Impeding changes to our Health Care system

classicman · 07-30-2012, 10:14 PM

Good for you, glatt.
Most of that rebate will remain with your employer if they paid for most of your insurance. Historically most insurance companies ratio was right around the 85% number. Cigna was the lone company far out of whack.
I have BCBS. I'm not getting a rebate. However my premiums will decrease starting in Sept! A whole $2.00 a month.
I guess that is better than another 20+% increase though. :/

glatt · 07-31-2012, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

Good for you, glatt.
Most of that rebate will remain with your employer if they paid for most of your insurance.

Yeah, that's fine. If they take 9.2% of the money they paid in, and I get 9.2% of the money I paid in, that seems fair, and I'll be happy with that.

Lamplighter · 07-31-2012, 09:09 AM

@Classic

There's an innate consequence with laws such as this.

First, once the minimum (or maximum) has been set, all the companies
will make the legal target into their accounting outcome, one way or another.
In this instance, we will soon see every company spending exactly 15% on non-health care expenses.
It's almost like saying to them: "Here take this 15% and go have a party"

The second problem is that the target is never changed (improved upon). Congress will not be able
to raise the % actually spent on health care to 86 or 87, let alone 90%, or higher.

We've seen this happen with things like pollutants in water quality.
Setting the upper limit of a toxin/pollutant comes to mean that
the same amount of toxin is (forever) OK.

I would like to see laws that set such targets include progressive targets,
that would be reviewed periodically until there is a somewhat objective limit could be determined.
I think this is how the "mutual" insurance companies end up
with lower premiums than the "for profit" companies.

Here in the west Kaiser-Permanente has been at 85% for years,
but even within that "target", KP has been engaged in actual research
on preventative and efficacious medicine, as well as cost accounting.
So handing 15% to companies that only push paper may be a big waste for years to come.

ETA:
Sorry, I was writing from memory and it wasn't so good.
Each of my 15/85 %'s above should have been 20/80 %'s

07-30-2012, 10:14 PM	#1
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	Good for you, glatt. Most of that rebate will remain with your employer if they paid for most of your insurance. Historically most insurance companies ratio was right around the 85% number. Cigna was the lone company far out of whack. I have BCBS. I'm not getting a rebate. However my premiums will decrease starting in Sept! A whole $2.00 a month. I guess that is better than another 20+% increase though. :/ __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

07-31-2012, 09:09 AM	#3
Lamplighter Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods Posts: 6,402	@Classic There's an innate consequence with laws such as this. First, once the minimum (or maximum) has been set, all the companies will make the legal target into their accounting outcome, one way or another. In this instance, we will soon see every company spending exactly 15% on non-health care expenses. It's almost like saying to them: "Here take this 15% and go have a party" The second problem is that the target is never changed (improved upon). Congress will not be able to raise the % actually spent on health care to 86 or 87, let alone 90%, or higher. We've seen this happen with things like pollutants in water quality. Setting the upper limit of a toxin/pollutant comes to mean that the same amount of toxin is (forever) OK. I would like to see laws that set such targets include progressive targets, that would be reviewed periodically until there is a somewhat objective limit could be determined. I think this is how the "mutual" insurance companies end up with lower premiums than the "for profit" companies. Here in the west Kaiser-Permanente has been at 85% for years, but even within that "target", KP has been engaged in actual research on preventative and efficacious medicine, as well as cost accounting. So handing 15% to companies that only push paper may be a big waste for years to come. ETA: Sorry, I was writing from memory and it wasn't so good. Each of my 15/85 %'s above should have been 20/80 %'s Last edited by Lamplighter; 07-31-2012 at 10:36 AM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)