An Inconvenient Truth

[FRPLG]

I think it is important to understand what you are getting from an insurance company.

You are NOT getting a service by which they will pony up for the items covered in your policy. This is a direct action CAUSED by their service. What you are really buying is their backup. IE: you are paying for them to sit there and be ready and able to pay for your covered expenses. If you never make a claim you still received their service because their service wasn't the paying of claims it was the readiness and ability to do so.

To say people have paid for years and then wrongly lost their policies is to infer that the insurance company owes them because of all the money they paid without getting a service, when in reality they already received the service they were supposed to receive.

Otherwise it seems you want insurance to be more like an investment where people pay in and if they don't make a claim then the insurance company stills owes you a service since you have been banking premiums for years.

That's not what insurance is. It is a subtle but very important distinction.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Hog1

My only real point is in the Health Ins market. That point is, that it is rife with ambiguity, and predatory sales techniques. Between the insurance companies, the physicians, the hospitals, etc, the truth of a matter can no longer be determined. Ask a question to all concerned, get numerous different answers. Conclusion....................it's a mess

I've seen a number of posts from you now that make these general, finger-pointing statements, but you bring no specifics to the table.

When you say predatory sales techniques, what are you talking about? Can you give an example?

And when you say "rife with ambiguity", is the problem maybe that you don't understand what is driving the higher costs of medical care, and consequently the reasons for rising costs seem "ambiguous" to you?

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I think it is important to understand what you are getting from an insurance company.

You are NOT getting a service by which they will pony up for the items covered in your policy. This is a direct action CAUSED by their service. What you are really buying is their backup. IE: you are paying for them to sit there and be ready and able to pay for your covered expenses. If you never make a claim you still received their service because their service wasn't the paying of claims it was the readiness and ability to do so.

To say people have paid for years and then wrongly lost their policies is to infer that the insurance company owes them because of all the money they paid without getting a service, when in reality they already received the service they were supposed to receive.

Otherwise it seems you want insurance to be more like an investment where people pay in and if they don't make a claim then the insurance company stills owes you a service since you have been banking premiums for years.

That's not what insurance is. It is a subtle but very important distinction.

While the legality has never been an issue. Their legal ability to exit the state is not an issue. My ability to understand.............their desire to bail out of the state, subtle or not is not the issue. The insurance companies were VERY eager to collect the premiums, and associated profits when it was EASY. When the going got tuff....they were just as eager to bail. There is no misunderstanding regarding what services are offered, and recieved (actually used or not).

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I've seen a number of posts from you now that make these general, finger-pointing statements, but you bring no specifics to the table.

When you say predatory sales techniques, what are you talking about? Can you give an example?

And when you say "rife with ambiguity", is the problem maybe that you don't understand what is driving the higher costs of medical care, and consequently the reasons for rising costs seem "ambiguous" to you?

What is your understanding as to what is driving the higher cost of health care?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Hog1

While the legality has never been an issue. Their legal ability to exit the state is not an issue. My ability to understand.............their desire to bail out of the state, subtle or not is not the issue. The insurance companies were VERY eager to collect the premiums, and associated profits when it was EASY. When the going got tuff....they were just as eager to bail. There is no misunderstanding regarding what services are offered, and recieved (actually used or not).

Would you stay in business to lose money? I doubt it. Why would they continue to insure people who are almost guaranteed to make them lose money? That doesn't make sense.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Hog1

What is your understanding as to what is driving the higher cost of health care?

I think it is because everything involved with health care costs a alot. It costs a lot for doctors and nurses to become doctors and nurses. It costs a lot for them to be insure to be doctors and nurses. It costs a lot to develop, test and have new drugs authorized. It costs a lot to operate a hostpital. It costs a lot to do everything because we have the most technologically advanced health care system in the world. If we can figure out a way to make all aspect sof it cheaper then maybe we'll have a chance.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well, that is the REAL reason rates go up. The fine print on those notification letters actual says "Muhahahaaaa" but you need a magnifying glass to read it.

Thats not true. Ins. Co. try to print stuff so everyone will understand the policy and how it covers them. The problem is that the wording has to read just right so atty's cannot get hold of them and turn the coverages and wording around to mean what they want them too.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Hog1

The insurance model is a simplistic model, and one easily understood. Basic Economic laws of supply, demand, and profitability fall in that category as well. To suggest that because something is legal, that it is also acceptable is incorrect.
Millions of Floridians have paid YEARS of premiums without making a claim (even though many could have). They have been rewarded with cancellation notices in the millions in this state, with NO good alternative (if any alternative) in sight. The norm seems to be a 500% increase in homeowners policies for those fortunate enough to retain one. What the insurance companies have done is........legal. That does not make it right. The action is easily understandable. The action is not easily palateable.
However, that was never my point.

My only real point is in the Health Ins market. That point is, that it is rife with ambiguity, and predatory sales techniques. Between the insurance companies, the physicians, the hospitals, etc, the truth of a matter can no longer be determined. Ask a question to all concerned, get numerous different answers. Conclusion....................it's a mess

Your correct as many millions have paid without filling claims but I'd say they are the ones with only rate increases and not beining canceled. There are also millions and millions that have filed hugh claims and the insurance co. have to protect themself and the other customers. Fl. has had a tough several years and allot of Ins Co. where still trying to get over Andrew. Look at the homeowners policy that the state came up with several years back (forgot the name) its fallen flat on it face and the tax payers are bailing out the insureds. Ins. Co. can pull out of Fl. now but I'd say most have allready taken the beating.