Non-profit health insurance concept

[billwald]

About a million years ago I took a college course for credit on insurance theory. The prof noted that the reason "for profits" exist is that they are operate more efficiently than non-profits. For example, Seattle-based SAFECO (profit) and PEMCO (nonprofit) offer the same products and have existed side by side for several decades. One would expect the non-profit to push SAFECO out of business but it doesn't happen. One of the largest and oldest life insurance companies, New York Life, just converted to for profit.

Same with credit unions and savings and loans. Their rates are roughly identical. I been in a credit union for 40 years but am thinking of switching because their service is sloppy.

 

[billwald]

>The difference is that it is constitutionally permissible for the federal government to be involved in the military.

It is also constitutionally permissible for the federal government to provide for the general welfare of the country. You all might not like it, but that's what is clearly written for all to read. Anyone want to argue that it is not in the best interest of the nation for the people living here to be healthy?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

An interesting thing came from the locked post about health insurances.

I'd like to know, with the condition you have the CHOICE to subscribe or not (i understood that you want to be free to do what you want with your money, and that the only " social " thing some seem to accept, is based on the concept of " charity ").

So, based on the fact you have the right to subscribe or not, don't you agree with the fact social insurance companies should be non-profit organization ?

No. Businesses should be allowed to make money for the work they do.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

To be honest, what i fear from " private insurances ", is the selection, and i truly believe it is possible (maybe it already exists). And i think profit increases the will to aim at some specifical populations, who will pay, but not cost much.

What selection ?

- Age : if you're older, you cost more, so after 60, wether you pay much much more, or we won't insure you (that's the way things go here).

But they might select on criterias that " might be controlled " by the people they insure, so that " we can't agree to your subscription on those criterias, but it's up to you to change that, and then we'll accept you ".

- Smoking : You're a smoker, the company might not take the risk, it's proven that the risk of major cancer or breath problems are more important. Stop smoking, then we'll insure you.

- Job : you're a packer, the company might not take the risk, it's proven that the risk of major back wounds is important in your job.
Change your job, then we'll insure you.

- Weight : You're too big, the company might not take the risk, it's proven that the risk of colon cancer, diabet, cholesterol, and many diseases are more important.
Loose weight, then we'll insure you.

Many more criterias would be possible .... after all, they're a private company, which aim is to make money, no matter if it's about health, we're there to make money.

I truly think we're not far to have some of these criterias in our insurances (smoking, weight), on the basis " it's up to you to get rid of that ".

That's what i fear, that they add more criterias, and look like " the lowest priced insurance " but have only a selected population.

I remember my pastor telling me " Smoking is dangerous, people are responsible of their body, and when they get sick from that, they ask for the system, even if they know it was up to them to start/not stop ". I think it's easy to point the finger on the smokers. If tomorrow someone comes with his kid, sick, at the hospital, and the clerk replies " Ok, you kid needs surgery, but he's too big, your insurance won't take that in charge because the illness might be linked to that criteria ", i'm not sure it'll be the same reaction ....

And that's where competition comes in.

 

[LeBuick]

Wrong. You exhibit a lack of economics understanding. Increasing competition will drive down price. When the government gets into the busines of insurance, they won't have to turn a profit, so it will be impossible to compete with them. Nice try, though.

Wrong, there is no competition when all the companies have the same objectives. Like automobile insurance, they simply all have high rates. This would really screw people in rural areas because this idea will give insurance companies license to raise their rates saying they need to money to compete in high cost areas. And, the larger companies will buy up all the smaller companies then set what ever prices they want and/or drive the remaining smaller companies out of business. This solution is no solution. There is nothing stopping most of these companies from setting up shop in other states now.

So it sure makes sense for a guy in N.Y. to be able to save $$ with a company from, say, Montana...you prove my point.

But there is no doctor in NY who will accept the insurance from Montana because the reimbursement rates will be too low. So where it may be nice to have cheap insurance, what good is it when no doctor accepts it?

Dubious, but TORT reform woud also give them incentive to drop rates. Is that how auto insurance works ? Why don't we hear the same complaints ?

Incentive YES but would they actually drop any rates or pocket all the profits. That is the question. These are the same people who took TARP money and paid themselves huge bonuses then refused to give any loans. You expect them to reduce rates because TORT passed? Whose kidding whom? TORT in the form of caps is a huge gift to the insurers and, in your own groups vernacular, it is putting a price on granny.

Also, auto insurance is high and the companies are making a killing. Not sure about where you live but people here are paying $200/mo just to have a SR22 form on file. I have full coverage and still pay $13/mo for something called uninsured motorist. Our state, insurance is mandatory so according to the law there are no uninsured motorist and even if there is one, I have full coverage so shouldn't have to worry what insurance the other guy has.

Auto insurance also totals cars out at some ambiguous price making you prove you kept up on maintenance etc... They often negotiate directly with the lender leaving the actual owner out of the negotiations.

I don't think you meant to use auto insurance to compare, they are as big a rip off as the medical folks. But not to worry, one reform at a time.

 

[LeBuick]

About a million years ago I took a college course for credit on insurance theory. The prof noted that the reason "for profits" exist is that they are operate more efficiently than non-profits. For example, Seattle-based SAFECO (profit) and PEMCO (nonprofit) offer the same products and have existed side by side for several decades. One would expect the non-profit to push SAFECO out of business but it doesn't happen. One of the largest and oldest life insurance companies, New York Life, just converted to for profit.

Same with credit unions and savings and loans. Their rates are roughly identical. I been in a credit union for 40 years but am thinking of switching because their service is sloppy.

Excellent post. Just because a program is nonprofit doesn't mean it will drive the competition out of business. History has shown the opposite is true.

 

[carpro]

Blue Cross is a "non-profit" company and democrats want to put them out of business just like all the rest.