But Only Government Can Solve Healthcare Problems...

Page 1

Message

on 6/11 at 2:11 pm

... we need the public option to keep private insurers honest!

Biggest Health Insurer Will Keep Parts of 'Obamacare,' Regardless of Court Ruling
LINK

quote:
UnitedHealthcare, the nation’s largest health care provider, will keep major and popular parts of President Obama’s health care initiative, regardless of how the U.S. Supreme Court rules.

The company announced Monday that it plans to continue to provide customers with preventive health services without co-pays or out-of-pocket charges. The company will also allow parents to keep children on their health plans until age 26.

UnitedHealthcare will also observe the law’s prohibition against lifetime limits on insurance payouts and canceling coverage after a patient gets sick, unless that patient intentionally lied on the insurance application.

The announcement affects roughly 9 million consumers in the U.S. The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing several major challenges to the law, and is expected to issue rulings this month that could dispatch all or part of the law.

“The protections we are voluntarily extending are good for people’s health, promote broader access to quality care and contribute to helping control rising health care costs,” Stephen J. Hemsley, president and chief executive of UnitedHealth Group, said in a statement. “These provisions are compatible with our mission and continue our operating practices.”

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by ljhog

on 6/11 at 3:54 pm to Taxing Authority

that's because they can provide this type coverage at a profit! ok, i said it. PROFIT!!!

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by wickowick

on 6/11 at 4:00 pm to Taxing Authority

I would think that they have already adjusted their premiums to account for this extra coverage. They don't want to lose that new revenue...

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Taxing Authority

on 6/11 at 4:28 pm to ljhog

quote:
that's because they can provide this type coverage at a profit! ok, i said it. PROFIT!!!

Exactly. If there are those that want such coverage and are willing to pay for it... what do we need government for?

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Adam Banks

on 6/11 at 4:38 pm to Taxing Authority

Not that I care one way or the other but doesnt this example argue FOR government regulation not against? I mean there werent any large insurers doing this until the government forced them to.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Elcid96

on 6/11 at 4:43 pm to Adam Banks

quote:
I mean there werent any large insurers doing this until the government forced them to.

What makes you think they wouldn't of moved this way?

This is very simple.

This company will try this. If it works out and more people flood to their product it will force other companies to adjust. Not only will others adjust, but others will have to come in cheaper with better coverage to make it happen.

Now when the gov comes in, the private companies can't compete against the gov who just prints funny money.

If you really want to watch the prices fall and better coverage, just allow it to be done across state lines. Competition in a free market is good.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Adam Banks

on 6/11 at 4:48 pm to Elcid96

quote:
What makes you think they wouldn't of moved this way?

Why didnt they do it before?

quote:
This is very simple.

This company will try this. If it works out and more people flood to their product it will force other companies to adjust. Not only will others adjust, but others will have to come in cheaper with better coverage to make it happen.

Yes but no other company would have tried it without the government forcing their hand. They were making a pretty penny with the status quo. Why try something that has a large risk? The government forced everyone to do it so there was no risk in implementing it. It was overwhelmingly popular so now they have a monetary incentive to continue and risk of losing customers if they change.

quote:
Now when the gov comes in, the private companies can't compete against the gov who just prints funny money

I have no desire to see a public option

quote:
If you really want to watch the prices fall and better coverage, just allow it to be done across state lines. Competition in a free market is good.

Completely agree on this.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Taxing Authority

on 6/11 at 5:22 pm to Adam Banks

quote:
Not that I care one way or the other but doesnt this example argue FOR government regulation not against?

No. Did you read the article? The insurance companies will keep the policy even if government doesn't make them.

quote:
I mean there werent any large insurers doing this until the government forced them to.

So? That's like saying that since DARPA started the internet, the government should mandate the internet for everyone. It's a non sequitur.

The lack of innovation in the medical insurance industry is striking. Now, what coudl possibly be the massive impediment to innovation in the industry?

This post was edited on 6/11 at 5:25 pm

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by big Tiger 1885

on 6/11 at 5:29 pm to Taxing Authority

quote:
we need the public option to keep private insurers honest!

we have public options and single payer system its called medicare and its broke. The VA is a joke.
LINK

LINK

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Adam Banks

on 6/11 at 5:34 pm to Taxing Authority

quote:
No. Did you read the article? The insurance companies will keep the policy even if government doesn't make them.

Yes but they would have never come up with or implemented the idea without the government forcing their hand.

quote:
The lack of innovation in the medical insurance industry is striking. Now, what coudl possibly be the massive impediment to innovation in the industry?

The fact that the whole basis of the industry is avoidance of risk? Why innovate when no one else is innovating and you are making a solid profit? You just keep the status quo dont rock the boat and reel in money.

quote:
So? That's like saying that since DARPA started the internet, the government should mandate the internet for everyone. It's a non sequitur

The title of your thread is a sarcastic statement about how government can solve healthcare problems obviously implying the opposite. However it seems like they came up with such a popular idea and created an economic environment that allowed the insurance companies to implement changes that are beneficial to the customer and the company. Im just simply calling a spade a spade. They did a good job with those parts of the plan. Not all government is bad government.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by THRILLHO

on 6/11 at 5:35 pm to Adam Banks

quote:
Why didnt they do it before?

I'd imagine that if insurance companies could compete across state lines, we would have seen cheaper costs and more ingenuity.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Elcid96

on 6/11 at 6:30 pm to Adam Banks

quote:
Yes but no other company would have tried it without the government forcing their hand.

You can't just say it as if it were fact.

You can never prove this.

quote:
Why try something that has a large risk?

Because it may have a greater reward! That reason is asked in every business.

quote:
The government forced everyone to do it so there was no risk in implementing

Because the gov floated an idea and got it tested that is all. The gov had no risk in floating these ideas, because they knew they weren't risking any capital.

quote:
t was overwhelmingly popular so now they have a monetary incentive to continue and risk of losing customers if they change.

It was popular because it was going to be backed by the gov and most people couldn't realize it was going to cost more. Of course the gov was really going to foot the bill and since it gets to print the money and float ideas around without consequences everyone loved it.

If you don't think for a second that the insurance companies aren't going to try to make more money off of this you are crazy. However we both agree that if they open it up across state lines, everyone wins.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Adam Banks

on 6/11 at 7:31 pm to Elcid96

quote:

You can't just say it as if it were fact.

You can never prove this.

Ok lets just compromise and say it advanced the industry to where it would have been 15 years down the road.

quote:
Because it may have a greater reward! That reason is asked in every business.

Because the insurance industry is known for its innovation and risk taking.

quote:
Because the gov floated an idea and got it tested that is all. The gov had no risk in floating these ideas, because they knew they weren't risking any capital.

Exactly. They got a good idea and forced the hand of the insurance industry to move forward because it was in the best interest of everyone and had no risk attachment. How is this a bad thing?

Everyone from the consumers to the companies like it. Its ok to admit the government and the dems had a good idea on this one. If the insurance companies were innovating and were sitting on all these ideas they would have put them out there before their hand was forced.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Taxing Authority

on 6/11 at 11:32 pm to Adam Banks

quote:
Yes but they would have never come up with or implemented the idea without the government forcing their hand.

Bassackwards. Customers would have never demanded, nor been willing to pay for it. At the end of the day those are the only two things that will make the services available in lieu of mandated requirements. To act as if the concepts of these services is novel, and the product of government's fertile idea factory is not only speculative, but silly.

quote:
The fact that the whole basis of the industry is avoidance of risk? Why innovate when no one else is innovating and you are making a solid profit? You just keep the status quo dont rock the boat and reel in money.

This is only things you could think of that slow innovation in one of the most regulated industries in the country?

quote:
However it seems like they came up with such a popular idea and created an economic environment that allowed the insurance companies to implement changes that are beneficial to the customer and the company.

You really think these concepts come from the brilliance of Congress? SRSLY?

quote:
They did a good job with those parts of the plan.

Hitler did great things for Germany's economy, too.

quote:
Not all government is bad government.

Don't recall making that argument.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Taxing Authority

on 6/11 at 11:33 pm to Adam Banks

quote:
Ok lets just compromise and say it advanced the industry to where it would have been 15 years down the road.

Dude! Can you tell me Saturday's lottery numbers too?

quote:
They got a good idea and forced the hand of the insurance industry to move forward because it was in the best interest of everyone and had no risk attachment.

Huh?! You're claiming those policies had (have) no risk attachment? Hardly.

You seem to assign this to the brilliance of government. But the business reality is, they wouldn't exist (in lieu of mandate) if they weren't profitable.

The more likely scenario is that insurance companies have already priced much of cost into policies, without losing significant numbers of customers. Thus, keep the policies.

This post was edited on 6/11 at 11:37 pm

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Adam Banks

on 6/12 at 12:10 am to Taxing Authority

quote:
You seem to assign this to the brilliance of government. But the business reality is, they wouldn't exist (in lieu of mandate) if they weren't profitable.

The more likely scenario is that insurance companies have already priced much of cost into policies, without losing significant numbers of customers. Thus, keep the policies.

Exactly they all priced it in all at the same time so there was no business risk due to the environment the government created. Say if only blue cross did it they ran the high risk of losing customers due to a price increase. With all of the companies doing it at the same time there was no risk. It had to be done and there was no where for the consumer to shop to because every company was pricing in the same thing at the same time. Now they figured out that people like it so they are going to keep it.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Taxing Authority

on 6/12 at 9:13 am to Adam Banks

quote:
Say if only blue cross did it they ran the high risk of losing customers due to a price increase. With all of the companies doing it at the same time there was no risk. It had to be done and there was no where for the consumer to shop to because every company was pricing in the same thing at the same time. Now they figured out that people like it so they are going to keep it.

This is exactly what airlines do with fares. One tests the markets by raising fairs. If the others follow the raise sticks. If they don't, the fares are put back to where they were. Happens all the time. Without government's "brilliance".

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Adam Banks

on 6/12 at 10:25 am to Taxing Authority

quote:
This is exactly what airlines do with fares. One tests the markets by raising fairs. If the others follow the raise sticks. If they don't, the fares are put back to where they were. Happens all the time. Without government's "brilliance".

Yes but for some reason the insurance industry wasnt changing anything even though people nationwide wanted some sort of change. Maybe not all the change that was in the bill but some of it. You can sit here and try to claim the "invisible hand of the free market" would have sorted itself out but health insurance had been a ticking time bomb ever since bill and hillary tried to overhaul it in the 90s. However instead of trying to change and innovate to protect themselves the insurance CEOs stuck their fingers in their ears and kept peddling the status quo thinking that it would never make it through congress. If their costs went up instead of creating a better product to appeal to more customer base they just simply upped the price or slashed to providers. It finally hit a tipping point and we got the 2000+ page bureaucratic nightmare. Now if they were such innovator extrordinaires as you and others in this thread would have you believe why would they just sit idly while congress passed it instead of dumping their new ideas and products to change consumer morale?

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Taxing Authority

on 6/12 at 11:01 am to Adam Banks

quote:
Yes but for some reason the insurance industry wasnt changing anything even though people nationwide wanted some sort of change.

That's the consumers fault. Not the government's responsibility. The government has no role in forcing private companies to provide what their customers want. If you want Dr. Tischeners, and the grocery store doesn't carry it, is it up to the goverment to force them to?

quote:
However instead of trying to change and innovate to protect themselves the insurance CEOs stuck their fingers in their ears and kept peddling the status quo thinking that it would never make it through congress.

You know what CEO think? Impressive. Which stock should I buy?

quote:
Now if they were such innovator extrordinaires as you and others in this thread would have you believe

No one has claimed that. I'd argue that they largely didn't innovate; but due to government intervention, regulation, and tax policy which prevents being responsive to customer demands.

quote:
why would they just sit idly while congress passed it instead of dumping their new ideas and products to change consumer morale?

You think they sat idly while congress drafted the bill?

Might want to look as some lobbying reports.

Reply • Back to Top • Refresh

Return to Board	Jump to Page
Page 1 of 1