Non-profit health insurance concept

[Spear]

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 ?

 

[alatide]

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 ?

Basically a good idea but flawed in the sense that if people have the choice then all the young healthy people will opt out (although I knew a 30 year old who died of cancer). The people left would be the people who need more coverage. This would drive the cost way up for the people in the pool.

If we say we all have a need for the military why can't we admit that we all have a need for health care?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Basically a good idea but flawed in the sense that if people have the choice then all the young healthy people will opt out (although I knew a 30 year old who died of cancer). The people left would be the people who need more coverage. This would drive the cost way up for the people in the pool.

If we say we all have a need for the military why can't we admit that we all have a need for health care?

It would depend on how the law is written ... if there is a law.

Basically I think it is a good idea in that executives would not be under pressure from shareholders to make a profit. They would need to break even and if at the end of the year there was a "positive variance" that could be applied to defraying costs the next year and not given as executive bonuses.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

And what if they operated at a loss ?

What would be the incentive to provide insurance to people in a non-profit company ? It seems to me every company would have to offer the exact same plan, and there would be no competition, no reason to drive cost down.

It won't work. I am glad my insurance company is able to offer me a better deal for what I require than others.

If you lifted inter-state restrictions, you would increase competition, and drive costs down even more. There are already too many restrictions on insurance companies. Taking profit incentive will only make it worse.

 

[KenH]

History has shown that the profit motive has served mankind quite well as seen in the ascendancy of the United States.

 

[billwald]

"non-profit" is a tax scam

All it means to the bottom line is that there are no stock holders. Instead of profits going to stock holders the money is paid to the people who run the non-profits which is why they are paid salaries of $millions.

 

[Spear]

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 ....

 

[Revmitchell]

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 ....

Looks like the government option the libbies want

 

[Crabtownboy]

Looks like the government option the libbies want

It is better than the no insurance option you want for the poor and elderly.

 

[KenH]

It is better than the no insurance option you want for the poor and elderly.

What's wrong with private charity? Sure beats government handouts.

 

[billwald]

SPEAR describes how insurance is supposed to work. Stupid Americans don't know the difference between insurance and a pre-paid service.

 

[Winman]

There are already non-profit insurance companies. When you see "mutual" as Mutual of Omaha, these are non-profit insurance companies. Here is a very brief and general definition

The most common kind of mutual company is a mutual insurance company. In this type of organization, which is a cooperative association, the members are both the insurers and the insured. Such companies exist for the purpose of satisfying the insurance needs of their members at a minimal cost. The members contribute through a system of premiums or assessments, forming a fund from which all losses and liabilities are paid. Any profits are divided among the members of the company in amounts proportionate to their individual interests.

The members of a mutual company choose the management. Professional associations that offer their members insurance coverage often form mutual insurance companies.

The first insurance companies in America were started by farmers, thus names like State Farm and Farmer's Insurance.

Back in the mid 1800's farmers knew that a severe weather condition could wipe out a year's crop. Drought, frost, hailstorm, or severe rain could wipe out a year's crop and bring financial ruin. So farmers got together and invested in a common fund. If someone's crop was ruined the fund paid what their crop was worth. This was the start of insurance companies.

The very first insurance company was Lloyd's of London. Shipowners could also be ruined if a ship full of valuable cargo sank. So they would also contribute to a common fund, if a ship sank the fund would pay for the loss.

People hate insurance, but insurance is vital to our way of life. Without insurance, you could not buy a home on credit for example. No one would sell you a home, because if it burned down, you could simply walk away. But with insurance the seller or lender is guaranteed to get their money. Insurance is vital like this in all of business.

 

[Spear]

Winman got it with the mutual company : that should be the unique status available for health insurances, so that people would be sure they wouldn't care more about profit of their stock owners than about those who subscribe to an insurance.

 

[Salty]

If we say we all have a need for the military why can't we admit that we all have a need for health care?

Two points -
First, (at most times in our history) there was no draft - a person served as a volunteer.

Second,in the beginning, most of the military was State or Commonwealth militias - not Federal troops.

 

[Spear]

What's wrong with private charity? Sure beats government handouts.

I don't know much about charity organization and how they work, so please be quiet, because i might not know much about what i'm talking about, these are just the ways i understand things, and might not be the way they are. If you can correct me because i'm wrong, i'll be glad

I think charity doesn't mean neutrality, or at least not systematically. Charity organizations choose the people they help, and the concept of preference annoys me because it can lead to some real differences, and EVEN lie.

Let's say a charity organization only finances food for " the poor of the area, but only those who attend at church ". Wouldn't you get some people who would attend, juste to get the food, even lying ?

 

[KenH]

If we say we all have a need for the military why can't we admit that we all have a need for health care?

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

 

[LeBuick]

If you lifted inter-state restrictions, you would increase competition, and drive costs down even more. There are already too many restrictions on insurance companies. Taking profit incentive will only make it worse.

I disagree, lifting interstate restrictions would only serve to boost profits for insurance companies. There is no way it will lower cost in NY so the most will happen is cost will go up in IA. The GOP is selling a straw man with this very bad idea. I can't believe they're still selling it and that anyone has bought it.

There is a reason insurance cost more in IL, NY, CA than it does in more rural states. The cost of office space, cost of living to employee's etc... It cost more to run a practice in those areas. The reimbursement rates from a rural area or low cost state would not be accepted by Doctors in high cost areas. So in effect, if you're in a big city and buy a plan from a rural area, you would have a plan that no sane doctor could accept if he wants to pay the rent. The reimbursement rates won't cover expenses.

Secondly, this would later justify the insurance companies to raise all rates in all places saying it is the only way to sell a plan that is accepted in all to include high cost area's. If they are forced to sell the same plan at the same premium to a person in NY as they do in a rural area it will eventually lead to high rates everywhere and big profits for insurance companies.

Insurance companies don't need an excuse to raise rates, they are raising them enough without an excuse.

 

[LeBuick]

What's wrong with private charity? Sure beats government handouts.

Ken, is that you? Did someone sign on as Ken since I've been gone?

 

[LeBuick]

There are already non-profit insurance companies. When you see "mutual" as Mutual of Omaha, these are non-profit insurance companies. Here is a very brief and general definition

We don't need no stinkin co-ops, we need a robust public option so that all God's children can get good basic medical care. There is no reason the richest country in the world should have people dying in front of hospitals from lack of medical care.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I disagree, lifting interstate restrictions would only serve to boost profits for insurance companies. There is no way it will lower cost in NY so the most will happen is cost will go up in IA. The GOP is selling a straw man with this very bad idea. I can't believe they're still selling it and that anyone has bought it.

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.

There is a reason insurance cost more in IL, NY, CA than it does in more rural states. The cost of office space, cost of living to employee's etc... It cost more to run a practice in those areas. The reimbursement rates from a rural area or low cost state would not be accepted by Doctors in high cost areas. So in effect, if you're in a big city and buy a plan from a rural area, you would have a plan that no sane doctor could accept if he wants to pay the rent. The reimbursement rates won't cover expenses.

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.

Secondly, this would later justify the insurance companies to raise all rates in all places saying it is the only way to sell a plan that is accepted in all to include high cost area's. If they are forced to sell the same plan at the same premium to a person in NY as they do in a rural area it will eventually lead to high rates everywhere and big profits for insurance companies.

This is paranoid supposition, with no basis in reality, at all.

Insurance companies don't need an excuse to raise rates, they are raising them enough without an excuse.

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 ?