BUPA Withdraw from Irish Market

Siogfinsceal

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1214/bupa.html

BUPA have withdrawn from the Irish market. As a member of BUPA I know that this had been a threat for sometime due to a court ruling that they had to pay a million a week to compensate other schemes for older members - how does this make sense? Why should BUPA have had to pay this money to VHI? I thought anti-monopoly/competition laws would have meant that competition in the market was encouraged. VHI were brutal before BUPA came along. I was with VHI for years and never got a penny from them but BUPA gave 50% back on all doctors bills - VHI then started copping on a bit and actually offering something decent (same as vodafone once the other networks took hold). Does anyone know is this will affect VIVAS too? I woul drather switch from BUPA to them that to go back to VHI.
BUPA challenged the fact that they had to pay money to VHI and were ruled against in court. This is forcing us into a monopoly - why was this not put to a public vote as it affects all of us?

slumped

Risk equalisation is fair and BUPA knew about the possibility of it when they moved into Ireland.

Tough luck.

S

Siogfinsceal

what? how is it fair? cant the older people move to BUPA if they wanted? (they would have been better off)

Tom Dunne

Siogfinsceal wrote:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1214/bupa.html

BUPA have withdrawn from the Irish market. <snip>

You know, I used to think along the same lines as you, but the more I think of it, the more I am beginning to see the logic. I can't say I agree with it, or think it is right, but there is some sense.

Say an insurance company decides only take on the 18-35 years olds. Typically the healthiest lot, therefore making the insurance company the most money. Then the other insurance companies decide to do this - the net result is that nobody wants to insure anyone over 35.

Think about the ramifications of this for when you are in your 60's or 70's - you may not be able to get life-saving operations, because you may not be able to afford it and insurers won't take you on.

Now that doesn't sound right, does it?

The Hill Billy

Risk Equalisation is sh!te & anti-competitive. It is a damn shame IMO!
For some reason I don't think that VIVAS are being impacted by Risk Equalisation. That said - if they end up giving the VHI a run for their money the Government (the VHI's owners) will probably come after them too.
All this from a government purporting to promote competition in industry. My ar$e!



Unless VIVAS are totally way out in their premiums & services I'll be giving them my business at renewal time. Deffo.

BigCon

Siogfinsceal wrote:

This is forcing us into a monopoly - why was this not put to a public vote as it affects all of us?

It is put to a public vote, every four years (along with all the other decisions our government make).
If we don't agree with it, then we have the option of voting them out - however it seems that the majority of people are happy with the laws and decisions they make as they have been in power for the last 10 years (I think).
Personally, I don't agree with BUPA having to pay this money, but such is life...

Agamemnon

I was trying to decide last night if I should go for BUPA or VHI and I was leaning towards BUPA. Guess the decision has been made for me now. Shame.

indiewindy

New entrants do not have to pay the levy for their first 3 years. That is why vivas has not had to pay it yet. Its a pity bupa didnt take the fight to Europe as they had a great chance of winning. Bupa did not turn down older customers. Car insurance isnt community rated so why should health insurance, it alread costs me almost 500 a year with bup. I can imagine that vhi will be a lot higher as they can now charge what they want as they again will have a monopoly in Ireland. Another terrible day for consumers and the fine bupa staff in Fermoy

Siogfinsceal

tom dunne wrote:

You know, I used to think along the same lines as you, but the more I think of it, the more I am beginning to see the logic. I can't say I agree with it, or think it is right, but there is some sense.

Say an insurance company decides only take on the 18-35 years olds. Typically the healthiest lot, therefore making the insurance company the most money. Then the other insurance companies decide to do this - the net result is that nobody wants to insure anyone over 35.

Think about the ramifications of this for when you are in your 60's or 70's - you may not be able to get life-saving operations, because you may not be able to afford it and insurers won't take you on.

Now that doesn't sound right, does it?

bloody officials prob have shares in VHI! If BUPA never turned down older customers then how is this fair? Older customers had the right to choose where they wanted to go. As a customer I am really angry and would rather go to any other company than to line VHIs pockets

Tom Dunne

Siogfinsceal wrote:

bloody officials prob have shares in VHI! If BUPA never turned down older customers then how is this fair?

Oh, don't get me wrong, I completely agree.

But do you agree, this scenario is not beyond the realms of possibility?

Siogfinsceal

which scenario? about the older people? they never stopped older people from joining bupa did they?

Tom Dunne

No, do you agree that insurance companies can suddenly stop taking on older clients because they don't make money on them?

It's a hypothetical question, I am not saying it has happened.

testicle

slumped wrote:

Risk equalisation is fair and BUPA knew about the possibility of it when they moved into Ireland.

Tough luck.

S

When the average age of the government is 20, risk equalisation will be introduced into the car insurance market.

Siogfinsceal

if it is hypothetical then its not relevant really. The fact is bupa did not stop older people joining but VHI whinged and the courts penalised BUPA anyway. Its wrong that this is allowed when there are anti-monopoly laws for almost everything else.

J.R.HARTLEY

don't forget tom dunne, that VHI are legally obliged to take all people who try to join regardless of age, BUPA are not.

Siogfinsceal

makes no sense!! peopel chose which car insurance they go for and should have the right to chose just as those companies should have the right to ensure people without the govt screwing them out of money

Tom Dunne

Siogfinsceal wrote:

if it is hypothetical then its not relevant really.

This is the state of denial I was in before this all surfaced. But think long and hard about it. How would you like it if you couldn't get health insurance when you are 70 and couldn't get a life saving operation?

There is a very real possibility this could happen.

Now tell me it is not relevant.

scojones

tom dunne wrote:

No, do you agree that insurance companies can suddenly stop taking on older clients because they don't make money on them?

It's a hypothetical question, I am not saying it has happened.

Isn't this what happens in the USA? Try getting medical insurance when your family have a history of heart disease.

gandalf

There is a thread on this in Politics if you want to discuss it from the Political ramfications.

As I said there RE in its current form is a subsity for an inefficient VHI. Expecting a company to pay €161 million a year to their larger competitor when they make around €64 million is pathetic and shows exactly how business friendly the PD's really are.

Hopefully this will influence a majority of the 500,000 subscribers to BUPA to vote this shower of incompetents out of office.

Siogfinsceal

tom dunne wrote:

This is the state of denial I was in before this all surfaced. But think long and hard about it. How would you like it if you couldn't get health insurance when you are 70 and couldn't get a life saving operation?

There is a very real possibility this could happen.

Now tell me it is not relevant.

what???? until yesterday a 70 yr old would have had a choice of joining bupa, vhi or vivas?? now he can only join vhi or vivas but lets face it in 3 years he can only join vhi because we have created a monopoly. Then vhi might decide to only insure under 50's and then the 70 yr old has no where else to go.
None of these companies stopped older people from joining so none of the irish 70 yr olds have been victimised so I cannot understand what you are getting at - competition is healthy and leads to more options for all of us. VHI were brutal until they had competition - then they started making an effort. When I was with VHI they never paid for anything yet BUPA gave me backa fortune- 50% of everythign I paid in the year!

Hobbes

I'd like to see the health and insurance opened right up. Seeing as its the EU allow us to get insurance in say Germany.

scojones

Hobbes wrote:

I'd like to see the health and insurance opened right up. Seeing as its the EU allow us to get insurance in say Germany.

Imagine if the EU allowed our telecoms to be regulated! ComReg? Ya right!

Imagine if the EU opened up like this though. You'd be able to get car insurance from some company in Germany, as you say, for cheap. That'd slap the smile off those thieving bastards' faces. I'm really annoyed that BUPA didn't try to fight their ground and go to the EU courts.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

omahaid

But if VHI were more competitive this wouldn't happen, no? It's not that young people are conspiring to sign up to BUPA/VIVAS or that old people are conspiring to join VHI, it's that BUPA (at least for me and my family) offered a better deal. Now that BUPA are pulling out, I am being penalised with less competition. If VHI had been competitive compared to everyone else, what's happening would not be an issue. I can see why risk equalization is needed, but if it means that a company can be lazy as a result then we have to re-evaluate it.
Plus, I wish this risk equalization was applied to car insurance, 'twould be great!!

h2s

This news is Sh*te. We will never have real competition in Health Insurance in this Country.

I can’t afford VHI. BUPa was good because I could have the family insured for €876 per year where as VHI was looking to charge over €1200 for the same.

The only way I was able to be in VHI because my previous employer paid for me and my family and at the time that cost IR£ 1,500 per year. My present employer doesn’t pay for health insurance so I had to change to BUPA to be able to afford health insurance for the family. If BUPA goes bang goes the Health Insurance as both VHI and VIVAS are too expensive..

constitutionus

tom dunne wrote:

This is the state of denial I was in before this all surfaced. But think long and hard about it. How would you like it if you couldn't get health insurance when you are 70 and couldn't get a life saving operation?

There is a very real possibility this could happen.

Now tell me it is not relevant.

wouldnt happen cause they'd be guilty of discrimination on grounds of age which is one of the big nine in the equality authoritys grounds for sueing the ass off anyone stupid enough to try it.

ah well look at the bright side lads, BUPA may be gone but now you can save yourself a fortune by not taking out insurance till your in your mid 40's. afterall you'll only really start needing the cover then and you'll still be paying the same as a 20yr old now

(i should point out i dont have health insurance and have no intention of getting it, i pay my tax's damnit and that entitles me to care. ask anyone whos needed care in an emergency and they'll tell you theres sod all difference between having VHI or being public in an A and E . private health care is a scam unless your talking the black rock clinic level of expense )

h2s

Siogfinsceal wrote:

None of these companies stopped older people from joining so none of the irish 70 yr olds have been victimised

VHI and BUPA had a policy which prevented older people from joining.

My Parents tried to join VHI a few years ago, (i think about 4 years ago) and VHI refused to let them join because thay were over 65 and had not been in a health insurance scheme previously. Indeed BUPA had the same policy and they couldn't join them either.

I'm not sure if that policy has changed since, does anyone know.

Kwekubo

This is a real shame. I think it was unreasonable to expect BUPA to cough up that much though; after all, did Vhi not benefit for decades from monopoly over what was a young population?

rogue-entity

Risk Equalisation should never have been brought in. This country needs more competition in EVERY sector of the market. Health Insurance, Car Insurance, Electricity, Telephone, Groceries, the lot.

There are still lingering de jure monopolies such as An Post, VHI, ESB that are still state owned companies. We need a government that can introduce more competition into the market, not one that is too busy stuttering around the issues. There are areas where some small effort at increased competition has been made, like the telecoms sector, but I wouldnt be surprised if the Minister (and the regulatory body) were being paid off to keep the "vested interests" happy. Other sectors are vehemently resisting any changes that would bring in more competition e.g. An Post and the Driving Testing system.

If the driving test system was privatised, and people with clean full licences given the opportunity to train as a tester, that waiting list would come down a lot faster, but the testers are making a nice bundle I suspect.

I am not surprised that Bupa left. Why should Bupa be forced to help the VHI, a for profit company by compensating for VHI's more expensive customers. Why dont they do this in the car insurance market, so those companies that are only taking on women, would have to compensate for us risky male drivers* ?

When that election comes up, you can guarentee that I wont be voting for the PDs or FF at all.

* Actually, I am a good driver

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

GusherING

I am suprised so few people have even considered the idea of universal health insurance. Are any of you guys aware that the taxpayer is already subsidising your private health care? Those in society who cannot afford insurance but pay taxes are subsidising you to have your illness looked at sooner. I think universal health insurance, paid through PRSI should be used and private health insurance abolished. To be honest, I reckon with BUPA gone, now is a rare opportunity to reform once and for all how we fund healthcare in this country in a more equal way which ends the current two tier system.

seamus

rogue-entity wrote:

Risk Equalisation should never have been brought in.

That's pretty much the key here. Risk equalisation was brought in as a tactic to woo the older voters by keeping their insurance costs low. There is no other rationale for it. It's an ageist policy.

At 24, I haven't paid more than €100 in total on my medical care in the last five years (this is including painkillers). My chances of spending more than that in the next five years are pretty damn low. Yet risk equalisation means that VHI would charge me in excess of €500 per year.

Sarn

GusherING wrote:

Are any of you guys aware that the taxpayer is already subsidising your private health care?

As a young taxpayer I am subsidising my own health care as well as that of others. The fact that I am able to pay an additional sum to reduce my waiting time to a handful of months is my choice and my fortune. The same applies in many other forms of business where you get "perks" for paying more.

GusherING wrote:

Those in society who cannot afford insurance but pay taxes are subsidising you to have your illness looked at sooner.

But they still get looked at. Ok, so I get seen earlier but at least my additional premiums are also going into the hospitals that benefit everybody. As pointed out above, if somebody is admitted for an emergency procedure they get treated the same regardless of whether or not they have insurance.

Ultimately our medical system needs to be completely overhauled to provide proper value for money instead of the gaping blackhole that it currently is. With proper reforms universal health insurance would become a possibility and I would be more than willing not to have to pay a separate premium every year.

GusherING

Sarn,
The problem with the current system is that doctors contracts require them to work for 33 hours in a public hospital. There is no supervision of whether they deal with public patients or private ones. They tend to deal with the private ones first becasue the vhi or bupa will pay them extra. Thus those on the public system will have to wait longer. My problem is that while you may choose to pay extra to be seen first, I believe that those with the most urgent needs are dealt with first and on a fair basis such as first come first served when two people have the same ailment. The private insurance scheme replaces this ideal with one of 'money talks'. And then the doctor will use the publically paid for hospital to fix you up. He uses the public facilities so he can cater to you with your money and leaves the poorest to wait for days. This is inherently unfair and creates a two tier system. Meanwhile my taxes which I pay to care for all are spent on helping those with private insurance much more.

Now if you don't bring in risk equalisation, over 65's and the poor are far less likely to be able to get private health care insurance, meaning they are discriminated further. To be honest, if we're going to have a private insurance system, then it should be open to all. If we're going to stick with the current half way house, I want a universal health care system. The status quo rubbishes both systems.

Your private premiums don't go into hospitals. Most of it goes into the doctors pocket. Whats worse is that you get tax relief to maintain this system and that costs the taxman further.

Furthermore, I would argue that a right to healthcare is more important than whether or not I can afford 1st class plane seats instead of economy seats which is analoguous to your example of paying more to reduce your waiting time. Health is far more important than that.

galactus

tom dunne wrote:

You know, I used to think along the same lines as you, but the more I think of it, the more I am beginning to see the logic. I can't say I agree with it, or think it is right, but there is some sense.

Say an insurance company decides only take on the 18-35 years olds. Typically the healthiest lot, therefore making the insurance company the most money. Then the other insurance companies decide to do this - the net result is that nobody wants to insure anyone over 35.

Think about the ramifications of this for when you are in your 60's or 70's - you may not be able to get life-saving operations, because you may not be able to afford it and insurers won't take you on.

Now that doesn't sound right, does it?

You know, I used to think along the same lines as you as well ;-)

VHI had a monopoly. Then they didn't. BUPA entered the market knowing that there were anti-competitive practices going on, presumably thinking that the anti-competitive practices would end sometime.

It is a Banana Republic.

GeorgeBailey

tom dunne wrote:

You know, I used to think along the same lines as you, but the more I think of it, the more I am beginning to see the logic. I can't say I agree with it, or think it is right, but there is some sense.

Say an insurance company decides only take on the 18-35 years olds. Typically the healthiest lot, therefore making the insurance company the most money. Then the other insurance companies decide to do this - the net result is that nobody wants to insure anyone over 35.

Think about the ramifications of this for when you are in your 60's or 70's - you may not be able to get life-saving operations, because you may not be able to afford it and insurers won't take you on.

Now that doesn't sound right, does it?

No harm to you, but you don't have a clue! Risk equalisation has nothing to do with making sure pensioners get insured.

rogue-entity

Effectivly the sole problem with this country, and I am going to be quite blunt, is idiotic voters (especially the older crowd) who dont see the bigger picture. Fianna Fail are only too happy to rake in taxes and probably kickbacks from those with vested interests such as statuatory corporations (ESB, VHI) and private monopolies (e.g. Eircom, Vodafone and others).

And to add insult to injury, they raised the VAT to this unacceptable level (21%) and want to raise it further :rolleyes: They are also keeping the VRT and high petrol taxes. Now, while I can agree with the petrol tax, the point being to discourage people driving, VRT is illegal under EU law IIRC.

Personally, these voters, specifically in the older age bracket, that cannot see the wider picture and the implications of the past and present actions of Fianna Faill (its anti-competitiive, pro monopoly stance) and how it impacts EVERYBODY, including themselves, shouldnt have the right to vote anymore. We need to chuck these bastids out of office!

DublinWriter

There's one serious point that people really need to bear in mind before examining this whole issue and one which many people have not discussed: VHI are a semi-state body that the government intend to privatise in the next five years.

Regarding risk equalisation? I'm sorry, but it's a bit like the government forcing Ryanair to pay Aer Lingus because they are more profitable and more competitive.

Sure VHI have an older-customer profile, but that's because they didn't bother to get off their fat superanuated civil-service benchmarked arses and chase new business. They are a semi-state body. They are Civil Servants.

This is a very sad day for Ireland.

However, without sounding snobbish, BUPA-scheme holders are usually middle-class voters. Watch Enda Kenny U-turn on this in the next couple of weeks. FG currently are for risk-equalisation.

But the saddest thing of all is that if we had a properly funded public-health service, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

TempestSabre

seamus wrote:

That's pretty much the key here. Risk equalisation was brought in as a tactic to woo the older voters by keeping their insurance costs low. There is no other rationale for it. It's an ageist policy.

At 24, I haven't paid more than €100 in total on my medical care in the last five years (this is including painkillers). My chances of spending more than that in the next five years are pretty damn low. Yet risk equalisation means that VHI would charge me in excess of €500 per year.

You could have an accident or find out you had cancer tomorrow, and your care could cost hundreds of thousands. What would you do then with your €100? Should the hospital say, sorry but your insurance won't cover you because you haven't paid enough premiums?

TempestSabre

Should the VHI should dump all their older patients come renewal time (quadruple the premiums) and just cover those that are statistically more healthy?

Firetrap

constitutionus wrote:

..you can save yourself a fortune by not taking out insurance till your in your mid 40's. afterall you'll only really start needing the cover then and you'll still be paying the same as a 20yr old now

(i should point out i dont have health insurance and have no intention of getting it, i pay my tax's damnit and that entitles me to care. ask anyone whos needed care in an emergency and they'll tell you theres sod all difference between having VHI or being public in an A and E . private health care is a scam unless your talking the black rock clinic level of expense )

That's all well and good unless a younger person falls ill (not an A&E situation) and needs treatment. Something like cancer or a troublesome sports injury for example. Or even getting a scan.

If the truth be told, a lot of people have health insurance just to jump queues, not necessarily to get into the Blackrock Clinic. Last year a close relative of mine was diagnosed with cancer. Because he didn't have health insurance, he had to wait longer to see consultants, get scans etc.

BUPA pulling out of the Irish market is just another sign that the whole thing is in chaos. It really shouldn't cost exhorbitant amounts of money for the health insurers to insure customers. Risk equalisation shouldn't be the big thing it is.

GerardKeating

indiewindy wrote:

Car insurance isnt community rated so why should health insurance.

Actually, kind of is, they aint allowed to load for age, cept for the under 30 and 70+

boo4842

GerardKeating wrote:

Actually, kind of is, they aint allowed to load for age, cept for the under 30 and 70+

Thats very reassuring that they don't consider age as long as you are not 'young' or 'old', but if you fall in a specific age bracket, age does not matter at all.

Someone mentioned it before, but if TD's were 20 something, community rated car insurance would be standard, and you wouldn't have a 25 year old good driver calling a dozen places to find 1 to insure them at 5 times the average rate.

chump

The arguments laid out here against risk equalisation are ridiculous. I can't see how anyone in their right mind can argue against such a socially equitable rule. Some people obviously can't see further than their own nose.

Sure doesn't BUPA benefit greatly from risk equalisation in AUstralia. They are a bunch of cowboys, they got away without paying the money for the last decade and when push came to shove the irish government stood firm and didn't play ball. And too right. There is no doubt BUPA could be profitable in the medium term with risk equalisation.

Cowboys

seamus

chump wrote:

Sure doesn't BUPA benefit greatly from risk equalisation in AUstralia. They are a bunch of cowboys, they got away without paying the money for the last decade and when push came to shove the irish government stood firm and didn't play ball. And too right. There is no doubt BUPA could be profitable in the medium term with risk equalisation.

They were being asked to pay almost three times what they would have earned in the next three years. How is that fair for any company?

rogue-entity

chump wrote:

The arguments laid out here against risk equalisation are ridiculous. I can't see how anyone in their right mind can argue against such a socially equitable rule. Some people obviously can't see further than their own nose.

Sure doesn't BUPA benefit greatly from risk equalisation in AUstralia. They are a bunch of cowboys, they got away without paying the money for the last decade and when push came to shove the irish government stood firm and didn't play ball. And too right. There is no doubt BUPA could be profitable in the medium term with risk equalisation.
Cowboys

And some people cannot see the bigger picture, you sound just like your Average Joe, someone who cannot see that driving out effective competition in a market is of no benifit to anyone except the incumbent monopoly.
What if the government decided to force Ryanair to pay money to Aer Lingus because Ryanair is cheaper and more profitable.
The successive FF governments of this country have failed to promote competition in the business sector preferring to protect the incumbant monopolies.

The health sector: They bring in risk equalisation because the VHI are losing money to cheaper and better competitors, instead of lowering their prices or providing a better service, they bitch and moan to the government who are only too happy to deal with the pesky competition :rolleyes:

Driver Testing: Instead of privatising the testing system and allowing people who have clean full licences to apply for and train as a driver tester, thus increasing the number of testers and reducing the waiting list, they pay the currant bastids off with more money to get them to work more hours instead, is that how governments solve problems now, by throwing money at them? :rolleyes:

Telecoms: Where is the regulation of the mobile phone industry? The vodafone-O2 duopoly are only too happy to fleece their customers while Meteor and 3 actually offer value for money. Eircom is charging the highest amount of line rental in europe and are only two happy to pocket it instead of using the money to maintain and replace the lines that are not able to sustain broadband because the copper is too poor. And instead of running new lines to customers, they are splitting existing lines, preventing them ever getting broadband. They resist and complain when their competitors wish to get access to the exchanges to supply broadband using their own equipment to their customers, and the one company that persisted, Smart, starts beating eircom to the finish line by providing DSL2+ and much higher speeds, eircom is only two happy to cut off service because of a mere 4m debt (eircom at the time owing a much larger debt of nearly 2bn.

Need I go on?

Who cares if Bupa are making money down under from risk equalisation, that isnt relevent here, they have a different market. What matters here is that risk equalisation is driving out choice for health insurance in the market. When Vivas leaves (and I am sure they will) in the next two years watch your VHI premiums rocket up as they are free to charge what they like and pocket the change.

Please tell me you are not going to vote for FF and the PD's again?

I should add that as a state-owned company, the VHI should not be in a position to earn profit, any profit earned should be returned to the customers.

@Seamus: It isnt fair for any company, but as chump said, some people cannot see past the end of their nose

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

tvbrat

Hi I just came accross this on the RTE News web site
sorry if this post is in the wrong place

One of the country's best-known businessmen, Sean Quinn, has bought health insurer BUPA.
The development means the company will continue to operate in Fermoy and will continue to service its customers.
It will also honour existing contracts and take new business in the coming weeks while the takeover proceeds.....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0131/bupa.html?rss

Trampas

Quinn Direct buys BUPA Ireland

FlutterinBantam

Das Royatt!!.. They have a three year moratorium before risk equalisation kicks in;)

Ruu_Old

Threads merged.