Insurance Business forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Insurance Business | 18 May 2017, 12:25 PM Agree 0
The country appears to be headed toward single-payer eventually, says the top exec. The question is where insurance companies will fit in
  • LINDA OPERLE | 18 May 2017, 02:47 PM Agree 0
    It's disingenuous for any ins co that is pulling out of Obamacare to say they care about providing insurance, cutting costs or my favorite providing for the sick. While I agree a single payor is the best thing for the country why would Aetna think it will make profits for them better when the same payor (the government)is involved. Raise rates some if you must but to just leave millions with no option even a costly one is deplorable.
  • Brad | 18 May 2017, 03:08 PM Agree 0
    Well there would be no losses essentially. The government AKA the tax payer picks up all of the cost even in the losses. It would allow CEO's to collect their millions without being chastised.
  • Janice Michaud | 18 May 2017, 04:22 PM Agree 0
    The government can force taxpayers to foot the bill and the big insurers could do whatever they want because they would have "the law" on their side. Very bad idea for anyone who values choice.
  • James B | 18 May 2017, 04:51 PM Agree 0
    The Health Insurance Industry receives the largest Corporate Welfare subsidy of any US industry - all of their biggest risk, older patients, are removed right as the customers get to be the costliest to the health insurance industry. If I am Aetna why not ask to go all the way and they give up all the risk, and just collect administration fees. That is rich.
  • NO WAY | 18 May 2017, 05:01 PM Agree 0
    So why would we need him to 'facilitate" it. No we don't if that's the case. He wants to increase the cost and have zero liability. All profit all the time on our dime. NO
  • Bill | 18 May 2017, 06:34 PM Agree 0
    Has anyone seen the national debt lately? $19,913,668,769,000,000.00 How do you think it got there? WE, (tax payers), cannot afford it.
  • RatherNotSay | 19 May 2017, 12:50 AM Agree 0
    I work in insurance. Any time I participate in a conversation about health insurance, I feel terrible. The concepts that make insurance work in other lines of the business don't apply to the health segment; at least not in a "feel good" sort of way. Health insurers are not non-profits - their existence depends on the ability to profitably share risk => making money on premiums....the concept is centuries old. Get over it re the argument about profits. Prior to ACA, we had free market competition - admittedly not perfect...incentives were misaligned at times. Once a company realizes its out of ideas to grow profitably, bad things happen. Feels okay in other lines of insurance, but not so much in health. The other side is socialized medicine that AETNA is now advocating. I think what we came up with in 2009 - while very likely the best that Obama could do given the environment - was the worst thing that could have happened. One or the other - this would be one of the few subjects where I would argue that middle of the road moderation is terrible! What passed was akin to the opposite of synergy (anti-synergy?) => 1 1 = .25 (IMO). We took the worst characteristics of both systems. Let's just commit. Get rid of all the ridiculous incentives, loopholes, circumventions....let's just get people as healthy as possible. Simplify. It's been 8 years of progressively intense headlines about insurers unsurprisingly finding the environment unsustainable. Let's stop blaming them and let's start focusing on the root - unless you make them public or non-profit, don't be surprised when they complain they aren't making money given the constraints....pretty absurd...
    Analogy: hey, construction company, build this bridge so people can cross but you have to spend at least 80% of the contract on labor and material costs...subcontractor costs, cost of debt, and other general costs are separate from the 80% rule...go make a profit, or don't..we don't care..bridges are a social good so we shouldn't have to worry about profits...which makes this sound like we should be doing this a different way...but we aren't going to because...just because. I want bridges but I recognize the companies that build them should make a profit - I want them to make a profit..I want them to be incentivized to build the best bridge they can to extract a return - if we constrain them to build within cost, what happens to quality?

    Insurance is about covering uncertainty. We're in a system with health insurance where its purchased in accordance with how often you go to the doctor. Auto insurance doesn't cover oil changes....neither should health insurance cover doctor appointments...those should just be affordable! Not $600 an many times as I've had to go to a doctor and/or 7 specialists to figure out that I have a's not working...I get the human body is complex...this just might mean that insurance is not the proper product to make people healthy....

    And we wonder why this isn't working.....I support the idea that healthcare needs a change...driving that change via health insurance??? my opinion doesn't matter but I submit it!
Post a reply