OCinBuffalo Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 WTF? First it's been proven that Medicare and Medicaid run at a much more efficient level than private insurers. Your solution is to have over a hundred thousand different health care systems and when somebody is injured a 1000 miles away then only their counties health care plan would apply. I see that as one big flustercuck that would be unimaginably difficult to manage. Buddy NOWHERE has that been proven. That is a myth. It is true in limited fashion in some areas, but if you were to give a grade, would be something like: Medicare/Medicaid 50%, Private 40%. Both are still failing grades, so what exactly is your point? You only want to fail by 15 points instead of 25??? Great Look, managing health care is a tangle no matter how you look at it. But, looking at it from a "# of decisions/people making decisions", standpoint, the more you can decrease the numerator and denominator the better. Letting counties decide does both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 I didn't miss the point at all. You're saying the regulation of the company didn't go far enough. They should have regulated everything they did to the point of kicking them out of the state. You thought it would work against you and so you agreed with the regulation that kept them from getting the 47% increase because that would have been bad for you. I don't understand why you thought the 47% increase was bad at all. I'd think you'd be against them regulating that in any way. After all in a capitalistic society it's the laws of supply and demand that make everything work without any necessary regulations. If they had made that 47% increase then customers would just go to other companies. What's your problem with that? Edited to add: The reason they wanted to raise those rates, I believe, is due to higher costs from hurricanes. If you don't like it move. Has nothing to do with me now. I Changed Insurance company's years ago. What I have a problem with is any Insurance company cherry picking policy holders, any insurance company. Why not just write Life insurence policy's for woman aged 18 to 40? I'd make a sh-- load of money there, you? So why do you think the Florida Legislature voted down their request for that 47% increase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 In addition, the Liberal fishrag newspaper down here is lambasting SF for their move, yet you defending them is Hilarius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Buddy NOWHERE has that been proven. That is a myth. It is true in limited fashion in some areas, but if you were to give a grade, would be something like: Medicare/Medicaid 50%, Private 40%. Both are still failing grades, so what exactly is your point? You only want to fail by 15 points instead of 25??? Great Look, managing health care is a tangle no matter how you look at it. But, looking at it from a "# of decisions/people making decisions", standpoint, the more you can decrease the numerator and denominator the better. Letting counties decide does both. I'm too tired to find a link now but Medicaid runs at about a 3% overhead and BCBS at about 14%. 'Nuff said. Has nothing to do with me now. I Changed Insurance company's years ago. What I have a problem with is any Insurance company cherry picking policy holders, any insurance company. Why not just write Life insurence policy's for woman aged 18 to 40? I'd make a sh-- load of money there, you? So why do you think the Florida Legislature voted down their request for that 47% increase? Isn't that the American way? If they only write policies for 18 to 40 year olds then others will have to go to another company. The fact is that you believe in government regulation of insurance companies and believe it doesn't go far enough. I thought the whole idea was to keep government out of business as much as possible. If SF had higher costs due to hurricane damage why shouldn't they be able to recoup those costs by passing them along to policy holders? If they don't like it they can move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I'm too tired to find a link now but Medicaid runs at about a 3% overhead and BCBS at about 14%. 'Nuff said. You could sleep for 15 hours get up tomorrow, and still not be right. The budget of Medicare is about 449.2 BILLION, they are not responsible for turning a profit, yet, they need all that budget? Please. And, as evidenced by my link, they do not run, or report, their "overhead" the same as a real business. There is no comparison here. It's fundamentally flawed, a distortion, and used by political hacks to give themselves the appearance of knowing what they are talking about. God I wish that stupid last season of the West Wing had never happened. Millions of 'tards running around telling people what they saw on a TV show.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 I'm too tired to find a link now but Medicaid runs at about a 3% overhead and BCBS at about 14%. 'Nuff said. Isn't that the American way? If they only write policies for 18 to 40 year olds then others will have to go to another company. The fact is that you believe in government regulation of insurance companies and believe it doesn't go far enough. I thought the whole idea was to keep government out of business as much as possible. If SF had higher costs due to hurricane damage why shouldn't they be able to recoup those costs by passing them along to policy holders? If they don't like it they can move. What I want is a fair market. A competitive market. If one insurance company can pick and choose its policy's and another can not, there has to be regulation. You cant have one company or more taking on the risk of potential hurricanes and another not. It should be the same across the board. It should be all or nothing when it comes to writing any insurance policy's across this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 What I want is a fair market. A competitive market. If one insurance company can pick and choose its policy's and another can not, there has to be regulation. You cant have one company or more taking on the risk of potential hurricanes and another not. It should be the same across the board. It should be all or nothing when it comes to writing any insurance policy's across this country. You're right, they should all be unregulated so they can raise their rates indiscriminately. Why should the government interfere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Gee, it sounds like we need comprehensive health care that's not run by greedy companies. Thanks, but I'll continue to get my health care from doctors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 God I wish that stupid last season of the West Wing had never happened. Millions of 'tards running around telling people what they saw on a TV show.... At least he hasn't started quoting Nancy Grace. Yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Thanks, but I'll continue to get my health care from doctors. Umm, as far as I know you can pick your doctor more or less. They don't mandate your doctors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Has nothing to do with me now. I Changed Insurance company's years ago. What I have a problem with is any Insurance company cherry picking policy holders, any insurance company. Why not just write Life insurence policy's for woman aged 18 to 40? I'd make a sh-- load of money there, you? So why do you think the Florida Legislature voted down their request for that 47% increase? Are you nuckin futs? I remember when people would queue up and BEG for Amica to insure them....and Amica would pick and choose. What's wrong with firing customers who aren't profitable? That's good business sense. Sad truth - if you live in a flood plain, riot zone, tornado alley, on the side of a mountian or combat zone...you're a bad risk! You either pay through the nose or you can't get insurance. Tough sh--. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Are you nuckin futs? I remember when people would queue up and BEG for Amica to insure them....and Amica would pick and choose. What's wrong with firing customers who aren't profitable? That's good business sense. Sad truth - if you live in a flood plain, riot zone, tornado alley, on the side of a mountian or combat zone...you're a bad risk! You either pay through the nose or you can't get insurance. Tough sh--. Or you stop building your damn house on the damn river bank, stop being "tornado bait" and living in a trailer in the middle of Tornado alley. Or, stop being amazed that mother nature comes along every 3 or 4 years and gives you a beating, then asking people to bail you out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I'm too tired to find a link now but Medicaid runs at about a 3% overhead and BCBS at about 14%. 'Nuff said. There is NO possible way that's right. As a government program, the overhead would run more than 3% for the accounting alone. Whoever pulled that number out of their ass - and it's not you; I just found it in two different sources in a quick google search - is either flat-out lying, or playing games with their numbers that would be illegal at an "Enron" level in corporate accounting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Most of this is over my head, but I would like to pipe in that I am getting a excellent rate on my hurricane insurance here in Alaska. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 USAA remains a really good deal for insurance if you are a member. Yep, I am quite happy with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 What I want is a fair market. A competitive market. If one insurance company can pick and choose its policy's and another can not, there has to be regulation. You cant have one company or more taking on the risk of potential hurricanes and another not. It should be the same across the board. It should be all or nothing when it comes to writing any insurance policy's across this country. But it's not a competitive market due exactly to state mandates. The reason you feel like you're getting fleeced on in one area is that SF is probably getting fleeced in another area. I'm guessing that if property & casualty insurers had their way, they wouldn't underwrite a single policy in Florida under current regs. But if they want to sell auto & life policies in the state, then they probably have to live by prop & casualty regulations - where they lose a bundle of money. What FLA is doing is slowly eliminating the concept of insurance and replacing it with taxpayer funded wealth distribution. You can call for more regulation, but all that will do is push the insurers out of the state and watch your rates skyrocket even more. The other solution is to eliminate private hurricane insurance and impose a new tax on Florida residents to pay for the annual $ billions in property that ends up in the ocean and the Gulf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 There is NO possible way that's right. As a government program, the overhead would run more than 3% for the accounting alone. Whoever pulled that number out of their ass - and it's not you; I just found it in two different sources in a quick google search - is either flat-out lying, or playing games with their numbers that would be illegal at an "Enron" level in corporate accounting. I would tend to agree but let's say they are cutting the estimate by a third that still means 9% vs. 14%. I don't know for sure but I still think it comes out better in the wash. Most of this is over my head, but I would like to pipe in that I am getting a excellent rate on my hurricane insurance here in Alaska. But it's not a competitive market due exactly to state mandates. The reason you feel like you're getting fleeced on in one area is that SF is probably getting fleeced in another area. I'm guessing that if property & casualty insurers had their way, they wouldn't underwrite a single policy in Florida under current regs. But if they want to sell auto & life policies in the state, then they probably have to live by prop & casualty regulations - where they lose a bundle of money. What FLA is doing is slowly eliminating the concept of insurance and replacing it with taxpayer funded wealth distribution. You can call for more regulation, but all that will do is push the insurers out of the state and watch your rates skyrocket even more. The other solution is to eliminate private hurricane insurance and impose a new tax on Florida residents to pay for the annual $ billions in property that ends up in the ocean and the Gulf. See this is the type of garbage I was expecting all of the ultra-conservatives here to spew. Are you saying GG that insurance companies can't turn a profit with these regulations or is it they can't maximize their profits due to regulations? I have a feeling it's the maximize thing but do you really believe that insurance companies will leave because they don't make a profit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Like I said before, the entire state of California is basically in a risk pool for quake insurance. You can't get it from any carrier. If you ask, they refer you to a New Hampshire mailing address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I would tend to agree but let's say they are cutting the estimate by a third that still means 9% vs. 14%. I don't know for sure but I still think it comes out better in the wash. How does taking an obviously inaccurate rate and arbitrarily tripling it make it any more accurate? If I said my Bently car door is 3 times as efficient as Karl's car door, you would say that my measurments were weird. If I said, ok I guess it is 9 times as efficient, it would not make the measurement better. It should be very clear that multiplying things by 3 results in a lot of errors. If you multiplied itby 3.5 you might be on to something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 But it's not a competitive market due exactly to state mandates. The reason you feel like you're getting fleeced on in one area is that SF is probably getting fleeced in another area. I'm guessing that if property & casualty insurers had their way, they wouldn't underwrite a single policy in Florida under current regs. But if they want to sell auto & life policies in the state, then they probably have to live by prop & casualty regulations - where they lose a bundle of money. What FLA is doing is slowly eliminating the concept of insurance and replacing it with taxpayer funded wealth distribution. You can call for more regulation, but all that will do is push the insurers out of the state and watch your rates skyrocket even more. The other solution is to eliminate private hurricane insurance and impose a new tax on Florida residents to pay for the annual $ billions in property that ends up in the ocean and the Gulf. Maybe regulation was the wrong word to use. Also, I dont feel I'm being fleeced, I dont have SF. My issue is the cherry picking. I think they should have told them "If you want to end HO policy's, you cant write anything else" http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/bank...ticle971104.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts