Insurance Agent Forum

[al3]

Originally Posted by moonlightandmargaritas

While I agree with you, I wouldn't bet much that it's gonna happen.

Until the ELECTORATE gets serious about demanding more from their elected officials - there won't be any change. As Churchill famously said, "people get the kind of government they deserve."

The lowest common denominator is pretty damn low - just look at the public schools!

Until people vote, and vote based upon some intelligent criteria that's not based upon what they see in television commericals, nothing will change. Sad, but true.

"We" elected your hero and mentor George W. Bush TWICE. How does that fit into your "lowest common denominator" theory?

Just like a typical neo-con, you hate "the people" and would gladly go back to the time when only land-owners and white people had the right to vote.

Why do you live in the USA since you dislike it so much... as especially when you know that no one is buying your tired, worn out, political platitudes... except Rush, Cheney, and the ditto-heads?

All you neo-cons (especially those who post here under a cloak for fear of being found out by your clients) simply don't understand that except for the rural South, the landscape has changed. We have a black President elected by liberal whites, browns, yellows, reds, and those who speak lots of different languages (we have a large Russian and Ukrainian community were I live.)

You and Winter and Paradigm and all you other neo-cons are sitting on the trash-heap of history... you just don't know it yet. While you were on your knees praying for a repeal of Roe/Wade and the 1964 Voting Rights Act, the country changed on you... and sure... I understand that you don't like it... but you had eight years with "W" to forge a majority... and a virtually unknown black guy came out of nowhere to beat an American hero whom you asked to be your standard bearer. Hell, you've even drummed out Colin Powell from your party.

Then you have the idiot Winter who is trying to convince all you other idiots that the future is going to turn on some kind of third-party movement. But headed by whom? Palin? Jindal? Gingrich? Limbaugh?

What Gertrude Stein said about Oakland applies to the neo-con movement. "There's no there... there." No one is looking to the Republican neo-cons to "save" them. If anything you are getting the blame (which is not fair... but what in life is?) for where we are today. You guys talked a great game of limited government and fiscal responsibility and you just gamed us. Some of us (like myself) who voted for you twice, feel betrayed, and won't be coming back to your tent for a long, long while.

So enjoy your 40 years in the desert. I hope your born-again Christian god sends you some manna to sustain you. In the meantime we're going to close your tax loopholes and finally make you pay your fair share... yes even YOU Winter. What a concept that YOU will pay taxes just like everyone else.

Oh sure, you will claim you already do... but you post behind a cloak... so who with half a brain will believe you?

I loved it when Paradigm said we "should all get along." Well, you are getting a big taste of the medicine you dished out to us the past 8 years. Did it occur that we no more want to get along with you then you want to get along with us? Hell, I wish all you neo-cons would simply move to Albania... or Chad or Botswana where I'm sure you would be happier. Hell, you want a real conservative regime? Move your ass to Saudi Arabia? You guys would love it there. Women can't drive... and we know how you feel about the rights of women. Just ask Bristol Palin.

Al3

[Winter]

Originally Posted by al3

"Then you have the idiot Winter who is trying to convince all you other idiots that the future is going to turn on some kind of third-party movement. But headed by whom? Palin? Jindal? Gingrich? Limbaugh?


Al3

What I said was that election results tend to be separated by 5-6 per cent so that third parties will have enormous power. I also said that that I dont see any third party gaining much support but easily rallying enough votes to control outcomes. Unless one is stoned, those two fit together. There are many, many people in this country who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative who are not wedded to either the dems or the republicans and are loose cannons in the next election.

Nader and Perot never gained much support but controlled the outcomes of elections. The next election will involve brokering with those third parties moreso than in the past. The libs present a picture of Obama having won by such a landslide that he is unbeatable. He is not. He may very well win again but he certainly is not unbeatable. Do the math if a third party splits his support in the smallest way. You keep saying that there is no leader out there strong enough to form a third party that can win. Fine, but that has nothing to do with what I am saying. Try to stay focused. Perhaps your man Al Gore could explain to you how a few votes can make a difference.

The dems are trying to make the republicans out to be the party of rush limbaugh and maybe that is or is not true but that game works both ways. The situation that has developed now is that you must be a socialist committed to spending your childrens future in order to be a democrat. Obama has loved this financial crisis because it has allowed him to scare the crapola out of everyone in order to implement his basic programs as emergency measures. Otherwise there would have been debate and scrutiny. Whether that will work in the future as the economy recovers remains to be seen.

Spend it like you got it.

[Ron Van D]

Al3, Again all you do is attack, name call, attack, and name call.

Please share some substance.

Tell me how your plan of getting more doctors out (and I'm not talking about quickie trained doctors, I'm talking about real doctors who go through the whole program) is going to work considering the med schools are already maxed out? The shortage of doctors is definitely a part of the problem. When was the last new Medical School opened in this country? Supply and demand, in my opinion, are controlled so that doctors can command the high salaries.

Health care costs are the culprit. Insurance rates are the symptom that everyone attacks, but they are a natural byproduct of high health care costs.

[midwestbroker]

I will say this to defend myself and my conservative views...

I am a conservative. No I did not go to Vietnam as we left prior to my birth. No, I do not agree with all of what the conservative party did in the past, but that does not mean I am against being a conservative now.

Do I feel that Washington represents me? No. That is why it is hard to say I am a republican, but if I had to choose one or the other I would choose republican. I believe that people have to be accountable for their actions. The dems will take care of their own (Fanny, Freddie, etc). The republicans will as well, that is politics as usual, but they do not appear to be as dirty or hypocritical. I am a registered independent. Not because I cannot make a decision, but because I am intelligent enough to realize that government is more gray then black and white.

Does Washington have the best solutions? Maybe in some areas, like national defense, but when it comes to the automotive business, insurance, and health care, they are over stepping their boundaries. They should regulate it to insure that companies are not violating the rights of people, but that is it.

The problem with Government is there is no competition. Competition brings out new technologies, competitive pricing, and better service. The more I deal with the government the more I realize I do not want them any more in my life then they are now.

[al3]

Originally Posted by Ron Van D

Al3, Again all you do is attack, name call, attack, and name call.

I'm just "givin' back" what you idiots give to me. You guys sure can dish out the dirt... but when it is handed back to you, you cry, and pitch a temper tantrum like you have above Ron.

Please share some substance.

Tell me how your plan of getting more doctors out (and I'm not talking about quickie trained doctors, I'm talking about real doctors who go through the whole program) is going to work considering the med schools are already maxed out? The shortage of doctors is definitely a part of the problem. When was the last new Medical School opened in this country? Supply and demand, in my opinion, are controlled so that doctors can command the high salaries.

Health care costs are the culprit. Insurance rates are the symptom that everyone attacks, but they are a natural byproduct of high health care costs.

End both wars and close all our foreign military bases
Cut the military budget in half.
Eliminate NASA.
Eliminate agricultural subsidies
Eliminate all pork spending
End medicare and medicaid
Eliminate the private insurance companies
Institute an SSA-like single-payor system that will set prices for medical care and drugs
Revamp the doctor training curriculum so that we can turn out docs in 4 years and not 8
Send all medical students (nurses, docs, etc.) to school for free in return for 8 years of public service at $60,000 a year tax free
Pay all doctors and nurses (after public internship) $100,000 a year state and federal TAX FREE.

Do the above and we have plenty of money in the system to give everyone FREE health care from cradle to grave. And I have no doubt that our best and brightest young people will flock to the medical professions... similar to how they flock to the service academies.

As my old law professor would say, "Asked and answered."

Al

[midwestbroker]

If that had a chance of working, you would need to revamp the government first, and I do not see that happening.

[al3]

Originally Posted by midwestbroker

If that had a chance of working, you would need to revamp the government first, and I do not see that happening.

FDR revamped the government. It could happen. I don't think it will, but that is not what I was asked.

Perhaps I should ask how you neo-cons would preserve your sainted insurance carriers but still provide (finance) free health care for everyone?

All you conservatives are the party of "no" and the doomsayers of society. All I've ever heard from conservatives my entire life (in different years) is:

- Medicare will destroy medical care
- Medicaid will destroy medical care
- We must stop the commies in Vietnam
- Blacks should not go to schools with whites
- We need to have poll taxes and literacy tests for voting
- The interstate highway system is "socialized transportation."
- Auto seat-belt laws is "big brotherism"
- It is right to prohibit minorities from public accomodations.
- Immigrants are taking jobs from native-born citizens
- We should go back to coat-hanger abortions
- The holocaust didn't happen
- Government should not regulate the free market
- Black should not be allowed to marry whites
- Gays should not be allowed to marry gays
- Greed and avarice leads to a better society
- Cuba is our enemy
- Fighting is better than talking
- Buyer beware
- The rights of cops are more important than rights of citizens
- The FBI and CIA are good and honest people
- "I am not a crook."
- "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice"
- "Read my lips, no new taxes"
- "Mission accomplished"
- I can see Russia from my front door"
- "I have a list of communists working in the government"
- "We had to destroy the village to save it."

I suppose that if you had a plan... or even a message... of hope and progress for the vast majority of people... we'd be seeing and hearing President McCain about now.

If you folks have any ideas on what to do about the economy (to prevent a meltdown) as well as healthcare, I have not heard it... beyond "lets keep things the way they are because it's so good and wonderful how it works now."

Al

[GreenSky]

Originally Posted by al3

FDR revamped the government. It could happen.

FDR completely ignored the Constitution and damn near destroyed our country. WWII was the reason we came out of the depression which was a much caused by the government as private industry (maybe more).

Originally Posted by al3

Medicare will destroy medical care

Medicare (and HMOs) have caused medical costs to rise due to "free" visits to doctors, hospitals, etc.

Originally Posted by al3

- Auto seat-belt laws is "big brotherism"

Good point. Same with motorcycle helmets.

Freedom is the right to do stupid things.

Originally Posted by al3

- Government should not regulate the free market

Certainly not to the extent that you and other socialists would like. It's easy to blame private industry for our ills when much of the problem is caused by government regulations. Was it private industry that threatened to sue the banks if they didn't make bad loans? Was it private industry that forced Fanny and Freddy to buy those bad loans for their own portfolio? Was it private industry that forced Barney, Dodd, etc. to tell us that all was fine with the housing market?

Guess the government regulations prohibiting drilling for natural gas has nothing to do with our enemies controlling our oil supply.

The rest of your list was designed only to insult people so I won't even comment on it. If I say I don't like Obama, you would twist it to prove that I'm a racist. If I were to say that Israel would be better off with U.S. support, you would twist it to suggest that I would deny the holocaust.

Al, your posts have become so ridiculous that they are becoming simply a comedy show.

Rick

[djs]

Originally Posted by al3

End both wars and close all our foreign military bases
Cut the military budget in half.
Eliminate NASA.
Eliminate agricultural subsidies
Eliminate all pork spending
End medicare and medicaid
Eliminate the private insurance companies
Institute an SSA-like single-payor system that will set prices for medical care and drugs
Revamp the doctor training curriculum so that we can turn out docs in 4 years and not 8
Send all medical students (nurses, docs, etc.) to school for free in return for 8 years of public service at $60,000 a year tax free
Pay all doctors and nurses (after public internship) $100,000 a year state and federal TAX FREE.

Do the above and we have plenty of money in the system to give everyone FREE health care from cradle to grave. And I have no doubt that our best and brightest young people will flock to the medical professions... similar to how they flock to the service academies.

As my old law professor would say, "Asked and answered."

Al

Al - Thanks for finally making some suggestions towards fixing a problem, I'm just not sure what problem you want to fix. This is a bit of a laundry list, since closing military bases doesn't provide health care, unless you are simply looking for money.

Let's agree that the primary role of the government is national defense. If not, we'll have a different discussion, but most people tend to agree this is the primary role.

Let's also agree, healthcare is not a constitutionally mandated role of government, unlike national defense.

At the same time, we'll agree that anything we can do to reduce military spending without sacrificing the safety of America is a good thing. I'll go further, from my time in the military, I can vouch that there is some waste that can be managed much better, but this was long enough ago that things have changed to much to use my experience.

My concern with your proposal is it doesn't solve the problem which I think you are implying that the real problem is health care costs to much. If health care costs to much, none of your solutions fix the culprit, other than paying doctors to little (compared to what they potentially make now). It's not that this won't work, it just isn't enough to make it work.

Before the discussion really begins on this, I'd like you to clarify 2 things:
- Do you propose a mandate for health insurance?
- Do you want to cover illegal (or undocumented) aliens? To be specific, I'm talking people who do not have a TIN or SSN number.

Personally, I favor neither of these (outside of emergency care for everyone).

Dan

[Mr. Bill]

Originally Posted by al3

Oh that was funny. The most recent version of this cartoon replaces "Bob" with "Barack"!

[ABC]

Does everyone really realize how close we are to being put out of business as brokers?

A Gov health care system for the so called un insured will crush us. Of the un insured I would guess about 1/3 of them are the ones that need a true intervention.

Right now with the new SCHIP rules a house hold of 4 earning under $63,000 a year can put their kids on the states plan.

I think the Gov. really needs to market the plans that are already available.

If there is a Gov health plan to so call keep the Private companies in check it will destroy the private market. You can kiss good bye all the small regional carriers that are renting networks. So then we will end up with 3 carriers maybe 4 for the entire county. What happens then?

I would feel a lot better if I knew what the goal of the Gov health plan is. Is it to insure the un insured? Is it eliminate the health insurance burden on doing business? Is it to eliminate all private carriers? Whatever private plan they come up with how are they going to pay for it?


As a health insurance broker I realize that there is a 50% chance I will be out of business come next year. Ten years of eating buckets of shits to get and keep clients will be flushed down the toilet.

[TXINSURANCE]

End both wars and close all our foreign military bases
Cut the military budget in half.
Eliminate NASA.
Eliminate agricultural subsidies
Eliminate all pork spending
End medicare and medicaid
Eliminate the private insurance companies
Institute an SSA-like single-payor system that will set prices for medical care and drugs
Revamp the doctor training curriculum so that we can turn out docs in 4 years and not 8
Send all medical students (nurses, docs, etc.) to school for free in return for 8 years of public service at $60,000 a year tax free
Pay all doctors and nurses (after public internship) $100,000 a year state and federal TAX FREE.

Do the above and we have plenty of money in the system to give everyone FREE health care from cradle to grave. And I have no doubt that our best and brightest young people will flock to the medical professions... similar to how they flock to the service academies.

Side note - I find NASA to be extremely important to our future, as well as national security. If you look at the technologies that transpired because of our (admittedly bloated) space program it is impressive.

I agree it should be streamlined and many aspects privatized. We are still flying around 1970's shuttles and running it like the Cold War, no argument there.

Over time NASA could potentially be a revenue source based on private demand - I know pipe dream right now. It is such a SMALL amount of the Federal budget it is hardly worth talking about when you look at our debt levels that are not sustainable.

[al3]

Originally Posted by djs

Al -

- Do you propose a mandate for health insurance?

I don't care one way or the other. With or without a mandate is fine with me. I want to solve the problem. I don't much care HOW it is solved. I don't have a dog in this fight... I just want the fight to be over!

- Do you want to cover illegal (or undocumented) aliens? To be specific, I'm talking people who do not have a TIN or SSN number.

Just for emergency care... once they are stable they are deported.


Al

[Winter]

Originally Posted by Ron Van D

. When was the last new Medical School opened in this country?

As with the British National Health Service, the new doctors wont necessarily come from this country.

Those wackos that bombed the airport in Scotland- I dont mean Lockerbie- I mean the incident a while back where the SUV's rammed into the aiport and firebombed it. The wackos were Pakastani doctors working for the National Health Serive. Real cream puffs.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Originally Posted by al3

I don't care one way or the other. With or without a mandate is fine with me. I want to solve the problem. I don't much care HOW it is solved. I don't have a dog in this fight... I just want the fight to be over!

Al

Al just voted "present."

[Dave020]

Today a group including AHIP, AMA and others are meeting with Obama to present their proposal for a massive cost reduction strategy. This is part of the overall negotiaton that is going on between the players (gov and private). Will be curious to see the after-reactions from both sides.

Here is what I suspect is going to end up happening:

1 - Creation or re-creation of a univeral public health plan for those who are truly uninsurable in the private market or whose private insurance is not up to par with the public plan. For the sake of naming it, I'll call it FHIP (Fed Health Insurance Plan). FHIP might also be delegated to the states, so we'd have SHIP in each state with both state and federal funding. Also continued enhancement of Medicaid and SCHIP programs to ensure universal coverage availabililty.

2 - NO mandate. Carriers want a mandate to do GI, but this administration has backed off of it. They will use the FHIP/SHIP in place of the mandate. Mandate is a scary (should I say "scarry") proposition which would have a lot of opposition.

3 - Group would remain relatively untouched. This administration is on record as wanting to increase employer-sponsored health coverage. Likely a tax incentive will be created to encourage more employers to offer health benefits to their employees. At the same time, employers who push to FHIP/SHIP instead would pay a penalty as percentage of payroll to help cover the costs. Expect to see a slight reduction in commissions on group business (see bloat reduction below).

4 - IFP. Private health plans continue to be available for those who can pass underwriting. Underwriting will be both standardized and more "relaxed" to allow more people onto private plans. Absent a mandate, there will still be declines. Plans themselves may become more standardized across the states with more similarities in coverage. The ability to decline high risk will expose the carriers to a requirement to help fund the FHIP/SHIP plan, which will in part come from agent commissions.

Now the hard part, trimming the "bloat".

Private carriers are going to have to reduce non-medical care expenses and will probably be forced to move up to the 85% level. That will mean a reduction in both administrative bloat and agent commissions.

I would expect to see a drop in group commissions by a couple of points with IFP being hit harder. 20/10 will be a thing of the past and most likely plans will pay something like 5% flat with an enhanced FYC of maybe 7-8% something like that. A portion of the reduction on commissions would be provided to FHIP/SHIP to help fund that program.

Also, I would expect to see a small agent enrollment fee paid out, something like $50 per person to help enroll in FHIP/SHIP.

[djs]

Dave -

As usually, I think you are pretty much right on the money with what my crystal ball says. I'd like to see group at 8% and IFP at 10% across the board (new, renewal, everything), but this is likely a pipe dream. I think higher first year commissions are out the window.

The solution, as you outlined it, provides political cover for almost everyone (despite everything, this is important to politicians), addresses what I think most people want to do with health insurance (not necessarily health care though).

It leaves cost containment of health care for a future generation, which is really the toughest problem to fix. This is unfortunate, but hopefully, they will address a few things.

My test case for any plan is a family of 4 making $60K a year with a health problem. They currently have little opportunities in the market (SCHIP for the kids, maybe). Perhaps a high deductible plan, but they can't afford the deductible. It sounds like FHIP should help this situation, so it works for me.

Dan

[healthagent]

The gov't can address supply all it wants but until they address demand costs will continue to soar and anything established will be broke within 10 to 20 years.

Addressing demand simply means living a healthier lifestyle.

[Dave020]

Speaking of cost containment, here is a summary (sort of) of today's meeting with Obama:

Health care groups propose cost controls - May. 11, 2009


For IFP, maybe 10% FYC 5% renewals something like that. The carriers are still going to want to provide and enhanced FYC to promote new sales. But for certain agent commissions, at least on IFP, will be cut.

Also, I could see group going to a per head flat amount instead of % commission (like Kaiser used to do).

[Winter]

Originally Posted by Dave020

Today a group including AHIP, AMA and others are meeting with Obama to present their proposal for a massive cost reduction strategy. This is part of the overall negotiaton that is going on between the players (gov and private). Will be curious to see the after-reactions from both sides.

Here is what I suspect is going to end up happening:

1 - Creation or re-creation of a univeral public health plan for those who are truly uninsurable in the private market or whose private insurance is not up to par with the public plan. For the sake of naming it, I'll call it FHIP (Fed Health Insurance Plan). FHIP might also be delegated to the states, so we'd have SHIP in each state with both state and federal funding. Also continued enhancement of Medicaid and SCHIP programs to ensure universal coverage availabililty.

2 - NO mandate. Carriers want a mandate to do GI, but this administration has backed off of it. They will use the FHIP/SHIP in place of the mandate. Mandate is a scary (should I say "scarry") proposition which would have a lot of opposition.

3 - Group would remain relatively untouched. This administration is on record as wanting to increase employer-sponsored health coverage. Likely a tax incentive will be created to encourage more employers to offer health benefits to their employees. At the same time, employers who push to FHIP/SHIP instead would pay a penalty as percentage of payroll to help cover the costs. Expect to see a slight reduction in commissions on group business (see bloat reduction below).

4 - IFP. Private health plans continue to be available for those who can pass underwriting. Underwriting will be both standardized and more "relaxed" to allow more people onto private plans. Absent a mandate, there will still be declines. Plans themselves may become more standardized across the states with more similarities in coverage. The ability to decline high risk will expose the carriers to a requirement to help fund the FHIP/SHIP plan, which will in part come from agent commissions.

Now the hard part, trimming the "bloat".

Private carriers are going to have to reduce non-medical care expenses and will probably be forced to move up to the 85% level. That will mean a reduction in both administrative bloat and agent commissions.

I would expect to see a drop in group commissions by a couple of points with IFP being hit harder. 20/10 will be a thing of the past and most likely plans will pay something like 5% flat with an enhanced FYC of maybe 7-8% something like that. A portion of the reduction on commissions would be provided to FHIP/SHIP to help fund that program.

Also, I would expect to see a small agent enrollment fee paid out, something like $50 per person to help enroll in FHIP/SHIP.

The mandate issue is a hard one to analyze because it is one of those area where politics makes for strange bedfellows. True, the carriers want the mandate because they want the volume to make up for narrow margins that are coming. However, Hillary, and the Clintonistas also argued for a mandate for different reasons while Obama opposed it. So the lack of a mandate would not just be a matter of Obama beating the carriers back. Obama never wanted it. Ironically, Obama agreed with McCain that the problem was just one of affordability. Which leads to the issue of tax incentives for IFP plans in addition to group plans. Such as a substantial tax credit and subsidy where no taxes are paid anyway. This would put Obama and McCain in sync in some areas and he and the Hillary wing of the party apart in others. Strange bedfellows.


I continue to project that we are going to end out with guaranteed issue rather than a federal risk pool and that is where the gamechanger will or will not be. I don't know of course. I am just saying that is where I would place my money. It, of course, is not necessarily a black and white scenario anyway. We could end out with an arrangement where, for example, we have guaranteed issue with the exception of a long list of conditions such that one could argue that it really is or is not guaranteed issue in the end.
Probably that could very well happen. Thus the carrier would be able to decline for certain reasons but would still end out having to take many that they would otherwise decline.

As usual, with the government their attempt to simplify will end out with so many rules, regulations, and exceptions that it will end out being more complicated. We will have guaranteed issue with the exception of conditions A-Z that must go to the pool. Or the other way around, it is not guaranteed issue except that you have to take people with conditions A-Z.

Oy!

[Paradigm]

Originally Posted by Dave020

Speaking of cost containment, here is a summary (sort of) of today's meeting with Obama:

Health care groups propose cost controls - May. 11, 2009


For IFP, maybe 10% FYC 5% renewals something like that. The carriers are still going to want to provide and enhanced FYC to promote new sales. But for certain agent commissions, at least on IFP, will be cut.

Also, I could see group going to a per head flat amount instead of % commission (like Kaiser used to do).

The meeting today says several things

1) There will be no public option

2) There will be no federal health exchange

3) There will be a nation risk pool that will be administered by each state. (it will be similar to the state risk pools available now- there will be subsidies for said applicants)

4) Since there will be no GI due to no workable mandate the agent's commissions will not be as cut as much as you think as agents commission make up a very small % of overall admin and they are front loaded. They need us to drive business and if too many agents quits due to low compensation they cant meet their growth goals. In house and the resultant adverising that would be necessar for anyone but the blues wwold be cost prohibited. Keep in mind most insurers are far less than household names except BCBS

5) We will make additional moneys as enrollers from the sale of risk pool (we are inexpensive promotion for it versus advertising)

I fel better about the prospects for our industry than I have in a while. Obama sold out to the insurers today. He has settled for a symbolic victory rather than real systemic change. The USA thankfully is run still by the corporations and not by the whiners on the left.

Better than that many liberals will vote NO because it isnt single payer. This will further fragment the left and show to all the shrillness of their ideas. These idealogues want single payer and health insurance company dissolution and they will not get it because the Senate still has enough members with a brain and an understanding of the cost of this venture.

Most important polling shows that 85% of americans overall are happy with their healthcare. They would like to pay less however. Health care reform was merely a stick weilded by the OBama admin to get the insurers to control costs, nothing more and once again just like The Iraq withdrawl the liberal left has been lied to and followed the pied piper that is Barack off the cliff and have their leftist dreams dashed on the rocks below. Bait and Switch is the order of the day.