates risk by accepting payments for taking responsibility for the risk. That's fundamental to the concept.

Which I haven't denied, if you paid attention to anything I wrote.

You really suck at this kid.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

This seems to be a statement of faith on your part, and not really backed up by reality. Why do you believe that "overall", insurance premiums will go down?

Seriously, you're asking someone to set their faith aside for facts. Good luck with that.

So long as there remains a profit motive tied to the administration of reimbursements, health insurance premiums will never decline. Obamacare mitigated those rate increases by offering subsidies, but the premiums will increase regardless. Why? Because insurance companies are for-profit and are chiefly concerned not with your health, but with profits. And in health care, the pursuit of profits often conflict with the needs of the patient. That's how we get rationing.

Gov getting involved in Medical Insurance was a scam from the beginning. Fact is the poor people got medical care via the government and the care was within reason...My sister was treated under the Medicaid and the care was outstanding.

 

[debbiedowner]

You are assuming we love ACA and possibly AHCA, I can't speak for Doc but it's been hell trying to explain how the system works since it all started. I did have to admit I and many other's in the biz at first thought this Guaranteed Issue would be a windfall for us. You know there are plans we help people sign up for we don't get a damn dime in commission? We've had to fight that marketplace tooth and nail on every thing and then some dip shit there would take our names of the policy we spent maybe a couple hours helping someone to complete and then not get paid because they stripped our name? MLR is the medical loss ratio 80/20 yep we were lumped into the 20% the insurance companies could keep, guess what, guess who they cut?

Anyway I love dealing in Medicare supplements and Medicare Advantage, been doing it so long I can hold seminar's in my sleep. I and again don't speak for doc but do for some other's, hate obamacare and probably will end up hating trumpcare. I also hated writing a 15-17 page application before obamacare and asking everything from do you smoke marijuana to when was you last pap smear.

 

[debbiedowner]

I wonder if he is a sock for Edward who likes to start these threads? I tried to play along but I am not here to school (which I've tried) a non client. I guess he thinks us broker's and agent's are making a killing selling health insurance these days. LOL

You're not? That's strange since 24,000,000 people now have coverage who didn't before. So either you're really shitty at your job, or you're lying.

More than half were Medicaid and most agents don't deal with Medicaid and there are 50 states dip wad. I've been doing this for over 25 years. So I know what i'm talking about. But if it makes you happy I make a damn good living with Medicare plans mostly Medicare Advantage.

You don't understand the people who signed up at the beginning of year, had a surgery, we got paid and then they dropped it. Guess what we pay the commission back. Or the ones who played the system and knew they could go 90 days without and pay no penalty and would stop paying for oct,nov and dec. Partial chargeback. Guess what that is all changed for 2018 plan year and no I won't tell you in case you're one playing the system.

 

[debbiedowner]

You're just digging a deeper hoe for yourself. All of that is Chapter one in every line you learn about. All insurance is simply the transference of a risk in exchange for money, that's it. The policy is a legally binding contract between a person and the Insurer. You pay the 500 buck s a month they accept the responsibility of pay for any problems while the policy/contract is in force. Sorry kid, you're just ignorant.

Sigh...what is the actual function an insurance company serves? Administration. That's it. How much reimbursement is administrated is determined first by the insurer's bottom line, full stop. So you keep saying the same thing different ways; "risk" in this scenario is quite literally the "risk" to the insurer's profits. Insurance companies make money the more they deny reimbursements. So the "risk assessment" in this regard is not a generalized, vague, ambivalent "risk" like you're trying to portray, but rather literally the risk to the profits of the insurer. That's what they're mitigating. They're mitigating the risk to their profits while convincing you otherwise. I don't debate what insurance is, what I am debating is the role insurance companies play in your health care, which is minimal since all they're doing is administration.

The ACA stipulates that 80 cents of every dollar goes to pay claims. That leaves 20 cents of every dollar they take in to pay for their overhead costs. Labor, Sales, paper, electricity, etc. You really can't be this stupid kid. They have to pay all of their insurances, they have to all of their employees, they have to pay all costs associated with Workmen's Comp, Unemployment Insurance, any Insurance they provide to their employees all the wat down the line. All on that 20 cents.

LOL! Hilarious you think that. No, the 20 cents of every dollar you pay goes to overhead, but again, you are being deliberately vague and ambivalent as to what that overhead means. What it really means is profits, assets, executive compensation, and stock buybacks. That's what they're using that money for. Medicare's overhead is 3% vs. insurance company overhead at 20%. So how come it costs an insurance company nearly 7 times as much to do the same thing Medicare does? PROFITS, COMPENSATION, ASSETS, BUYBACKS. That's what. An insurance company has literally nothing to do with your actual care. All they do is administrate reimbursement for that care, or restrict your access to it.

Nope, now I'm sure of it, you are that stupid. Medicare in and of itself is ok, but sorely lacking without a supplement bought from those companies you despise.

Right, and why do there have to be supplements? Simple; Medicare is underfunded to meet its needs. That's why Medicare has to contract out...that's why there are supplemental plans like Medicare Part-D that Conservatives gave us in 2003 that prevented Medicare from using its leverage to negotiate for cheaper drugs. Why on earth would Medicare be prohibited from doing that? Simple; Conservatives who wrote Medicare Part-D were in the pockets of the drug companies and thus, protect their profits at our expense. It makes no logical sense to prohibit Medicare from negotiating for cheaper drugs...the fact they cannot proves that Conservatives are too consumed with protecting the profits of drug companies, who contributed heavily to their campaigns, including that of Bush the Dumber, who signed Part-D into law. "Health professionals" (Re: Executives) were the #5 contributor to Bush's campaign in 2004, one year after he passed Part-D, according to Open Secrets. Coincidence? I don't believe in coincidences.

Too simplistic, but then that's how you think. You don't even know who sets the pricing kid. Since the ACA any increase under 10% must be approved by whatever State the carrier is in. 10% and above must be submitted to HHS for approval. Why are insurers pulling out of the ACA altogether?

Hey douchebag, why do you think all the single-payer, first-world nations spend half as much of a % of GDP than we do on health care? It is specifically because they have single payer systems and we do not. And the person who ultimately sets premium pricing is the state insurance commissioner. So if you live in a red state, like I do, you will have a Conservative insurance commissioner who will do all he can to undermine the law he's ideologically opposed to. Anytime there's a massive rate increase, it has to be approved by the insurance commissioner in most, if not all states. You know this, of course, so why are you playing dumb?

Insurers are pulling out of the ACA because they don't get to merge. In fact, insurers deliberately lie about dropping out of the exchanges. Like Aetna just got caught doing. Were you aware of that? Why do you trust insurance companies to tell you the truth? Are you that naive? My real question is, since these guys are lying, and you are parroting their lines, wouldn't that make you a liar too? So why should I trust or believe anything you say? The very folks you are defending deliberately lied to people about their reasons for leaving the exchanges. Because they poisoned that well, we cannot trust anything they, or their clueless surrogates say. It's unfortunate, but that's the time we live in now. Conservatives lie all the time. Is it really hard to believe they would cast their lot in with liars?

I wasn't vague about anything, I spelled it out very nicely.

". And the person who ultimately sets premium pricing is the state insurance commissioner"

Prior to the ACA yes. Now all increases are divided into two categories, over 10% and HHS must approve it, under 10 % and the State Commisssioner can approve, but then that's twice I've told you that now.

"Anytime there's a massive rate increase, it has to be approved by the insurance commissioner in most, if not all states. "

I know you're just ignorant and not lying here, again, I've explained this to you twice. LOL, Aetna just pulled out of all the exchanges period. Whether you believe me or not is immaterial kid, you have no idea as to what you are talking about. I've been doing this for 17 years. I'm not "defending" anyone kid, I'm just telling what the law is and how it works. The ACA was designed to crash the system and it's doing just fine. You'll get your Single Payer but you'll just have to be patient.

Oh talk about single payer, Aetna put out an article either today or last night that if congress wanted to talk about that they were open to discussion, as long as insurance companies were involved. From an agent's prospective can you imagine if Medicare for all a reality and they pushed Med Advantages? If that happens I wished I was 10 years younger.

 

[Doc1]

You're just digging a deeper hoe for yourself. All of that is Chapter one in every line you learn about. All insurance is simply the transference of a risk in exchange for money, that's it. The policy is a legally binding contract between a person and the Insurer. You pay the 500 buck s a month they accept the responsibility of pay for any problems while the policy/contract is in force. Sorry kid, you're just ignorant.

Sigh...what is the actual function an insurance company serves? Administration. That's it. How much reimbursement is administrated is determined first by the insurer's bottom line, full stop. So you keep saying the same thing different ways; "risk" in this scenario is quite literally the "risk" to the insurer's profits. Insurance companies make money the more they deny reimbursements. So the "risk assessment" in this regard is not a generalized, vague, ambivalent "risk" like you're trying to portray, but rather literally the risk to the profits of the insurer. That's what they're mitigating. They're mitigating the risk to their profits while convincing you otherwise. I don't debate what insurance is, what I am debating is the role insurance companies play in your health care, which is minimal since all they're doing is administration.

The ACA stipulates that 80 cents of every dollar goes to pay claims. That leaves 20 cents of every dollar they take in to pay for their overhead costs. Labor, Sales, paper, electricity, etc. You really can't be this stupid kid. They have to pay all of their insurances, they have to all of their employees, they have to pay all costs associated with Workmen's Comp, Unemployment Insurance, any Insurance they provide to their employees all the wat down the line. All on that 20 cents.

LOL! Hilarious you think that. No, the 20 cents of every dollar you pay goes to overhead, but again, you are being deliberately vague and ambivalent as to what that overhead means. What it really means is profits, assets, executive compensation, and stock buybacks. That's what they're using that money for. Medicare's overhead is 3% vs. insurance company overhead at 20%. So how come it costs an insurance company nearly 7 times as much to do the same thing Medicare does? PROFITS, COMPENSATION, ASSETS, BUYBACKS. That's what. An insurance company has literally nothing to do with your actual care. All they do is administrate reimbursement for that care, or restrict your access to it.

Nope, now I'm sure of it, you are that stupid. Medicare in and of itself is ok, but sorely lacking without a supplement bought from those companies you despise.

Right, and why do there have to be supplements? Simple; Medicare is underfunded to meet its needs. That's why Medicare has to contract out...that's why there are supplemental plans like Medicare Part-D that Conservatives gave us in 2003 that prevented Medicare from using its leverage to negotiate for cheaper drugs. Why on earth would Medicare be prohibited from doing that? Simple; Conservatives who wrote Medicare Part-D were in the pockets of the drug companies and thus, protect their profits at our expense. It makes no logical sense to prohibit Medicare from negotiating for cheaper drugs...the fact they cannot proves that Conservatives are too consumed with protecting the profits of drug companies, who contributed heavily to their campaigns, including that of Bush the Dumber, who signed Part-D into law. "Health professionals" (Re: Executives) were the #5 contributor to Bush's campaign in 2004, one year after he passed Part-D, according to Open Secrets. Coincidence? I don't believe in coincidences.

Too simplistic, but then that's how you think. You don't even know who sets the pricing kid. Since the ACA any increase under 10% must be approved by whatever State the carrier is in. 10% and above must be submitted to HHS for approval. Why are insurers pulling out of the ACA altogether?

Hey douchebag, why do you think all the single-payer, first-world nations spend half as much of a % of GDP than we do on health care? It is specifically because they have single payer systems and we do not. And the person who ultimately sets premium pricing is the state insurance commissioner. So if you live in a red state, like I do, you will have a Conservative insurance commissioner who will do all he can to undermine the law he's ideologically opposed to. Anytime there's a massive rate increase, it has to be approved by the insurance commissioner in most, if not all states. You know this, of course, so why are you playing dumb?

Insurers are pulling out of the ACA because they don't get to merge. In fact, insurers deliberately lie about dropping out of the exchanges. Like Aetna just got caught doing. Were you aware of that? Why do you trust insurance companies to tell you the truth? Are you that naive? My real question is, since these guys are lying, and you are parroting their lines, wouldn't that make you a liar too? So why should I trust or believe anything you say? The very folks you are defending deliberately lied to people about their reasons for leaving the exchanges. Because they poisoned that well, we cannot trust anything they, or their clueless surrogates say. It's unfortunate, but that's the time we live in now. Conservatives lie all the time. Is it really hard to believe they would cast their lot in with liars?

I wasn't vague about anything, I spelled it out very nicely.

". And the person who ultimately sets premium pricing is the state insurance commissioner"

Prior to the ACA yes. Now all increases are divided into two categories, over 10% and HHS must approve it, under 10 % and the State Commisssioner can approve, but then that's twice I've told you that now.

"Anytime there's a massive rate increase, it has to be approved by the insurance commissioner in most, if not all states. "

I know you're just ignorant and not lying here, again, I've explained this to you twice. LOL, Aetna just pulled out of all the exchanges period. Whether you believe me or not is immaterial kid, you have no idea as to what you are talking about. I've been doing this for 17 years. I'm not "defending" anyone kid, I'm just telling what the law is and how it works. The ACA was designed to crash the system and it's doing just fine. You'll get your Single Payer but you'll just have to be patient.

Oh talk about single payer, Aetna put out an article either today or last night that if congress wanted to talk about that they were open to discussion, as long as insurance companies were involved. From an agent's prospective can you imagine if Medicare for all a reality and they pushed Med Advantages? If that happens I wished I was 10 years younger.

The current law was designed to collapse our system, it worked. I have a recording of Obama talking to Union folks telling them that Single Payer was his goal, but it would have to be brought about slowly. Well we are almost there. My personal belief is that they will start with a Medicare for all type system. This is where derp is correct, the larger Companies will become Administrative and nothing else. Right now they still must adhere to the business model they developed to try and cope with what the ACA has wrought.

The problem here is that the public at large does not have the ability to look any further than where the media directs their attention. It takes a business person to see all of the working parts.
1) Overhead, this is labor, this is benefits to employees, this Worker's Comp, this is property and casualty insurance, General Liabilty insurance.

That is just a partial list of the Insurance Companies costs but we can't stop there. You must look at the providers and their costs, the suppliers of equipment and immaterial , the pharmaceutical companies, the way the equipment and materiel at delivered. Its not just about the "rotten" insurance companies. It goes all the way back upstream to where the river begins.

It all boils down to funding and costs, and I know that that sounds easy it really isn't.

Let me be clear, I have no real love of Insurers or Providers, but I'm smart enough to know that emotions have no place in the conversation.

 

[Doc1]

I wonder if he is a sock for Edward who likes to start these threads? I tried to play along but I am not here to school (which I've tried) a non client. I guess he thinks us broker's and agent's are making a killing selling health insurance these days. LOL

You're not? That's strange since 24,000,000 people now have coverage who didn't before. So either you're really shitty at your job, or you're lying.

More than half were Medicaid and most agents don't deal with Medicaid and there are 50 states dip wad. I've been doing this for over 25 years. So I know what i'm talking about. But if it makes you happy I make a damn good living with Medicare plans mostly Medicare Advantage.

You don't understand the people who signed up at the beginning of year, had a surgery, we got paid and then they dropped it. Guess what we pay the commission back. Or the ones who played the system and knew they could go 90 days without and pay no penalty and would stop paying for oct,nov and dec. Partial chargeback. Guess what that is all changed for 2018 plan year and no I won't tell you in case you're one playing the system.

You're right, hell I won't mess with Medicaid, I just refer them to the State Offices. Medicare is pretty simple, I only mess with Plans F,G and N. Plan N is my favorite. Advantage plans have their place, but unless its a client cost issue I don't go near them. I have had nothing but bad experiences with HMOs.

 

[The Derp]

Prior to the ACA yes. Now all increases are divided into two categories, over 10% and HHS must approve it, under 10 % and the State Commisssioner can approve, but then that's twice I've told you that now.

Aaaannnnnnnnnd, who is more likely to approve such a rate increase above 10%? Perhaps those trying to undermine the law for political reasons?

Aetna just pulled out of all the exchanges period.

And why? Was it because Obamacare was too costly? NOPE! That's what they said, but they were caught lying about that. The reason they pulled out of the exchange was because their proposed merger with Humana was not approved. I'm surprised someone as "in tune" with the health care industry wasn't aware of that. It was relatively big news, even if they didn't report it on Fox News. Aetna executives conspired to deliberately lie to people like you. Why you fell for those lies is a deeper question we don't have to get into here.

Judge: Aetna lied about quitting Obamacare
A federal judge has ruled that Aetna wasn't being truthful when the health insurer said last summer that its decision to pull out of most Obamacare exchanges was strictly a business decision triggered by mounting losses.

Judge: Aetna lied about why it dropped some Obamacare coverage

So if they were lying there, why would they (or any other insurer) be telling the truth about anything else? They undertook a concerted effort to deliberately lie to the public, and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker like a true dupe. So because of that, everything they say -and by extension everything you say, since you went along with their bullshit- cannot be trusted. Basically, you got no credibility. So why the **** should anyone believe anything you say?

 

[The Derp]

I've been doing this for 17 years.

BULLSHIT! Don't believe it for a second. Wondering why Conservatives must always lean on unverifiable personal anecdotes about themselves to bolster credibility where none exists? You say you've been in the industry for "17 years", yet you were not aware that Aetna deliberately lied about their reasons for dropping out of the exchanges? So it's shit like that, what makes it so hard for me to believe or trust in anything you say. So how about instead of making up things about yourself to lend your argument credibility it doesn't otherwise have, you shut the **** up? Why is that so hard for you?

The current law was designed to collapse our system, it worked. I have a recording of Obama talking to Union folks telling them that Single Payer was his goal, but it would have to be brought about slowly. Well we are almost there. My personal belief is that they will start with a Medicare for all type system. This is where derp is correct, the larger Companies will become Administrative and nothing else. Right now they still must adhere to the business model they developed to try and cope with what the ACA has wrought.

So Obama passed a law that showed just how worthless, useless, and extraneous private insurance is so he could abolish it down the line? And this is a bad thing, why? Private insurance is parasitic. It does nothing to improve or enhance your care, it only restricts access to care. Private insurance serves no function when it comes to health care at all. It's just the mechanism by which your provider is reimbursed. My question to you, and it's one no Conservative has ever been able to answer, is why does there have to be a profit motive tied to the administration of reimbursements, and how does that improve or enhance the care you get from your provider?

The problem here is that the public at large does not have the ability to look any further than where the media directs their attention. It takes a business person to see all of the working parts.

No, the problem is that there are a bunch of poseurs like you who pretend to know things when you don't. How could a "business person" such as yourself not be aware of Aetna lying to consumers? That means you're either the shittiest businessman ever, or you're ******* lying. So which is it? Are you shitty or a liar? Take your time. Don't rush your answer.

1) Overhead, this is labor, this is benefits to employees, this Worker's Comp, this is property and casualty insurance, General Liabilty insurance.

Normal business expenses...yet no other business in this country -even the shady Financial Services sector- charges as much as a 20% fee for administration. You wouldn't tolerate your bank charging you 20% to make an online payment, so why do you tolerate an insurer charging you 20% to make a payment to your doctor? Are you stupid?

 

[debbiedowner]

I wonder if he is a sock for Edward who likes to start these threads? I tried to play along but I am not here to school (which I've tried) a non client. I guess he thinks us broker's and agent's are making a killing selling health insurance these days. LOL

You're not? That's strange since 24,000,000 people now have coverage who didn't before. So either you're really shitty at your job, or you're lying.

More than half were Medicaid and most agents don't deal with Medicaid and there are 50 states dip wad. I've been doing this for over 25 years. So I know what i'm talking about. But if it makes you happy I make a damn good living with Medicare plans mostly Medicare Advantage.

You don't understand the people who signed up at the beginning of year, had a surgery, we got paid and then they dropped it. Guess what we pay the commission back. Or the ones who played the system and knew they could go 90 days without and pay no penalty and would stop paying for oct,nov and dec. Partial chargeback. Guess what that is all changed for 2018 plan year and no I won't tell you in case you're one playing the system.

You're right, hell I won't mess with Medicaid, I just refer them to the State Offices. Medicare is pretty simple, I only mess with Plans F,G and N. Plan N is my favorite. Advantage plans have their place, but unless its a client cost issue I don't go near them. I have had nothing but bad experiences with HMOs.

You know what I have found over the years the poor and the very wealthy where I'm from levitate towards the Advantage plans, poor because they can't afford a supplement and the wealthy if they are healthy seem to be pretty tight with their money. Plans F and G for me I show the N but they just don't like their cost share. Our Mapd's are 2 PPO's and 1 HMO. Most of the poor but not all will want the HMO because of zero premium and yes I tell them them the restriction's. The one I sell the most of his a PPO with vast network and premium's of under $50 per month.

I explain the difference in sup vs mapd and let them make their decision. I find today vs 5 years ago turning 65 have been on group plans with co pays and high max oop and the MAPD's don't seem to phase them. It's either pay up front or arrears. I have the PPO, 4th year on it and this year so far have had some major problems but have only paid $350.00 oop so far. Not to say the year won't get worse but when I think of the past 4 years a supplement and Part D I would have paid for premium's around $12,000 vs about $900. The older people in 70's and 80's that had been on MAPD ask about premium's on a sup and part D at AEP but since they're used to paying no or a very low premium for 5 or 6 years just can't go for it and also the company I represent has a few more health question's than UHC.

Oh and derp is right, but when you come across like an a hole to me I return the favor. Probably a pretty nice person. It's easy sitting on the other side of computer to get nasty.