The best Health Insurer’s profits only beat Jack in the Box

Let me know when Jack in the Box turns away customers who have had “pre-existing conditions”, and lemme know what happened to them.

They already DO particpate in cash for chicken strips–you provide the cash–they provide the chicken strips!

Businessowners succeed by controlling costs and competing in the marketplace with better ideas and products, which then creates profits — and wealth and jobs. Doofuses that blast free enterprise and profits reveal two things: 1. They’ve never worked in the private, non-union sector of the economy (which is 93 percent of all workers), and 2. They believe markets are defective and more government regulation is always needed.

I love it when Republicans defend the insurance industry.

I love it when Democrats try to redistribute a private company’s hard earned money. I am pretty sure that political philosophy has a name?

TommyBoy-
Your lack of understanding is breathless. The provision for “pre x” is in there for one simple reason which Maryland found out quite quick why. It’s so people dont come off of plans when there healthy and back on when they have something wrong. You get whats called adverse selection and cant generate enough premium to cover claims and administration costs. As long as you dont have a gap of more then 63 days in your coverage, you wont have a pre x. However, individual plans are underwritten on a case by case bases. Associations, selling insurance over state lines, and yes tort reform are better beginnings then government run health care. Maryland tried it and they are losing money hand over fist and people are getting on and off the plan depending on there health. Yeah I know your type, one answer for everything GOVERNMENT! Its the problem not the solution. They have money for soda, a cell phone, cigarettes maybe a boat a playstation/X Box but dammit, I just cant afford health insurance. Priorities little man, its priorities.

“The provision for “pre x””

Pre-existing conditions are a bee-ess excuse to drop people the moment they actually need the insurance they paid for, and you can’t even bring yourself to say “pre-existing”. That’s just beautiful.

“it’s so people dont come off of plans when there healthy and back on when they have something wrong.”

And it also forces people to stay at the same job they had when they get sick, because they know the second they lose that insurance they won’t get covered until they go on Medicare.

“As long as you dont have a gap of more then 63 days in your coverage, you wont have a pre x”

And you can thank that dirty librul Sen Ted Kennedy for the socialist program called COBRA.

“They have money for soda, a cell phone, cigarettes maybe a boat a playstation/X Box but dammit, I just cant afford health insurance. Priorities little man, its priorities.”

You’re right, I *WOULD* buy my own healthcare for my family at the cost of over $25,000 a year, but we just HAD to drink 12 cases of soda a day.

It is not just profits, it is all unnecessary overhead that does not directly pay for health care: seven-figure executive salaries, advertising, pay and bonuses for those that do the best job of getting rid of sick customers, etc. While plans like Canada’s or our Medicare spend 5% or less on overhead, the privates spend more like 20% or even 30% in some cases.

It also is “price discovery” which I thought was a key component of capitalism. Problem is, the insurers aren’t subject to anti-trust laws so they are free to collaborate and divide up the market as they see fit. So, with hardly any competition, they do little to control health care costs because there is no incentive to do so. They simply pass along increases to customers and take their percentage off the top.

We could repeal McCarran/Ferguson, pass tough, federal regulations and let the privates compete across state lines (which they could do now if they wanted to meet individual state regulations and actually compete). But that means creating a bigger regulatory structure than would be needed if the privates were simply forced to compete against a government entity setting price and service standards. And we do not face the problems of regulatory price distortion or the real possibility of regulations being weakened at some point in the future.

To be clear, my first line above implies profits are unnecessary. I did not mean profits are unnecessary for private concerns nor that they are bad. If they are derived from doing a better job than a competitor including any nonprofit government operated one, great. But let there be competition and let one competitor set a standard of service that eliminates absolutely unconscionable practices like rescission.

The “low cost” of overhead for Medicare is, in part, due to their lack of diligent oversight for waste and fraud.
http://www.gao.gov/transition_2009/agency/hhs/enhancing-medicare-integrity.php

Not to mention that Medicare is unaf­fordable in its current form. The Medicare trustees report that Medicare pre­sents the nation with an $85.6 trillion financial hole…
http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg2253.cfm

Tommy, Tommy, Tommy. I think I have explained this to you before. Let us assume you have a car repair business. You decide you are going to “insure” cars so if something happens, you can repair it with a deductible. Your business plan sounds pretty good. One thing you insist upon is that before you “insure” the car, it has to pass inspection. Some guy comes in and tells you that is unfair. You should take any car and “insure” its health. You agree. Then he brings in a car with a bad transmission. You do not want to repair the transmission for the deductible. However since you accepted this “pre-existing” condition, you have to. It is not a business model that makes for profits.
Until you can tell me how this analogy does not apply (don’t try the comparing humans to cars thing, not the point), your argument is baseless.

Tommy Paine and John: Poll after poll shows 80 percent like their insurance plans as they are. Yet you and the rest of the progs insist there’s a “crisis.” Government-run insurance programs have failed in Maine, Massachusetts and Kentucky. Yet somehow a 1,503-page federal program will fix everything. Progs preen about their “reality-based community,” yet won’t consider simple facts.

And good example, Dugger.

TommyBoy-
Your just wrong, plain and simple. I am in the business and you give me one example of somebody getting dropped for a pre existing condition. You will get a rider on it for 18 months but you wont get dropped. YOU DONT GET IT, your spreading rumor and not fact on what a pre existing condition is. Pre existing conditions only exist if you had a gap in coverage between jobs of more then 63 days and the condition that is called a pre x is not going to be covered because you didnt have continious coverage, thats your fault, not the insurance companies. It’s not as complicated as your making it sound or your just not very bright.

People would come on and off plans when they needed surgeries or medical treatment’s, thats what it is for. It would only prevent you from leaving a job if the job your going to doesnt have medical insurance. You can take cobra or risk it the less then 63 days (depending what the waiting period is for new hires) which is usually 60 days. Why would that prevent you from leaving a job other then deductibles? Your spreading lies and rumors.

By the way Tommy, if you tell me if you need family coverage, single or Single + Spouse coverage, the deductible you want and age, I can knock the sox off that $25,000 number you keep throwing around. A 40 year old male Family Coverage would cost you $674.90 per month or $8,095.20 per year with Blue Cross Blue Shield. Now thats an individual plan and the government will NOT allow you to write off the premium like companies do but thats our wonderful government picking winners and losers…again…Does you family have major health issues? Are you on Cobra? You cant come here and throw a bunch of BS out here with out giving some needed case history. Remember you used yourself as an example I didnt.

Now I trust my friend PP but I’m sure your trying to track me down so you and your like can punish me but,then you wonder why people want to be un-named on this site with what the dems are doing to any insurance company that speaks out against this crap legislation. Full disclosure, health insurance doesnt make up much of my book so I dont care either way but I had to call you out on your BS.

Sorry Tommy-The above example is with a $1,500 deductible, $25 office copay, %20 coinsurance, $150 emergency room copay

Cliff:
Good idea mentioning Maine. I read an article where they explained in Maine they paid a premium (and man was it high) and then in New Hampshire ( the cost was less than 1/2. Yet people in Maine had worse coverage.

Cliff Hadley said,
“Doofuses that blast free enterprise and profits reveal two things…”

Yeah, that whole free enterprise thing worked out great for the banking sector, didn’t it.

To be honest, I didn’t know that Jack-n-the-Box were still running as a business.

This Administration deems it necesssary to dump on some organization to push a terrible Bill. Their underhanded smoke job shows everytime they change thier mind on who to blame.

Does this administration think all people are stupid! If they say they want to clean up the fraud, they don’t need a new health system to do so. Get in there and clean it up!

There is a possible FACT people are forgetting on a pre-existing condition. A insurance company can and do apply riders of non-coverage during the sign-up period regardless of no gap in coverage. A person or family can get coverage but anything related to the pre-exist is not covered. Another factor is insurance companies will at times try to relate certain medications or test due to a pre-existing condition. The fight comes at that point.

Insurance companies do have their own people who approve care. So for the point of a national board for a public option would be the same only worse.

People also have to realize the cost of insurance is based on those who have an illness already and are not covered under a plan. If we open our boarders and stop ALL THE MANDATES on insurance companies the cost would go down. For every mandate a door goes shut.

How about no more employer based insurance policies and open the market to single payer policies with open boarders.

“Until you can tell me how this analogy does not apply (don’t try the comparing humans to cars thing, not the point), your argument is baseless.”

I’ve read enough stories about people having their coverage recinded as soon as somebody get sick because of something completely unrelated, & I’ve had enough family & friends go through hell trying to get their health insurance to cover what they say they’re going to.

I get my health, vision, and dental through my employer. I had an infection in my wisdom teeth, which necessitated their removal. I met my deductible, and at the going rate of a simple extraction, they only covered about 1.5 of the 4 teeth I needed removed. I could chose with teeth (tooth) I wanted removed, or I could pay $1500 for the removal of the other 2.5 teeth. I chose the later. And this was AFTER my employer paid $12,000 a year for my insurance and AFTER I had to fight with them about teeth being a “pre-x”

My wife’s breathing got worse, and she had to go into the doctor to get her asthma checked on. After a full examination, she gets a prescription & goes to the pharmacy. There they tell her they don’t cover THAT brand name medicine, and that she’ll have to try not one, but TWO other kinds for THREE MONTHS EACH & see how they’ll perform before they’ll pay for the medication that the doctor told her would be the best for her condition.

Why? Because her insurance company has a deal with the other 2 phamacuetical companies, but not the one that would help my wife breathe the best.

And again, her employer chips in something like $11,000 for her insurance.

Cliff – “Tommy Paine and John: Poll after poll shows 80 percent like their insurance plans as they are.”

Yeah?

Prove it.

“Government-run insurance programs have failed in Maine, Massachusetts and Kentucky.”

Which is why I support Medicare Part E, instead of government administered insurance.

Tommy:
So, was it pre-existing? Have you been on that plan for more than one year? When you met your deductible, was that before your tooth extraction? Or are you counting that as part of the 2.5 they did not pay for? As for your wife, I cannot speak to that. Many details are missing, but I do know that generic medications are often covered when others are not. However, you still have not answered the point I made. Would your car repair insurance company stay in business if it took in cars with “pre-existing” conditions? If not, then surely you can see why a health insurance company would not do it.

Anonymous at 10:53… The No. 1 reason free enterprise and the marketplace work so well so often is simple fear of failure. That fear creates a responsible risk-taking environment. Remove that fear — as the feds did in housing and banking with its guarantees through Fannie Mae and other agencies — and before long no one believes failure is possible, opening the door to irresponsibility, or moral hazard, as they say.

It appears that you’re saying, “More government is the ticket.” Fine, as long as you’re willing to accept ever more crushing debt, less accountability, and less freedom in the deal. That tradeoff stinks.

duggersd is corect tommyboy-
Your teeth situation is your dental insurance not health, two completely different things which the government isnt touching dental insurance.

Your wifes situation is one reason why costs have gone up so much. Prescription drugs accout for I believe like 25% of costs. Your wifes attitude that trying a prescription that could save the company and thus her employer money and you in future increases to your premium is why cost continue to increase. There are three tiers of drugs typically on a health plan. Generic being the cheapest (patent has run out and there mass produced) the next tier is where theve been out but there are competing drugs that may or may not do the same thing case in point your wife, everybody reacts differently to certain drugs and if a less expensive drug will do the same thing then why not oh Im sorry does that inconvience her for a few months. What do you think the government is going to do to realize all the savings there BSing us about? The third tear is the most expensive and usually has no alternative and some may be experimental. These are very expensive, under patent and the user funds the research for the next great “wonder DRug”.

You never responded to any of my answers to the previous post and I would gladly debate you on this issue anytime and any place. If the government doesnt have some sort of pre x condition then you mandate insurance for all and have massive penalities if cought without. But big deal, they cant afford insurance why can they afford a penalty. Which brings us back to where we are today.

The all my friends and other incidental dialogue your saying is BS. Give me specifics on those cases and I will hands down tell you the government plan will be way more restrictive and your recourses will be diminsished further to supposedly fight the system. If you think corporations are hard to fight, try the federal government.

I think your naive for the record, not dumb.

ymous, your patient explanations are a delight.

What you’ve been writing on insurance and pre-existing conditions triggered another thought on anonymous’s 10:53 snark, in that anonymous implies that more government was needed to stave off the investment bank dive a year ago, and more government is needed now to “cure” health insurance. Which is absurd as analysis and presscription.

Government for years forced lenders to do business with lousy credit risks, and when all that bad paper inevitably went tits up, the system seized up. Now government wants to force insurers to do business with lousy health risks, and that will have inevitable bad results, as well, for everyone.

Stinks, don’t it?

“Your wifes attitude that trying a prescription that could save the company and thus her employer money and you in future increases to your premium is why cost continue to increase.”

You’re right, my wife should ignore the advice of the medical doctor the insurance company paid for her to see, and should instead try a medicine that the doctor did NOT recommend so the insurance company can save itself $40 a month.

I mean, it’s not like her employer chips in ELEVEN GRAND for her health care or anything…

Cliff-
thx and yes your right. Tommyboy cant grasp the concept that the governments form of health care will make his wifes little issue look like nothing. The whole system will be a system of doors, locked doors, tunnels and government bureaucracy because the government worker/government plan is protected from loss of a job or the loss of business.

There is nobody else to pick up the slack or compete with. His own political hackery is getting in the way of making good sound decisions concerning his families health. Who do you appeal to? Where else do you go? What other options do you have when the government drives all the competition out of the market place. He isnt responding which is why I hate to waste my time with people like him because there so partisan (you make it worth while however).

He’s so afraid/pig headed to admit that he’s wrong and doesnt understand health insurance and that his party is really wrong on this then to put his family first and try to pound out a compromise.

I hate delivering 20% increases to companies, its unsustainable and CANT continue. People should be focusing there attention on the hospitals & drug companies they are the ones operating in a monopoly, making associations and groups able to merge numbers & tort reform are also price decrease factors and stop with the demonization of the insurance companies (they have about a 3% return on investment). The hospitals increase costs (the big buildings they keep building and equipment) and say we lost money on your group. BS, you keep increasing your costs and overhead so fast its impossible to keep up when you continue to build these $100,000,000 buildings and $15,000,000 machines that blast cancer even though the hospital across town has basically the same machine. They are pwerful institutions that are what? Yeah, “NON_PROFIT” just like the government.

Is government going to get people to have a healthier lifestyle. Im tired of subsidizing alot of these smokers, heavy drinkers and over weight individuals. This is where I may part ways with master PP but I say tax the crap out of the soft drink industry/fast food/candy/chips industries and put that in a “lock box” to pay for the 10,000,000 that really cant afford health insurance. I have younger males that routinely opt out of health insurance that dont use it. There right they dont but because we dollar cost average health insurance (we dont in life insurance or property and casualty) Tommyboys scream bloody murder and the young and health opt out because its so expensive and we need to treat everybody the same even though one person has a health life style and one smoke and is 100lbs over weight. Why should they be treated the same? I could go on and on but I guarantee one thing, Tommy wont take up my challenge.
thx Cliff to listening to my rant.

Not only did they force banks to do business with lousy credit risks, they changed the laws and allowed them to become investment firms making bad investments with money designed to be loaned which allowed banks to stop being banks as well. They became involved in almost every bubbled that has now broken. Stinks, is right! Now lets see how quickly they can gut the remaining pieces of the American Pie with the New Health Care Plan.