The Dismantling of ObamaCare - Ongoing Updates.

[goillini52]

I'm kind of curious. Assuming that the public sector could do all of the above, would you be in favor of a single-payor plan?

And a second question... if the private sector did all of the above but did not pay agent commissions on any plan would you still be in favor of a private sector, for-profit solution over a public one?

And a third question... do you believe that a Wellpoint/Anthem mega-company is more responsive to their clients than Medicare is? (If so you've never been on hold for hours trying to get one of their people to solve a billing issue... and not have it solved... like my father has had to do with his plan... but my grandfather has never had to call Medicare for anything.)

Finally a fourth question: I wonder if comp for group and IFP went to zero but if the state or federal governments offered a single-payer solution with say a 15% FYC with a 10% /yr trail, if maybe some of you here would dance to a different tune?

As an outsider to this sector of the financial services industry it seems to me that agents favor the private sector because they hope to see it restored to the days of 15%-20% FYC.

No statement here, just questions... and not trying to stir up a beehive or flame-war. These are just issue that I've discussed with friends who work in your sector and am wondering if single-pay is just about the money, which I suspect has a lot to do with it, although no doubt many just 'hate' government-anything... some agents I speak with would happily privatize Medicare if they could.

(I have no dog in this hunt... I don't sell or buy health insurance... my company provides 100% no-cost-to-me, low/no deduct coverage in what what you would call a "Cadillac-plan" ... just curious about these issues you folks debate here day in and day out.)

Would you perform your job for free Shakespeare?

 

[Yagents]

Hey Y,

Does this mean you are for or against ACA? I know you've been in the INDY health game a long time....what would you like to see happen (that would be favorable for agents and the public)...what type of plan would work for both????

Thanks man!

I am for the "spirit" of the law, but it was flawed from the beginning.
I accepted it, became a student of it, made hay from it, and now will bury it.
Another cycle is upon us. Accept it, work it, or move on. This under age 65 niche has served me well for 13 yrs, no reason to get off this horse yet, not with change in the air.

I see a world of medicaid expansion with block grants, HSA's expanded big time, high risk pools with PPO choice, underwritten a-la-carte build your own health plans, penalties structured like Medicare. I want a system which doesn't pick or pre-determine winners and losers. (see election results) I want back the choice of 8-10 robust PPO network plans that my clients had just a short 3 years ago. We should subsidize the poor and sick with blind back door taxes, and allow people buy what fits their needs, with basic minimum catastrophic, and keep the visible premiums low. Agents will only be more valuable in this scenario, it won't be like buying an airplane ticket. Never has, never will. More like a financial plan.

This is the last chance to make the private healthcare delivery work for the non group market. They need to repeal parts of ACA at first, support the current ACA market for a couple years, and then pass individual targeted laws to create a guard rail for the free market to work within (HSA, pre-ex, EHB minimums). Not 2200 pages that nobody read.

 

[scagnt83]

I'm kind of curious. Assuming that the public sector could do all of the above, would you be in favor of a single-payor plan?

And a second question... if the private sector did all of the above ..

The cost of care as a nation is the cost of care as a nation. Layers can certainly be cut out, but the cost of care is the issue. Insurance is merely a financial vehicle to help finance the cost of care... that is largely forgotten in this whole debate. Premiums are a byproduct of cost of care.

As an outsider to this sector of the financial services industry it seems to me that agents favor the private sector because they hope to see it restored to the days of 15%-20% FYC.

I still do group health (despite my belief that it is a HUGE problem in our system), but I have been a major supporter of either single payor or a large expansion of Medicaid/Medicare for many years. (Im a registered Independent but usually vote conservative... at least on the economy and defense)
Ive known many people in the financial sector who would support one of those two things happening.

It is a fallacy to think that health agents would be out in the cold in a single payor system. Most other nations with nationalized healthcare have supplemental policies sold on the private market. (look at medicare)

If the Gov came out and said they were doing Medicare for all, and insurers could offer Med Sups to all ages... you would not see nearly as many complaints from health agents.


The problem is all Ocare did is make things more expensive and add hundreds of more "layers" of admin to the already bloated system. That is why agents were so dead set against it. What has happened to Ocare was predicted by the majority of experienced health agents.

They knew it would fail because of how consumers interact with health insurance. Human nature and the real world got in the way. Agents knew that would happen because they see it in the field every day. Im not debating or even doubting that the numbers for Ocare worked out on paper. But the real world and human nature was not properly accounted for in their calculations.

 

[Ann H]

I'm kind of curious. Assuming that the public sector could do all of the above, would you be in favor of a single-payor plan?

And a second question... if the private sector did all of the above but did not pay agent commissions on any plan would you still be in favor of a private sector, for-profit solution over a public one?

And a third question... do you believe that a Wellpoint/Anthem mega-company is more responsive to their clients than Medicare is? (If so you've never been on hold for hours trying to get one of their people to solve a billing issue... and not have it solved... like my father has had to do with his plan... but my grandfather has never had to call Medicare for anything.)

Finally a fourth question: I wonder if comp for group and IFP went to zero but if the state or federal governments offered a single-payer solution with say a 15% FYC with a 10% /yr trail, if maybe some of you here would dance to a different tune?

As an outsider to this sector of the financial services industry it seems to me that agents favor the private sector because they hope to see it restored to the days of 15%-20% FYC.

No statement here, just questions... and not trying to stir up a beehive or flame-war. These are just issue that I've discussed with friends who work in your sector and am wondering if single-pay is just about the money, which I suspect has a lot to do with it, although no doubt many just 'hate' government-anything... some agents I speak with would happily privatize Medicare if they could.

(I have no dog in this hunt... I don't sell or buy health insurance... my company provides 100% no-cost-to-me, low/no deduct coverage in what what you would call a "Cadillac-plan" ... just curious about these issues you folks debate here day in and day out.)

Your post was very rude, and you claimed you were "not trying to stir up a beehive or flame war". That's exactly what you were doing, so man up and admit it. All of your paragraphs asked the same question, which is "would we be for government controlled insurance (like Medicare) if it paid as much or more than we get now, or do we have a different reason for not liking the government taking over a segment where private enterprise can do it". I'm sure every agent laughed when they read that, because clearly you don't know that selling Medicare supplements is a good business. Yes, you can make fine money by selling supplements to a govt program like Medicare or MAPD. Most IFP agents would really love to increase the size of their Medicare Supp book of business! It's a good business. So, clearly compensation is not the reason we don't like govt takeovers of a private sector business. Maybe we don't like govt takeovers or heavy handed govt control instead of free enterprise. Maybe we don't like Obamacare causing carriers to bleed red, withdraw, and merge, nor do we like hospitals merging, and doctors going out of business. And more.

So, how about you? If your job didn't pay you would you work there? If your cushy job, where you have Cadillac insurance with no premium and low deductibles was taken away, would you work there? If you quoted for a client, spent an hour advising and helping them, yet they never bought from you (so you didn't get paid) would you work there? If you felt responsible to help clients pro-bono (no pay, no benefits) would you work there. If your job was clearly collapsing, and under govt takeover that was creating havoc, would you work there? Because lots of us do that, dude, while you work a cushy job, come to a forum where you "have no dog in this fight" and make rude, provoking comments.

 

[FLM2]

I'm kind of curious. Assuming that the public sector could do all of the above, would you be in favor of a single-payor plan?

And a second question... if the private sector did all of the above but did not pay agent commissions on any plan would you still be in favor of a private sector, for-profit solution over a public one?

And a third question... do you believe that a Wellpoint/Anthem mega-company is more responsive to their clients than Medicare is? (If so you've never been on hold for hours trying to get one of their people to solve a billing issue... and not have it solved... like my father has had to do with his plan... but my grandfather has never had to call Medicare for anything.)

Finally a fourth question: I wonder if comp for group and IFP went to zero but if the state or federal governments offered a single-payer solution with say a 15% FYC with a 10% /yr trail, if maybe some of you here would dance to a different tune?

As an outsider to this sector of the financial services industry it seems to me that agents favor the private sector because they hope to see it restored to the days of 15%-20% FYC.

No statement here, just questions... and not trying to stir up a beehive or flame-war. These are just issue that I've discussed with friends who work in your sector and am wondering if single-pay is just about the money, which I suspect has a lot to do with it, although no doubt many just 'hate' government-anything... some agents I speak with would happily privatize Medicare if they could.

(I have no dog in this hunt... I don't sell or buy health insurance... my company provides 100% no-cost-to-me, low/no deduct coverage in what what you would call a "Cadillac-plan" ... just curious about these issues you folks debate here day in and day out.)

Ann beat me to it but you really need to take a hike, you have incredible nerve posting this bulls*it on a public forum of health insurance agents.

I've spent 10 years helping all of my clients both save money and improve benefits and always put compensation as a secondary issue because if you do the right thing for clients there will be many more asking for help.

But I don't work for free and neither will anyone else.

The current ACA law is a disgrace (and I am a lifelong Democrat) because of the way it treats the middle class (who are unsubsidized for the most part) and who pay the equivalent of a mortgage payment for crappy coverage.

All professional health agents want the ability to help their clients save money and get better benefits, not just those below the 250% FPL level who are being handed $0 deductible plans and low copays along with huge subsidies.

The government identified health insurance agents as the enemy in the structuring of the law and spent untold billions to try to create a viable distribution channel that was the equivalent-they failed miserably as did your attempt to troll this forum.

 

[hamben]

(I have no dog in this hunt... I don't sell or buy health insurance... my company provides 100% no-cost-to-me, low/no deduct coverage in what what you would call a "Cadillac-plan" ... just curious about these issues you folks debate here day in and day out.)

Obviously you don't understand that a company paying insurance premiums on your behalf is still part of your compensation so any premiums paid by an employer are 100% part of your compensation. You in fact are paying 100% of the premium. Its sad the employees don't recognize how much their coverage costs when they are the ones paying for it.

 

[YouGotMyMoney]

Obviously you don't understand that a company paying insurance premiums on your behalf is still part of your compensation so any premiums paid by an employer are 100% part of your compensation. You in fact are paying 100% of the premium. Its sad the employees don't recognize how much their coverage costs when they are the ones paying for it.

That falls into the family of low income consumers who are shopping for a new car, as long as you fall into their monthly budget they have in mind, you could charge whatever you want....New 2017 Cadillac with all the fixin's? $150k...oh but only $299/mo for 50 years, they'd go for it!

 

[Gulfman]

(I have no dog in this hunt... I don't sell or buy health insurance... my company provides 100% no-cost-to-me, low/no deduct coverage in what what you would call a "Cadillac-plan" ... just curious about these issues you folks debate here day in and day out.)

Obviously you don't understand that a company paying insurance premiums on your behalf is still part of your compensation so any premiums paid by an employer are 100% part of your compensation. You in fact are paying 100% of the premium. Its sad the employees don't recognize how much their coverage costs when they are the ones paying for it.

God forbid that "his company" should make A PROFIT too....(what a disgrace---i think he should be ashamed !!!!)

And don't tell him that the broker who sold his company their groups benefits package made money last year....he might get upset.

(something tells me this guy's "company" is the local/state/federal government)???

 

[Yagents]

And I'm tired of subsidizing his Cadillac plan thru an unfair tax code

 

[walthamny]

I think something like the swiss system would work well for Republicans and Democrats. Swiss allow private insurance companies to offer basically 2 types of plans. One is basic care, and insurance companies companies can't make a profit on this type of plan. And the 2nd plan is basically they can sell any supplemental plan they wish. You want a private room, 2nd opinion, you get the supplemental plan and pay for it. Now for folks who cant afford the basic plan, the government gives you tax subsidies or more like an interest free loan. If your income improves in the future, you start to pay back the subsidy you had received before. I wish our welfare would work like that as well.

Something like this would work well for both parties, insurance companies and agents and also the public. Now it would be hard to agree on what goes into the basic plan. ( tattoo removal, breast implant complications) but it would be better than just repealing Obamacare and doing nothing.