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...

Take it

The Australian system i believe to be on of the best!

Policies are quoted on what they cover, not what age you are or if you are a smoker/non-smoker and nobody can be refused H.I

However if you do not get Private health insurance in the year you turn 30 a 2% loading is added to your policy every year you do not have health insurance. This is capped at 70% so if you just turned 65 and decide you need health insurance as your hips are starting to play up there is an added 70% on top of your premium. This helps health insurance companies from people joining health insurance then getting an expensive procedure done then dropping it. Also as most people who turn 30 get health insurance it eases the pressure on the public system.

However to help those who have had health insurance since they were 30 a rebate is offered as your age increases, those from 65-69 get a 35% rebate on there Private heath Insurance and those over 70 get a 40% rebate (paid by the government).

Also those who earn enough to have health insurance an do not get charged an extra 1% tax a year (a Medicare levy) this is paid by anybody over the $50,000 a year bracket without Private health insurance!

Its a great system that works and there is now over 30+ health insurance companies in Australia, all with affordable health insurance policies!

LostinBlanch

Well I'm with Flogen on VHI being able to cut their costs without continually ripping off all health insurance customers (theirs and customers of other healthcare providers who will have to pay to continue to protect VHI from competition).

I am not against risk equalisation per se, but using it to protect a de facto monopoly and shield it from competition, is nothing short of a scam IMO. We should examine other health insurance markets worldwide and pick the best of them, maybe something like the Australian one which seems to have both RE and competition. But of course that's too much like common sense for this administration.

Hotblack Desiato

lostexpectation wrote:

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

So what?
If they're using excess profits from Irish consumers to subsidise UK premiums, they're not making an overall profit. Doesn't mean that cross-subsidisation can't happen.

kmick

Heres my take
1) Quinn takes over BUPA
2) He aggresively prices his BUPA offering.
3) He drives VHI out of Business within 3 Years
4) No equalisation needed

By the way if Mary Harney is so worried about equalisation why is she not introducing it in Car Insurance, House Insurance? Those poor companies who insure a lot of young drivers should get subsidised by the companies who have a lot of older safer drivers? Rollocks they should - this is an open market.

Why is Mary Harney protecting VHI - there is nothing in it for her apart from votes. And if that is the reason she is compromised. I used to like her but she has failed in health and now she is cracking under the presssure.

Hotblack Desiato

I get the distinct impression you haven't read any of this thread.

Health insurance isn't at all like car or house insurance - because of community rating. Everyone pays the same regardless of age or medical history.

So what you're really saying is that we should do away with community rating - in other words people will be able to afford health insurance until they get old or sick... just like the USA.

oldfecker

kmick wrote:

Heres my take
1) Quinn takes over BUPA
2) He aggresively prices his BUPA offering.
3) He drives VHI out of Business within 3 Years
4) No equalisation needed

why not jusy get rid of bupa/quinn instead ? why did we have to subsidise bupa in england ?. they took our money and left !!!!!!!!!

SeanW

ninja900 wrote:

I get the distinct impression you haven't read any of this thread.

Health insurance isn't at all like car or house insurance - because of community rating. Everyone pays the same regardless of age or medical history.

So what you're really saying is that we should do away with community rating - in other words people will be able to afford health insurance until they get old or sick... just like the USA.

Umm ... lots of young people have a very hard time with car insurance with obscene quotes over €4000/year not being uncommon. The only other alternative for a young person who can't afford that is to stay off the road.

Meanwhile, there are now medical cards for over 70s.

Hotblack Desiato

SeanW wrote:

Umm ... lots of young people have a very hard time with car insurance with obscene quotes over €4000/year not being uncommon.

That's not at all relevant to health insurance. The government has decided that it's in the best interests of the community if everyone pays the same for health insurance. If you want the same to happen for car insurance, write to your TD.

The only other alternative for a young person who can't afford that is to stay off the road.

But... in a few years they'll be older and the insurance will be cheaper, and not driving in their teens and early 20s isn't going to adversely affect their life expectancy (if anything it'll increase it.) Also drivers can reduce their premium by choosing less risky vehicles and by not crashing or gaining convictions.

Whereas once you start to get old or sick, your health insurance is rapidly going to become unaffordable without community rating, and nothing you can do will reduce it.

Driving is a privilege, and never a right.
Healthcare should be a right, and never a privilege. (that doesn't mean that we can't have a private system for those who choose to avail of it.)

SeanW

If you want the same to happen for car insurance, write to your TD.

That's the whole point: I DON'T want this to happen for car insurance because that would place a burden on people who dont make it, and there would be plenty of good, older drivers put off the road if they couldn't afford the community loading. I could never stand over making this demand. That's the whole point - this is a regressive stealth tax.

Whereas once you start to get old or sick, your health insurance is rapidly going to become unaffordable without community rating, and nothing you can do will reduce it.

Actually yes, you can reduce your liability by choosing the correct lifestyle, not smoking, not drinking too much, eating right, getting excercise etc.

On the other hand, all a young person can do is the things you say, but those only reduce insurance quotes from completely obscene to a little less obscene. Young people get screwed over for motor insurance, and now totally screwed over for health insurance.

Driving is a privilege, and never a right.

Yes, driving should be treated as a priviledge because Ireland has such a fantastic and extensive public transport system that runs with split-second efficiency and urban planning has been such a shining example of vision that noone actually needs a car ... oops, that's not Ireland ... Switzerland maybe. And when someone does wait a decade or so for their rates to go down to start driving, there is an efficient, fast system for good drivers to turn their provisional licenses into full ones ... oops, again not Ireland of the 60 week waiting lists for driving tests.

(that doesn't mean that we can't have a private system for those who choose to avail of it.)

Over 70s are guaranteed medical cards. End of. I agree that healthcare is a right but I think the focus now needs to be on fixing the public healthcare system so that a older persons medical card actually means something.

What we have here is just a stealth tax on young people that operates in a very murky way (is really just a subsidy for the VHI).

I don't disagree with paying for the needs of older people, what I object to is the method - it should be a transparent, primarily public system with any subsidy taken being based on ability to pay, i.e. general taxation.

This is nothing more than a regressive subsidy to the VHI and I'm glad someone's found a way around it. The only people being screwed here are the VHI, Mary H. and her hare-brained stunt.

stovelid

This may counteract Celtic Tiger orthodoxy but not all elderly people own expensive homes, or even homes at all. A lot of them don't even have private pensions, imagine that!

metrovelvet wrote:

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?

Ibid wrote:

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.

Hotblack Desiato

SeanW wrote:

Actually yes, you can reduce your liability by choosing the correct lifestyle, not smoking, not drinking too much, eating right, getting excercise etc.

You'll still get sick someday. Then what?

On the other hand, all a young person can do is the things you say, but those only reduce insurance quotes from completely obscene to a little less obscene.

True but that's a topic for a Motors thread.

Young people get screwed over for motor insurance, and now totally screwed over for health insurance.

Health insurance isn't remotely comparable to motor insurance. Not even close. There is no law that requires you to get health insurance. If you're young and you think it's too dear, then don't bother with it and take your chances. That game gets very unappealing from the 40s onwards though - long before the free medical cards kick in and anyway many people feel that the public health system can't be relied upon.

Yes, driving should be treated as a priviledge because Ireland has such a fantastic and extensive public transport system that runs with split-second efficiency and urban planning has been such a shining example of vision that noone actually needs a car ... oops, that's not Ireland ... Switzerland maybe. And when someone does wait a decade or so for their rates to go down to start driving, there is an efficient, fast system for good drivers to turn their provisional licenses into full ones ... oops, again not Ireland of the 60 week waiting lists for driving tests.

Yawn... totally irrelevant and missing the point

Over 70s are guaranteed medical cards. End of. I agree that healthcare is a right but I think the focus now needs to be on fixing the public healthcare system so that a older persons medical card actually means something.

So on the one hand you're saying that they have a medical card therefore they're sorted, but also that the public health system isn't great therefore they're not sorted after all.... sounds like a good argument for affordable health insurance for the elderly to me.

What we have here is just a stealth tax on young people that operates in a very murky way (is really just a subsidy for the VHI).

Because the VHI is the insurer which has inherited the older customer base - if it hadn't then there'd be no need for risk equalisation.
Oh and since when is a "stealth tax" something that you can choose to pay or not. You're being totally over-dramatic. If you don't like the VHI rates offered to younger people, don't bother paying them.

I don't disagree with paying for the needs of older people, what I object to is the method - it should be a transparent, primarily public system with any subsidy taken being based on ability to pay, i.e. general taxation.

That's what we are already supposed to have, but don't.
The public system would collapse altogether if those who choose to pay private health insurance stopped doing so and instead depended totally on the public system.
Life isn't fair, some people have more money than others, and in health as in other areas they will use their money to gain better service levels for themselves. We're not going to live in a socialist paradise any day soon.