Good post. My solution is basic(shocker) and is along your lines of thinking.
Keep insurance companies, allow them to compete in all states AND instead of just mandating a minimum reserve, also mandate a maximum reserve. Many insurance companies have reserves that are 2 to 3 times what there worst case projected payouts would be for a year. If the insurance company is above those reserves then they would need to rebate their insureds. Doing those two things would decrease premiums noticeably.
Also, make long term care available at a young age and create incentives for young people to get it by discounting the traditional insurance premiums if they do. If you have young people paying into a pool for 40-50 years before they die, this will help alleviate the hospitals and providers getting stuck with the bill when people pass. It would be a lot like Life Insurance, the younger you are when you get it, the cheaper it is.
As for hospitals, doctors and surgeons. Let's get those costs in line by putting cost caps on certain necessary procedures and also get put some serious caps on the cost of meds. ( that's a whole different animal of course) Let's also get some competition for the mal practice insurance that providers need to carry so that they can still make a decent living while charging lower prices for their services.
Everything you said after this I disagree with. You are attempting to micromanage a market and haven't thought through any of the secondary effects of what any of your policies would create.
Ex. Cost caps sound great from a consumer's first view except that they will simply create a shortage of supply by reducing the number of providers. Long term net loss.
Hmmm... So you're saying that making insurers return excess reserves wouldn't save the insured money???
Also you think that forcing providers, whom already have their patients held hostage due to in network requirements, to charge a fair market rate would somehow send providers fleeing to learn how to code?
Chinteresting.
Idk, do you think auto-insurer's should be forced to do the same? Why do you think it's any different?
Providers only have patients held hostage because Obamacare eliminated the private market for insurance. You either get your insurance through your employer or the government now which often leaves you with few choices.
Less regulation, broader market, more competition, lower prices, more choice. Those are the hallmarks of free markets, not highly regulated government markets.
Good post. My solution is basic(shocker) and is along your lines of thinking.
Keep insurance companies, allow them to compete in all states AND instead of just mandating a minimum reserve, also mandate a maximum reserve. Many insurance companies have reserves that are 2 to 3 times what there worst case projected payouts would be for a year. If the insurance company is above those reserves then they would need to rebate their insureds. Doing those two things would decrease premiums noticeably.
Also, make long term care available at a young age and create incentives for young people to get it by discounting the traditional insurance premiums if they do. If you have young people paying into a pool for 40-50 years before they die, this will help alleviate the hospitals and providers getting stuck with the bill when people pass. It would be a lot like Life Insurance, the younger you are when you get it, the cheaper it is.
As for hospitals, doctors and surgeons. Let's get those costs in line by putting cost caps on certain necessary procedures and also get put some serious caps on the cost of meds. ( that's a whole different animal of course) Let's also get some competition for the mal practice insurance that providers need to carry so that they can still make a decent living while charging lower prices for their services.
Everything you said after this I disagree with. You are attempting to micromanage a market and haven't thought through any of the secondary effects of what any of your policies would create.
Ex. Cost caps sound great from a consumer's first view except that they will simply create a shortage of supply by reducing the number of providers. Long term net loss.
Hmmm... So you're saying that making insurers return excess reserves wouldn't save the insured money???
Also you think that forcing providers, whom already have their patients held hostage due to in network requirements, to charge a fair market rate would somehow send providers fleeing to learn how to code?
Chinteresting.
I think the biggest problem is who defines a "fair market rate"? You'll have a slow reacting government agency, probably HHS, trying to dictate prices that are already opaque.
And what's to stop the numerous workarounds? Providers aren't going to just eat the loss, they'll order more tests, procedures, whatever and bill for more volume. When insurance companies and providers set all costs based on fake numbers, trying to manage those fake numbers is a fruitless task.
Good post. My solution is basic(shocker) and is along your lines of thinking.
Keep insurance companies, allow them to compete in all states AND instead of just mandating a minimum reserve, also mandate a maximum reserve. Many insurance companies have reserves that are 2 to 3 times what there worst case projected payouts would be for a year. If the insurance company is above those reserves then they would need to rebate their insureds. Doing those two things would decrease premiums noticeably.
Also, make long term care available at a young age and create incentives for young people to get it by discounting the traditional insurance premiums if they do. If you have young people paying into a pool for 40-50 years before they die, this will help alleviate the hospitals and providers getting stuck with the bill when people pass. It would be a lot like Life Insurance, the younger you are when you get it, the cheaper it is.
As for hospitals, doctors and surgeons. Let's get those costs in line by putting cost caps on certain necessary procedures and also get put some serious caps on the cost of meds. ( that's a whole different animal of course) Let's also get some competition for the mal practice insurance that providers need to carry so that they can still make a decent living while charging lower prices for their services.
Everything you said after this I disagree with. You are attempting to micromanage a market and haven't thought through any of the secondary effects of what any of your policies would create.
Ex. Cost caps sound great from a consumer's first view except that they will simply create a shortage of supply by reducing the number of providers. Long term net loss.
Hmmm... So you're saying that making insurers return excess reserves wouldn't save the insured money???
Also you think that forcing providers, whom already have their patients held hostage due to in network requirements, to charge a fair market rate would somehow send providers fleeing to learn how to code?
Chinteresting.
Idk, do you think auto-insurer's should be forced to do the same? Why do you think it's any different?
Providers only have patients held hostage because Obamacare eliminated the private market for insurance. You either get your insurance through your employer or the government now which often leaves you with few choices.
Less regulation, broader market, more competition, lower prices, more choice. Those are the hallmarks of free markets, not highly regulated government markets.
Auto and Health insurance are not apples to apples. In Oregon, you have a choice between roughly 600 providers. If a provider is charging too much money you can shop and switch immediately. If an auto insurer is holding an inordinate amount of reserves, they won't be competitive for long as they will have to raise rates to keep those reserves and will lose customers.
For Health insurance you have one chance per year and then you're stuck with it. And in network provider has been around at least 25 years before Obamacare came around.
Good post. My solution is basic(shocker) and is along your lines of thinking.
Keep insurance companies, allow them to compete in all states AND instead of just mandating a minimum reserve, also mandate a maximum reserve. Many insurance companies have reserves that are 2 to 3 times what there worst case projected payouts would be for a year. If the insurance company is above those reserves then they would need to rebate their insureds. Doing those two things would decrease premiums noticeably.
Also, make long term care available at a young age and create incentives for young people to get it by discounting the traditional insurance premiums if they do. If you have young people paying into a pool for 40-50 years before they die, this will help alleviate the hospitals and providers getting stuck with the bill when people pass. It would be a lot like Life Insurance, the younger you are when you get it, the cheaper it is.
As for hospitals, doctors and surgeons. Let's get those costs in line by putting cost caps on certain necessary procedures and also get put some serious caps on the cost of meds. ( that's a whole different animal of course) Let's also get some competition for the mal practice insurance that providers need to carry so that they can still make a decent living while charging lower prices for their services.
Everything you said after this I disagree with. You are attempting to micromanage a market and haven't thought through any of the secondary effects of what any of your policies would create.
Ex. Cost caps sound great from a consumer's first view except that they will simply create a shortage of supply by reducing the number of providers. Long term net loss.
Hmmm... So you're saying that making insurers return excess reserves wouldn't save the insured money???
Also you think that forcing providers, whom already have their patients held hostage due to in network requirements, to charge a fair market rate would somehow send providers fleeing to learn how to code?
Chinteresting.
Idk, do you think auto-insurer's should be forced to do the same? Why do you think it's any different?
Providers only have patients held hostage because Obamacare eliminated the private market for insurance. You either get your insurance through your employer or the government now which often leaves you with few choices.
Less regulation, broader market, more competition, lower prices, more choice. Those are the hallmarks of free markets, not highly regulated government markets.
Auto and Health insurance are not apples to apples. In Oregon, you have a choice between roughly 600 providers. If a provider is charging too much money you can shop and switch immediately. If an auto insurer is holding an inordinate amount of reserves, they won't be competitive for long as they will have to raise rates to keep those reserves and will lose customers.
For Health insurance you have one chance per year and then you're stuck with it. And in network provider has been around at least 25 years before Obamacare came around.
And why do you think one market is highly competitive and the other market is an oligopoly?
Good post. My solution is basic(shocker) and is along your lines of thinking.
Keep insurance companies, allow them to compete in all states AND instead of just mandating a minimum reserve, also mandate a maximum reserve. Many insurance companies have reserves that are 2 to 3 times what there worst case projected payouts would be for a year. If the insurance company is above those reserves then they would need to rebate their insureds. Doing those two things would decrease premiums noticeably.
Also, make long term care available at a young age and create incentives for young people to get it by discounting the traditional insurance premiums if they do. If you have young people paying into a pool for 40-50 years before they die, this will help alleviate the hospitals and providers getting stuck with the bill when people pass. It would be a lot like Life Insurance, the younger you are when you get it, the cheaper it is.
As for hospitals, doctors and surgeons. Let's get those costs in line by putting cost caps on certain necessary procedures and also get put some serious caps on the cost of meds. ( that's a whole different animal of course) Let's also get some competition for the mal practice insurance that providers need to carry so that they can still make a decent living while charging lower prices for their services.
Everything you said after this I disagree with. You are attempting to micromanage a market and haven't thought through any of the secondary effects of what any of your policies would create.
Ex. Cost caps sound great from a consumer's first view except that they will simply create a shortage of supply by reducing the number of providers. Long term net loss.
Hmmm... So you're saying that making insurers return excess reserves wouldn't save the insured money???
Also you think that forcing providers, whom already have their patients held hostage due to in network requirements, to charge a fair market rate would somehow send providers fleeing to learn how to code?
Chinteresting.
I think the biggest problem is who defines a "fair market rate"? You'll have a slow reacting government agency, probably HHS, trying to dictate prices that are already opaque.
And what's to stop the numerous workarounds? Providers aren't going to just eat the loss, they'll order more tests, procedures, whatever and bill for more volume. When insurance companies and providers set all costs based on fake numbers, trying to manage those fake numbers is a fruitless task.
Insurance is already regulated at the State level. Every year insurers are required to submit their books for review and are then told how much they can raise rates. The amount they hold in reserve is part of that process.
Good post. My solution is basic(shocker) and is along your lines of thinking.
Keep insurance companies, allow them to compete in all states AND instead of just mandating a minimum reserve, also mandate a maximum reserve. Many insurance companies have reserves that are 2 to 3 times what there worst case projected payouts would be for a year. If the insurance company is above those reserves then they would need to rebate their insureds. Doing those two things would decrease premiums noticeably.
Also, make long term care available at a young age and create incentives for young people to get it by discounting the traditional insurance premiums if they do. If you have young people paying into a pool for 40-50 years before they die, this will help alleviate the hospitals and providers getting stuck with the bill when people pass. It would be a lot like Life Insurance, the younger you are when you get it, the cheaper it is.
As for hospitals, doctors and surgeons. Let's get those costs in line by putting cost caps on certain necessary procedures and also get put some serious caps on the cost of meds. ( that's a whole different animal of course) Let's also get some competition for the mal practice insurance that providers need to carry so that they can still make a decent living while charging lower prices for their services.
Everything you said after this I disagree with. You are attempting to micromanage a market and haven't thought through any of the secondary effects of what any of your policies would create.
Ex. Cost caps sound great from a consumer's first view except that they will simply create a shortage of supply by reducing the number of providers. Long term net loss.
Hmmm... So you're saying that making insurers return excess reserves wouldn't save the insured money???
Also you think that forcing providers, whom already have their patients held hostage due to in network requirements, to charge a fair market rate would somehow send providers fleeing to learn how to code?
Chinteresting.
I think the biggest problem is who defines a "fair market rate"? You'll have a slow reacting government agency, probably HHS, trying to dictate prices that are already opaque.
And what's to stop the numerous workarounds? Providers aren't going to just eat the loss, they'll order more tests, procedures, whatever and bill for more volume. When insurance companies and providers set all costs based on fake numbers, trying to manage those fake numbers is a fruitless task.
Insurance is already regulated at the State level. Every year insurers are required to submit their books for review and are then told how much they can raise rates. The amount they hold in reserve is part of that process.
I think we're talking about two different things. You're talking about rates charged to consumers, I'm talking about the prices that are billed from providers to insurance companies for services performed.
I can't say for certain what the regulations are for the latter, but AFAIK those prices are largely determined on an individual negotiation basis between each provider and the insurance company. And none of those prices are based on a reliable fair value because no free market exists to even set prices in the first place.
Comments
Providers only have patients held hostage because Obamacare eliminated the private market for insurance. You either get your insurance through your employer or the government now which often leaves you with few choices.
Less regulation, broader market, more competition, lower prices, more choice. Those are the hallmarks of free markets, not highly regulated government markets.
And what's to stop the numerous workarounds? Providers aren't going to just eat the loss, they'll order more tests, procedures, whatever and bill for more volume. When insurance companies and providers set all costs based on fake numbers, trying to manage those fake numbers is a fruitless task.
For Health insurance you have one chance per year and then you're stuck with it. And in network provider has been around at least 25 years before Obamacare came around.
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/how-insurance-rates-are-regulated-4091196
I can't say for certain what the regulations are for the latter, but AFAIK those prices are largely determined on an individual negotiation basis between each provider and the insurance company. And none of those prices are based on a reliable fair value because no free market exists to even set prices in the first place.
Expect a future tense discussion on education. What else you want?