• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Another spike in rate- Blue Shield of California, upto 59%!

DesiPower

DesiPower

Lifer
Mostly due to Obamacare. Heil Nancy an Harry

Blue Shield said the increases were caused by higher payments for hospitals, physicians and prescription drugs, as well as new requirements under the healthcare reform law and a new state law that bars insurers from charging women more than men.
Click to expand...

The announcement comes almost a year after Anthem Blue Cross announced a rate hike of as much as 39 percent in California, stoking national outrage and aiding passage of the healthcare reform law. The insurer ultimately backed down and enacted a maximum rate hike of 20 percent instead.
Click to expand...

full article linky

from NPR
 
Last edited:
The comedy continues. Women of child-bearing age cannot be charged any more for insurance than a similarly aged man, despite their obvious propensity for higher healthcare costs? Sounds like a solution only government could come up with. What a joke.
 
You remind me of my brother in law. He's a Rush dittohead. Every time it snows he'll comment "more global warming?"

The fact is-and those of us who pay our our health insurance painfully know this-health costs and especially health ins. costs have been increasing at a rate far greater than general inflation for at least the last decade. The insurers are latching onto the health care reform as an easy scapegoat. Correalation is not causation.

PS: California must have the world's worst insurance commissioner to authorize a rate increase like that.
 
Please. Health insurance rate hikes require nothing more than simulated rationality, plausible excuses and the kind of ruthless greed required to sack Constantinople in 1204. We're lucky they don't use swords.

Apparently, they think Obama is a really, really good excuse, and have instructed the bean counters to act accordingly. It's not like the new Republican HOR will do anything to stop them.

To quote Beavis & Butthead- "Cornholio!"
 
Really so its "obamacare" that caused this mind you the majority of it has not gone into affect?
And what was the cause of all the rate increases the last couple years, PRE-obamacare?

Still waiting for the dittoheads to answer that.
 
Thump553 said:
You remind me of my brother in law. He's a Rush dittohead. Every time it snows he'll comment "more global warming?"

The fact is-and those of us who pay our our health insurance painfully know this-health costs and especially health ins. costs have been increasing at a rate far greater than general inflation for at least the last decade. The insurers are latching onto the health care reform as an easy scapegoat. Correalation is not causation.

PS: California must have the world's worst insurance commissioner to authorize a rate increase like that.
Click to expand...

You remind me of my hairdresser, he's a Michael Moore dittohead. Don't you think, when insurance in coalition with rest of the health care industry, was jacking up rates, instead of giving them another reason, should have taken away a reason for the hike? Like instead of forcing them to include everyone, couldn't they have done something to increase competition?
 
Jhhnn said:
Please. Health insurance rate hikes require nothing more than simulated rationality, plausible excuses and the kind of ruthless greed required to sack Constantinople in 1204. We're lucky they don't use swords.

Apparently, they think Obama is a really, really good excuse, and have instructed the bean counters to act accordingly. It's not like the new Republican HOR will do anything to stop them.

To quote Beavis & Butthead- "Cornholio!"
Click to expand...

So tell us, who is making all the profits?
 
PeshakJang said:
So tell us, who is making all the profits?
Click to expand...


The numbers are in and 2009 has been very good year indeed for the nation’s health insurance companies.
Unfortunately, not so good for those in need of medical care coverage.
According to a report prepared by Health Care for America Now – based on annual reports filed with the Security and Exchange Commission – WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Cigna Corp., Aetna Inc. and Humana Inc. posted combined profits of $12.2 billion, a 56% increase over calendar year 2008.
During the same period of time, the big five insurers covered 2.7 million fewer Americans.



Yep all "obamacares" fault for rate increases. We should really do something to help out these poor health insurance companies.
 
PeshakJang said:
So tell us, who is making all the profits?
Click to expand...

Insurance Companies (win win for them), Doctors (but they have to pay higher malpractice insurance), hospitals (but they have to treat illegals for free), Pharmaceutical companies (but they have to pay for ridiculous lawsuits), Medical equipment manufacturers (but they are fighting against decreasing demands and ultra late payments).
 
Marlin1975 said:
The numbers are in and 2009 has been very good year indeed for the nation’s health insurance companies.
Unfortunately, not so good for those in need of medical care coverage.
According to a report prepared by Health Care for America Now – based on annual reports filed with the Security and Exchange Commission – WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Cigna Corp., Aetna Inc. and Humana Inc. posted combined profits of $12.2 billion, a 56% increase over calendar year 2008.
During the same period of time, the big five insurers covered 2.7 million fewer Americans.



Yep all "obamacares" fault for rate increases. We should really do something to help out these poor health insurance companies.
Click to expand...
I love the way you spin the numbers. If you have a shred of intellectual honesty...please take the time to look at net profit margins and compare them to other industries.
 
Marlin1975 said:
The numbers are in and 2009 has been very good year indeed for the nation’s health insurance companies.
Unfortunately, not so good for those in need of medical care coverage.
According to a report prepared by Health Care for America Now – based on annual reports filed with the Security and Exchange Commission – WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Cigna Corp., Aetna Inc. and Humana Inc. posted combined profits of $12.2 billion, a 56% increase over calendar year 2008.
During the same period of time, the big five insurers covered 2.7 million fewer Americans.



Yep all "obamacares" fault for rate increases. We should really do something to help out these poor health insurance companies.
Click to expand...

What is the profit percentage?

You sound similar to McOwen w/ respect to the oil companies?
 
You don't think comparing profits from one year to the next is a valid comparison? If they are making 56% more in profits this year than last year, why did they need to increase healthcare costs?
 
IBMer said:
You don't think comparing profits from one year to the next is a valid comparison? If they are making 56% more in profits this year than last year, why did they need to increase healthcare costs?
Click to expand...
Insurers have huge chunks of capital. If the marginal rate of return is lower providing health insurance, they will just invest that capital in some other market. That's why it matters.
 
Common Courtesy said:
What is the profit percentage?

You sound similar to McOwen w/ respect to the oil companies?
Click to expand...



I have taken enough accounting to ignore profit % and such as its hidden so well and many things are written off as overhead etc... when it would have never been spent if not. It’s a weasel way of trying to cover up the real overall cost.

Again this is PROFIT for providing nothing other than middle man service. Insurance companies do not provide any medical service; they just handle claims and the money. They also cost doctors more to handle the claims and paperwork as well. My mom works at a dentist office and they have 1 person and over half of her job is nothing but handling the insurance companies. That cost gets past to the customers as does the insurance companies "overhead" as well.

So yes their profits do matter. Especially when they service less people from one year to another and record even more profits.
 
Marlin1975 said:
I have taken enough accounting to ignore profit % and such as its hidden so well and many things are written off as overhead etc... when it would have never been spent if not. It’s a weasel way of trying to cover up the real overall cost.

Again this is PROFIT for providing nothing other than middle man service. Insurance companies do not provide any medical service; they just handle claims and the money. They also cost doctors more to handle the claims and paperwork as well. My mom works at a dentist office and they have 1 person and over half of her job is nothing but handling the insurance companies. That cost gets past to the customers as does the insurance companies "overhead" as well.

So yes their profits do matter. Especially when they service less people from one year to another and record even more profits.
Click to expand...
You mean...*gasp* they make money for providing a service that people want? Heaven forbid!!!1!one!
 
IBMer said:
You don't think comparing profits from one year to the next is a valid comparison? If they are making 56% more in profits this year than last year, why did they need to increase healthcare costs?
Click to expand...

You may recall some form of event occurring around the 2008 time frame. Something to do with an imminent financial collapse of the banking system. When you are using a couple of years that span one of the worst economic events in recent history as a year to year comparison, it loses a lot of its validity because the noise created by the economic event prevents you from getting a clear picture.
 
gota fund all the illegal alien criminals and their pregnant spawn. And don't forget after you pay for all their prenatal care their droppings become citizens.
 
Marlin1975 said:
I have taken enough accounting to ignore profit % and such as its hidden so well and many things are written off as overhead etc... when it would have never been spent if not. It’s a weasel way of trying to cover up the real overall cost.

Again this is PROFIT for providing nothing other than middle man service. Insurance companies do not provide any medical service; they just handle claims and the money. They also cost doctors more to handle the claims and paperwork as well. My mom works at a dentist office and they have 1 person and over half of her job is nothing but handling the insurance companies. That cost gets past to the customers as does the insurance companies "overhead" as well.

So yes their profits do matter. Especially when they service less people from one year to another and record even more profits.
Click to expand...

The insurance companies pay the bills submitted by the medical services.

Those bills have to have the funds available to cover those costs.
The insurance companies have to estimate how much their costs will be and then request that amount from the insured plus overhead, etc.

If a large amount of costs come in that was unexpected, the insurance company will be underwater.

Does not matter, if this is health, auto or property/casuality. All works the same.

A company is in business to make a profit; insurance exists to pool the income to cover expenses.

Unless you feel that there should be no incentive for a company to take risk.

You claim that they service less people and have more profit; but you can not tell me what their profit margin is. Therefore, how can you say that they have excessive profits.
 
IBMer said:
You don't think comparing profits from one year to the next is a valid comparison? If they are making 56% more in profits this year than last year, why did they need to increase healthcare costs?
Click to expand...

Very hard to say.

We don't know if that is 'profit from normal operations' (not the official accounting term, but helps make the point) or if any of those include include a 'one-time big extraordinary item(s)'. The latter could include large one-time amounts for mergers, accounting changes or planned lay-offs etc. By 'one-time' I mean they take the whole thing in year instead of spreading it over several years.

More importantly, you need to be a CPA specializing in HI accounting rules to make much sense of this info in most cases.

I'd also like to know what their profit margin is, especially that excluding extraordinary items. That would be far more telling than the raw numbers the article/study quotes.

Fern
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top