Bupa and Quinn screw the people

lostexpectation

So now Quinn has bought out Bupa its says it doesn't have to pay the risk equalistation for atleast 3 years, (and probably never will), so even if you thought the price was an excessive burden for Bupa, the older, sicker category of people are still screwed, and there no more competition then last month.


this whole mary harney defending public bodies thing lately is hilarious

oscarBravo

lostexpectation wrote:

So now Quinn has bought out Bupa its says it doesn't have to pay the risk equalistation for atleast 3 years, (and probably never will), so even if you thought the price was an excessive burden for Bupa, the older, sicker category of people are still screwed, and there no more competition then last month.

I'm completely at a loss as to what point you're trying to make. Can you take a deep breath and try again?

lostexpectation wrote:

this whole mary harney defending public bodies thing lately is hilarious

Again, clarity would be an asset here.

Sleepy

I have to say, I don't agree with risk equalization in the first place. Health nsurance should be cheaper for me than someone in their 70's much as it should be cheaper for a non-smoker of the same age as me.

Financially, the older people of this country are better off than my generation, why should we have to subsidise their health care if they're a higher risk than us?

And if you can't afford private health insurance? That's what the Public Health System is for. If you think it's not good enough (which I'd agree with), you fix it, you don't find ways of punitively taxing healthy people in order to deflect attention away from it.

If the VHI can't compete with the other health insurance companies, close it and let a genuinely open market take care of that industry. Vivas, Bupa, Quinn and Axa are all interested.

DarkJager

Risk equalisation was a stupid idea from day one, and I for one, am delighted to see VHI getting kicked in the balls by this latest move.

Akrasia

Sleepy wrote:

I have to say, I don't agree with risk equalization in the first place. Health nsurance should be cheaper for me than someone in their 70's much as it should be cheaper for a non-smoker of the same age as me.

Financially, the older people of this country are better off than my generation, why should we have to subsidise their health care if they're a higher risk than us?

And if you can't afford private health insurance? That's what the Public Health System is for. If you think it's not good enough (which I'd agree with), you fix it, you don't find ways of punitively taxing healthy people in order to deflect attention away from it.

If the VHI can't compete with the other health insurance companies, close it and let a genuinely open market take care of that industry. Vivas, Bupa, Quinn and Axa are all interested.

a genuinely open market? does such a thing even exist outside of the criminal underworld?

secondly, do you think it's the fault of my poor granny that the public health service is in the appalling state that it's in? do you think she can do anything about it?

the 'free market' ideology you espouse has been a complete failure everywhere it has been tried on the medical sector. prices go up, efficiency goes down, and health care becomes unaffordable to more and more people.

Rock Climber

Sleepy wrote:

why should we have to subsidise their health care if they're a higher risk than us?

Social equity.
Just like European taxes paid for most of our roads-would you like to be driving on pot hole mania ?
I agree with this when it comes to health-it's an entirely different priority to other types of insurance.It's the people priority.Most people as they get to their golden years have no control over their needs for health care.

Someone under 25 has plenty of control over the way they drive a car and plenty of healthy years after 25 with a no claims bonus to drive it enjoyably and safely.
The same does not apply to the human body.
Not making the distinction or the exception is the embodiment if you pardon the pun of selfishness.

Financially, the older people of this country are better off than my generation,

Show me the statistics on that please...

Time Magazine

Rock Climber wrote:

Show me the statistics on that please...

Very hard to quantify, that. But it makes sense, who has the mortgages? Of course, over time we'll have more than our grannies, but they're the ones who own the houses and the like atm.

kevmy

DarkJager wrote:

Risk equalisation was a stupid idea from day one, and I for one, am delighted to see VHI getting kicked in the balls by this latest move.

Agreed. It's not about the old people getting screwed it's about BUPA getting screwed for no other reason than doing a good job. VHI have more older people on their books and it make no sense for the older people to change their health insurer. This came about for no other reason than VHI's cosy relationship with the current government similar to all other ex-state 0r semi-state bodies.

flogen

lostexpectation wrote:

So now Quinn has bought out Bupa its says it doesn't have to pay the risk equalistation for atleast 3 years, (and probably never will), so even if you thought the price was an excessive burden for Bupa, the older, sicker category of people are still screwed, and there no more competition then last month.


this whole mary harney defending public bodies thing lately is hilarious

Damn their job saving, competition retaining oily hides!!!
Of course a new company should be free of such a burden until they get their legs, and you're jumping to the conclusion that Quinn will pull out in 2 years, 364 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes... it might happen, but we'll have to wait and see.

As for risk equalisation, I'm torn... I believe that if we worked on the basis of "why should I have to pay for older people's insurance?", we should also have to work on the basis of "why should I have to pay for other people's disability benefits?" which would be a sad state of affairs.
The intention is solid, not sure if the execution is as strong though... A part of me would like to see the same ban on age discrimination in car insurance, but then again young people aren't genetically more inclined to be involved in accidents, as older people are genetically more inclined to fall ill - but car insurance is another debate altogether.

My main gripe with the health insurance market is the carte blanche the VHI get in every realm, and hopefully the EC case that's impending will hit them a few nice slaps in the coming months... I'm of the belief that if the VHI was forced to act as a business it could easily reduce cost without having to make any change to its customer base or policy - that way the likes of BUPA/Quinn and Vivas wouldn't have to pay for their over-indulgance.

Stark

lostexpectation wrote:

the older, sicker category of people are still screwed

Why? Have Bupa/Quinn started refusing older, sicker people since last time I checked?

mickoneill30

lostexpectation wrote:

So now Quinn has bought out Bupa its says it doesn't have to pay the risk equalistation for atleast 3 years

Nobodys pointed out here that Mary Harney stated (this morning or yesterday) that it'll be the HSE that decides when Quinn will have to pay for the risk equalisation. Bupa has built up a lot of business and Quinn isn't starting from scratch.

Edit: Better put in a link to show I'm not making stuff up. http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0201/insurance.html

Sleepy

Akrasia wrote:

a genuinely open market? does such a thing even exist outside of the criminal underworld?

Hmm, the market for most technology would be a pretty open one... If you can make a better processor than Intel, you'll take market share from them (see AMD).

secondly, do you think it's the fault of my poor granny that the public health service is in the appalling state that it's in? do you think she can do anything about it?

What's stopping your granny from getting her health insurance from a more efficient company than VHI?

the 'free market' ideology you espouse has been a complete failure everywhere it has been tried on the medical sector. prices go up, efficiency goes down, and health care becomes unaffordable to more and more people.

Oh, if it was up to me, there'd be no health insurance. We'd simply fund and run our health service properly and professionally. But whilst the unions and governments make that impossible, I believe the insurance industry should be a free market to insure we don't have to pay too much more than we already are.

Sleepy

flogen wrote:

As for risk equalisation, I'm torn... I believe that if we worked on the basis of "why should I have to pay for older people's insurance?", we should also have to work on the basis of "why should I have to pay for other people's disability benefits?" which would be a sad state of affairs.

I'd see it more as a case of why should I have to pay for someone else's laziness if they can't be bothered to shop around for the best deal?

seamus

kevmy wrote:

VHI have more older people on their books and it make no sense for the older people to change their health insurer.

The average age of a VHI subscriber is 44. The average age of a BUPA subscriber is 38. Statistically, these two ages are in the same risk bracket.
When you take VHI's volume of families with children into account, the average age of people insured by VHI actually drops below BUPA's.

Even taking this 6-year difference into account, it still doesn't provide any compelling evidence that VHI need to have significantly higher prices than BUPA. VHI's most basic plan is 70% more expensive than BUPA's. The figures don't add up.

If VHI were told to drop their prices to BUPA's level, and then BUPA were to compensate them, then perhaps we may have some semblance of sanity. But when VHI are already charging almost twice as much to customers who are generally equally as sick as BUPA's customers, I can't see any good reason why VHI deserve compensation.

sovtek

Sleepy wrote:

Hmm, the market for most technology would be a pretty open one... If you can make a better processor than Intel, you'll take market share from them (see AMD).

When you ignore government subsidy for R and D, tax breaks for relocation to different countries etc etc....yea it's pretty open.

sovtek

Sleepy wrote:

Oh, if it was up to me, there'd be no health insurance. We'd simply fund and run our health service properly and professionally. But whilst the unions and governments make that impossible, I believe the insurance industry should be a free market to insure we don't have to pay too much more than we already are.

I assume you are talking about the American model?

Padraig Mor

seamus wrote:

VHI's most basic plan is 70% more expensive than BUPA's. The figures don't add up..

I'm not sure about now but when a I took out health insurance (VHI) a few years ago, BUPA's prices - once you adjusted to have the same options - were almost exactly the same as VHI (implying that they were making a higher profit margin). I have Plan B with VHI and IIRC the equivalent plan with BUPA was something like 30 cents cheaper. Don't BUPA quietly put up their prices a few weeks after every VHI price rise as well?

sovtek

Padraig Mor wrote:

I'm not sure about now but when a I took out health insurance (VHI) a few years ago, BUPA's prices - once you adjusted to have the same options - were almost exactly the same as VHI (implying that they were making a higher profit margin). I have Plan B with VHI and IIRC the equivalent plan with BUPA was something like 30 cents cheaper. Don't BUPA quietly put up their prices a few weeks after every VHI price rise as well?

That was my response to Sleepy comment about shopping around. Insurance is a racket!
IIRC you have to also pay into private health insurance for two years before you can receive benefits and no pre existing conditions. I think Vivas was offering slightly better.

bk

Padraig Mor wrote:

I'm not sure about now but when a I took out health insurance (VHI) a few years ago, BUPA's prices - once you adjusted to have the same options - were almost exactly the same as VHI (implying that they were making a higher profit margin). I have Plan B with VHI and IIRC the equivalent plan with BUPA was something like 30 cents cheaper. Don't BUPA quietly put up their prices a few weeks after every VHI price rise as well?

No, I recently renewed my BUPA and they are far cheaper then equivalent VHI plans. Actually the SBPost did a detailed article recently comparing all the plans and BUPA always came out significantly cheaper.

Linoge

Rock Climber wrote:

Someone under 25 has plenty of control over the way they drive a car and plenty of healthy years after 25 with a no claims bonus to drive it enjoyably and safely.
The same does not apply to the human body.

Why can't we compare the two?

Car insurance is compulsory, health insurance is not. Although we have plenty of control over our cars we have no control over the dicrimination against us for age.

AFAIC paying higher premiums on car insurance and lower health insurance when your younger and vice-versa when you are older is an acceptable part of the very core of insurance - risk vs. premium.

What is not acceptable is in a free market, with optional insurance that this same actuarial method should not apply. You would not get this equalisation BS in the UK or US. Load up the old sick people - can't afford it you're on public health. Young poor people - get the bus.

flogen

Sleepy wrote:

I'd see it more as a case of why should I have to pay for someone else's laziness if they can't be bothered to shop around for the best deal?

Fair point - but that's not what you were getting at in your original post from what I can see:

Sleepy wrote:

I have to say, I don't agree with risk equalization in the first place. Health nsurance should be cheaper for me than someone in their 70's much as it should be cheaper for a non-smoker of the same age as me.

And the comparison between an older person and a smoker doesn't work either IMO - they have a choice, unfortunately we all grow old regardless of our intentions or wishes.

lostexpectation

its precisley because vhi has a such a large section of the market and that older
people who less likely to move about insurers are still with them, if quinn come in aswell as bupa then maybe there would be more competiton, and a better spread of the market and less need for risk equalisation

HelterSkelter

Sleepy wrote:

I'd see it more as a case of why should I have to pay for someone else's laziness if they can't be bothered to shop around for the best deal?

What are you talking about? The last time I renewed my health insurance BUPA were only 20 quid cheaper than VHI. Wow, big ****ing saving there.

MarkR

lostexpectation wrote:

So now Quinn has bought out Bupa its says it doesn't have to pay the risk equalistation for atleast 3 years, (and probably never will), so even if you thought the price was an excessive burden for Bupa, the older, sicker category of people are still screwed, and there no more competition then last month.


this whole mary harney defending public bodies thing lately is hilarious

How are the older sicker people getting screwed exactly? Surely there is more competition as now then can choose from bupa, vivas, and vhi?

Sleepy

sovtek wrote:

I assume you are talking about the American model?

Not at all. I'd be suggesting a system that would offer anything a private health insurace policy would give thus negating the need for it in the first place i.e. full proper medical care for all. Maybe a bit communist for some people's tastes but under a progressive tax regime it would be fair imho.

Saruman

sovtek wrote:

I assume you are talking about the American model?

Huh? American model? The previous poster said:

Originally Posted by Sleepy
Oh, if it was up to me, there'd be no health insurance. We'd simply fund and run our health service properly and professionally. But whilst the unions and governments make that impossible, I believe the insurance industry should be a free market to insure we don't have to pay too much more than we already are.

Its actually the opposite in America. There is no real health service. There is Medicare which is like the medical card for low income people but everyone in the US mostly has private health insurance. If they do not... then they have a serious problem when they need medical attention.

J.S. Pill

sovtek wrote:

I think Vivas was offering slightly better.

Nah, Vivas suck. I work on the sales line for Vivas down here in Cork and for the last week we were handeling an absoloutly ferocious call volume with Bupa customers who's policies were expiring at the end of the month transfering over to us. Today I think I've taken about 10 calls and most of them needed directing to the cancellations line!

Vivas are pricey and their packages are needlessly complicated, aside from a few gimmicky fringe benifits I don't see why anyone would choose us over Bupa.

I just hope none of the managers have taken out Boat loans in the hope that they'd be taking in a lot of former Bupa customers...

sovtek wrote:

IIRC you have to also pay into private health insurance for two years before you can receive benefits and no pre existing conditions.

Its a bit more complex than that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have, just give us a shout on 1850 716 666 - please, I'm so bored here!

(PS, if you guys in IT are monitoring this: Do your worst, I'm probably out of a job anyway)

metrovelvet

There is nothing to stop the elderly from joining Bupa.

And how screwed can they be when they all get automatic medical cards, regardless of how much money they have in their pensions and property?

MadsL

Wonder will Quinn be quoting non-nationals higher health insurance too?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=192883

When I heard this news I shuddered, literally shuddered at the abuses I suspect they'll be up to.

Watch this space.

Seth Brundle

Linoge wrote:

What is not acceptable is in a free market, with optional insurance that this same actuarial method should not apply. You would not get this equalisation BS in the UK or US. Load up the old sick people - can't afford it you're on public health. Young poor people - get the bus.

Didn't Bupa ironically push for RE in Australia?

Assuming Quinn operate Bupa in the same manner as their existing insurance business then I'd opt for VHI!

Also when will Vivas need to start paying RE and how much will it cost them?

lostexpectation

one thing I didn't know till I heard it last week on newstalk was that BUPA was mutual company...