Active Users:335 Time:29/04/2024 02:37:45 PM
And your insurance premium would be WAY higher than it currently is with a native MA company. HyogaRott Send a noteboard - 10/03/2017 02:21:21 PM

View original post
As I said, the network/providers would be local to Mass because there is no reason an Ohio company can't contract with providers in Mass for their newly-enrolled Mass members at reimbursement rates commensurate with what is needed to get them on board as providers but still make a profit relative to what they charge their Mass members for premium. Either by "renting" an existing Mass plan's network or working directly with Mass providers to establish their own network. The main thing that prevents that now is existing law and the fact that Mass lawmakers don't want us to have that choice because it would undermine their nannyism.

Just as a multi-state property company charges different rents in Bumblefuck, Ohio and Boston, Mass, a multi-state insurance company could charge rates based on the local costs. But, without all the extra crap Mass forces, the rate would still be much lower than what I have to pay now for insurance in Mass. My auto insurance company isn't based in Mass, but they contract with many service providers in Mass to service their Mass members. They probably pay them more than is needed in other states, but Mass members also pay more for insurance. The same model could work for medical insurance.

Yes, it would be much smarter for Mass lawmakers to get rid of all that shit they require, but they're never going to.


Because there would be a small pool of MA policyholders for an Ohio company, your premiums would be so high that you would generally be better to self-insure. You can NOT escape the numbers. Insurance functions by spreading financial risk among a LARGE number of policyholders. The smaller the number of policies in a network the higher the risk. Further you can not pool MA policyholders with policyholders elsewhere because the medical costs are not the same between the areas. people in one place and people in a distant place are different. They have different lifestyles, different risks, and different base medical costs. By even trying you end up with massive increases for most policyholders, i.e. what has happened under the ACA. It is in no way "fair" to ask people in bumblefuck to pay extra just because some other fool likes living in Manhattan.

Reply to message
Obama care repeal and replace - 07/03/2017 12:33:18 AM 741 Views
The new House version looks fine..... - 07/03/2017 03:12:55 AM 492 Views
They do expand health saving accounts *NM* - 07/03/2017 11:27:50 AM 241 Views
The "accross state lines" buzz is a farce. Do YOU want a PCP that is 800 miles away? *NM* - 07/03/2017 09:18:57 PM 280 Views
That isn't what it means at all. - 08/03/2017 03:21:27 AM 492 Views
But physician networks are local - 09/03/2017 04:25:33 PM 488 Views
Of course they are. - 09/03/2017 04:52:31 PM 402 Views
And your insurance premium would be WAY higher than it currently is with a native MA company. - 10/03/2017 02:21:21 PM 434 Views
The risk can be spread across networks, as it is today. - 10/03/2017 02:33:38 PM 493 Views
It only looks that way from the outside. - 10/03/2017 04:24:25 PM 445 Views
One breakdown - 07/03/2017 10:25:12 AM 590 Views
My head is going to blow up from reading all this news - 07/03/2017 09:16:22 PM 627 Views
From the little I understand... - 07/03/2017 10:13:01 PM 507 Views
They can make it work and will just rasie rates - 08/03/2017 03:52:50 PM 450 Views
That's the point though, isn't it? - 08/03/2017 04:35:56 PM 466 Views
but it was the young that made it work and they are already opting out - 10/03/2017 02:56:50 PM 419 Views
it wasn't a bone - 10/03/2017 02:30:00 PM 526 Views
The problem withthat argument is it ignore human nature - 10/03/2017 03:18:06 PM 509 Views
I'm not ignoring it, I am illustrating it. - 10/03/2017 04:39:45 PM 446 Views
You know what I would propose? - 08/03/2017 03:06:27 PM 514 Views
decoupling health insurance from employment eliminates an existing subsidy - 08/03/2017 03:25:27 PM 451 Views
So what? - 08/03/2017 03:53:29 PM 464 Views
I wasn't raising it as a show-stopper, because obviously it isn't one. - 08/03/2017 04:17:47 PM 480 Views
As a self-employed individual, I have little sympathy for extending employer-based care - 09/03/2017 03:41:59 AM 448 Views
And it has caused the wage level to stagnate since then. - 10/03/2017 02:35:12 PM 475 Views
It is was of the many broken parts of our health care system - 10/03/2017 03:20:19 PM 461 Views
Looks good to me - 08/03/2017 03:58:48 PM 458 Views
This would solve a lot of the problems with cost and access. - 08/03/2017 04:11:15 PM 501 Views
Some serious problems - 09/03/2017 04:49:35 PM 508 Views
How do we elect you Tom? This is really good stuff. *NM* - 09/03/2017 05:25:56 PM 280 Views
As to healthcare itself, how are there no good options? - 14/03/2017 01:59:17 PM 462 Views
I'm glad you asked... - 14/03/2017 02:36:40 PM 469 Views

Reply to Message