- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
In this instance, I think that that's all people are asking for - at least it is for me - is to justify that large of an increase in light of what we currently know and that you have pointed out.donsutherland1 said:IMO, the company should use the opportunity presented by its testimony before Congress to fully disclose financial and actuarial data by demographic group, census tract, and other market subsegments if it wishes to substantiate its forthcoming rate hike.
You poor man, you think this about helping the "average American"In this instance, I think that that's all people are asking for - at least it is for me - is to justify that large of an increase in light of what we currently know and that you have pointed out.
There is one other thing about this that stood out to me...
Anthem Blue Cross is telling many of its approximately 800,000 customers who buy individual coverage -- people not covered by group rates-- that its prices will go up March 1 and may be adjusted "more frequently" than its typical yearly increases.
Why target only individual customers? Did Anthem think that individuals would just meekly go along? Did they not want a fight with companies that offer group coverage to their employees?
There are questions that deserve answers and I'm glad someone called them on it on behalf of the average American consumer.
There are many problems with this. One, "regulation" is very general. Should the government enforce contracts between insurers and those who use them? Of course.
Two, I find it very unlikely that, however many individual cases you find, money insurers save by denying to pay for things they have promised to pay for is any more than a drop in the bucket.
Three, even if what you say is true and insurers make money by denying services, how will regulating their price increases stop that?
An example of regulated insurance.
Pay attention to who denies the most claims, it's hilarious. :lol:
Yup.
And they did that with lowering the home loan requirements.
How's that worked out for us? :roll:
Erm, that's kind of what the whole thread is about.
Outright denial and delay of service are two different things. If an insurer simply delays until you're dead, that's not counted as a denial of service.
But of course the govt option won't be needing that oversight, because afterall, it's the govt. :mrgreen:With the insanity and unethical practices in the insurance industry, this is one regulation that I completely agree with.
You mean greed, right Don?As I had suspected, the WellPoint testimony provided today to the House Energy and Commerce Committee did not provide any detailed actuarial or financial data that could allow one to analyze specific subsectors within the company. Instead, it offered technically accurate general arguments. At the same time, a Committee memorandum cited documents that lean toward the idea that business objectives, not benefit payment developments, may well be the main driver of the rate hikes.
Given today's testimony and lack of disclosure of vital actuarial and financial details that could have substantiated WellPoint's arguments, I strongly believe that the 10K report provides the best picture of what was happening. Business objectives, not a dramatic deterioration in benefit payments, is largely responsible for the company's up to 39% rate hike in California.
You mean greed, right Don?
Yup.
And they did that with lowering the home loan requirements.
How's that worked out for us? :roll:
Because this worked soooooo well when we did it with oil.
Seriously, this is absolutely appalling. Oh hey, what was that about this not being a government take-over?
Oh, Really -- please show us all where "they" lowered the requirements. Or forced banks to give bad loans... or any other far-right talking pointing blaming government for everything...
We just had these debates not long ago, how could hazl forget?CRA
CRA II
Acorn Lawsuits on so-called "red-lining" lenders.
We just had these debates not long ago, how could hazl forget?
Bad idea in my opinion, if you start conroling prices like this someone is going to get screwed. Would have been better if he used a more competitive approach to controling prices, like buying across state lines and a public option...
I do not understand how anyone with even the loosest grasp of economics could support this.
A govt option is not oversight.I don't understand how anyone who knows how private health care works can possibly dismiss this as a government 'take-over'. Health Insurance is backwards business model -- sign up as many customers as possible, then provide them with the as little service/good as possible.
A board that monitors rates and sees that consumers are getting the services they pay for... Wow, what a horrible thing:roll::roll:
Consumer protecting / government oversight has its pro and cons. Far-right partisans dismiss it without any acknowledgment of past corporate misdeeds and how government has played a role in protecting consumers.
This sounds like a pragmatic approach to getting health insurance providers in line.
Any industry that makes its money by denying service to those who have paid for such service needs regulation.
I don't understand how anyone who knows how private health care works can possibly dismiss this as a government 'take-over'.
Health Insurance is backwards business model -- sign up as many customers as possible, then provide them with the as little service/good as possible.
A board that monitors rates and sees that consumers are getting the services they pay for... Wow, what a horrible thing:roll::roll:
This sounds like a pragmatic approach to getting health insurance providers in line.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?