# BUPA to be sold to businessman Quinn



## ClubMan (31 Jan 2007)

BUPA to be sold to businessman Quinn - RTÉ News 31st January 2007


----------



## dereko1969 (31 Jan 2007)

*quinn to take over bupa*

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0131/bupa.html
very interested in the line that says as a new entrant quinn will have no equalisation payments to make for the next 3 years. what's to stop quinn selling back to bupa or to hibernian in 3 years time?


----------



## tiroileain (31 Jan 2007)

ClubMan, are you guilty of not abiding by the posting guideline #17?


----------



## z107 (31 Jan 2007)

> no equalisation payments to make for the next 3 years



300 jobs saved and competition back, just in time for the upcoming election! - phew, weren't we lucky.

What happens after 3 years? - I wonder whose go it will be then?


----------



## ubiquitous (31 Jan 2007)

Quinn can hardly operate a business for too long with "British" in the title, can he? Roll on FUPA?


----------



## ClubMan (31 Jan 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Quinn can hardly operate a business for too long with "British" in the title, can he? Roll on FUPA?


Eh? I have no idea about the man's politics (which I presume this refers to) and his Wikipedia entry doesn't clarify either. What does the "F" stand for?


----------



## ubiquitous (31 Jan 2007)

Fermanagh of course...


----------



## Guest124 (31 Jan 2007)

Harney passed the buck about the three Years controversy-'o that's up to the Health Authority'.

At least we know if after the three years the BUPA worker's are then made redundant the three year's will count for reckonable service.


----------



## nicelives (31 Jan 2007)

*Re: quinn to take over bupa*



dereko1969 said:


> http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0131/bupa.html
> very interested in the line that says as a new entrant quinn will have no equalisation payments to make for the next 3 years. what's to stop quinn selling back to bupa or to hibernian in 3 years time?


Surely seeing as he's buying an existing business, with an existing client base, they're not a new entrant. I know that Bertie and Mary were trying to fudge the issue on the news as if some other committee runs the country but if this unelected committee "pretends" the Bupa business is a new entrant it'll be hilarious. The subsequent breakdown of their risk equalisation and therefore the community rating might not bode well for the election, more in that they won't look like they know what they're doing at all.


----------



## badgambler (31 Jan 2007)

Great to see Hook, Coopper et al seeing the bigger picture and asking the tough questions.

The HIA are in the High Court tonight apparently seeking an injunction


----------



## MugsGame (31 Jan 2007)

Listening to RTE now, Quinn are buying BUPA Ireland Ltd., an insurance services company which does not have a license. The parent BUPA company has the license. Quinn don't have a license, so they have to apply for a license, and are thus a new entrant to the market. BUPA can't benefit from buying it back in three years, because they already have a license and wouldn't be a new entrant. We'll see if this stands up!


----------



## tiroileain (31 Jan 2007)

I was actually interested in what opinion the opening poster had about the story (perhaps my reference to posting guideline 17 was a bit cheeky, but also cheekily deleted)

"what's to stop quinn selling back to bupa or to hibernian in 3 years time?"

Why would BUPA want back in in 3 years time?


----------



## ClubMan (1 Feb 2007)

tiroileain said:


> ClubMan, are you guilty of not abiding by the posting guideline #17?





tiroileain said:


> I was actually interested in what opinion the opening poster had about the story (perhaps my reference to posting guideline 17 was a bit cheeky, but also cheekily deleted)
> 
> "what's to stop quinn selling back to bupa or to hibernian in 3 years time?"
> 
> Why would BUPA want back in in 3 years time?





> *17. Posts with links only may be deleted*
> 
> Posts containing only links with no associated commentary or expression of an opinion may be deleted. The purpose of _AAM_ is to encourage reasoned discussion. Unfortunately some people have resorted to simply posting links to articles with no accompanying commentary, expression of an opinion or overall contribution to the substantive discussion. In many cases such posts seem to made simply to cause controversy. Where this is suspected to be the case such posts will be deleted. Where the link seems to be posted in good faith and makes sense in the context of the ongoing discussion the post will not be deleted.


 There has been an ongoing discussion across several other threads about the _BUPA _situation. The news link is pertinent and I don't think that further commentary was necessary. I don't really hve an opinion on the issue but wanted to alert other interested readers to developments.


----------



## picorette (1 Feb 2007)

I switched to VIVAS a couple of days, but now wish to stay with BUPA/ Quinn. Does anybody know if there is  a way out? a cooling off period?


----------



## ClubMan (1 Feb 2007)

The documentation that you got should outline whether or not a cooling off period applies. Even if it doesn't then I can't see why there should be any hassle in switching back if you decided to do so. Well - other than some administrative hassle.


----------



## Bedlam (1 Feb 2007)

Pico

You can move back to QUINN/BUPA at any stage if you are paying monthly and by right if you are paying annually you should be entitled to a pro-rata rebate

Bedlam


----------



## Seagull (1 Feb 2007)

MugsGame said:


> Listening to RTE now, Quinn are buying BUPA Ireland Ltd., an insurance services company which does not have a license. The parent BUPA company has the license. Quinn don't have a license, so they have to apply for a license, and are thus a new entrant to the market.


If this is upheld, then I can see BUPA being sold on this basis every 3 years. Is there any guarantee they'll be awarded a license?


----------



## MugsGame (1 Feb 2007)

I'd say the Quinn buyout is conditional on getting a new license and the same three year exemption. It gives the Government/Regulator a way of "saving" the jobs, without being seen to back down, so I think it will go through.

Yes, it could set a precedent for three years from now. However, the makeup of the market could be very different then, with VHI subject to the same solvency requirements as Vivas and Bupa/Quinn, and possibly even privatised. At that point the Government would be free to remove the three year exemption from risk equalisation payments, preventing a reoccurrence.


----------



## jrewing (1 Feb 2007)

At which stage BUPA could re-enter without paying risk equalization (although they may not choose to do so after the damage to their reputation caused by pulling out).

If the scenario pans out as MugsGame suggests, BUPA look like the victim, as it looks like they were forced out due to the government's slow pace of privatization of VHI.


----------



## MugsGame (1 Feb 2007)

> At which stage BUPA could re-enter without paying risk equalization



Only if risk equalisation is removed completely -- not beyond the bounds of possibility. BUPA claim that, while the legislation allowed for risk equalisation when they entered the Irish market, it was not in force at the time and nobody really expected it to be introduced unless VHI were close to bankruptcy.

If BUPA come back in three years, they will not be a first time entrant, so won't get any initial exemption. They could setup a new subsidiary applying for a license, but if that would work, they'd have done it now instead of selling out to Quinn.


----------



## scuby (1 Feb 2007)

"The Great Bupa Run"    ....... they come in make tens of millions and run away, and they are the victims !! wait until it turns out like America, and the older you get the more you pay, if you smoke lead a bad life style etc etc then people will want reisk equalisation back..    maybe quinn and bupa can sell the business to each other every 3 years !! so how come an irish based comp seem to think they can make a profit and a multinational like bupa cannot ??


----------



## badgambler (1 Feb 2007)

MugsGame said:


> with VHI subject to the same solvency requirements as Vivas and Bupa/Quinn, and possibly even privatised.


The Solvency issue is a red herring put forward by Oliver Tattan.  Vhi has 24% solvency and the requirement will be 25% soon.


----------



## Budgie (10 Feb 2007)

The whole risk equalisation exemption is going to be difficult to resolve. 

1. BUPA is a branch of BUPA in the UK.  It is not a separate company.  This has made it difficult to find out what profits it has been really making as they have been lumped in with the UK.

2. In theory you could separate out the branch and sell it but it is legally difficult. 

3. In reality Quinn are buying access to the policyholders and therefore will need a company to service them.  

Hence the new entrant bit.  I sympathise with those who say they should not get an exemption but it is difficult to see why not under current legislation.  

Of course, Tattan & co have jumped on the bandwagon also which will antagonise the Minister and HIA further.  It seems to add to the profile of VIVAS being an opportunistic player and will unsettle policyholders.  Will they ever learn?


----------



## ajapale (10 Feb 2007)

If Bupa is a mutual type company and the business is being sold to a third party does this meant that the mutual members should get a windfall?


----------



## scuby (11 Feb 2007)

i doubt bupa/quinn would be giving money away 
how come quinn seem to think they can make a profit and bupa could not ? unless they have a secret agreement to sell the company to each other every 3 years when the risk money would have to be paid !


----------



## Decani (21 Feb 2007)

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0221/health1.html


----------



## Spondulicks (21 Feb 2007)

Does anyone feel it is stitch up to keep the foreigners out of the Irish market and protect high prices?

Private health insurance only exists on the scale in this country ( about 51% of the population)  'cos the Dept of Health (and Children) fails to achieve on time delivery to quality that many people feel they could trust.

You pay tax, you pay social insurance, you pay the GP, you pay the pharmacy, you pay outpatients in the hospital and you pay health insurance. Watch out for MRSA and the wintervomiting bug , not to mind lying on a trolley. By the way when you get old they want to take some of your house as well.

Meanwhile some get away with paying little or nothing.

Isn't it a great little country really


----------



## nicelives (21 Feb 2007)

Decani said:


> http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0221/health1.html


Well it's about time the government protected their decison. I moved from Bupa to Vhi a month ago and was bewildered when Quinn said he was a new entrant even though buying an existing business with a huge number of existing subscribers.
Not sure if I agree with Community Rating, especially when it's abused by people signing up for health insurance in the years when they feel they're sure to take out more than they put in, I'm more socialist about these things. 
But having been told by the government how it was to be, Vhi seemed the only reliable option and it's reassuring that they're sticking to their convictions rather than defending loopholes.


----------



## Gypsy girl (21 Feb 2007)

Spondulicks I could'nt have put it better myself, you've taken the words right out of my mouth. 
It would make you ill just thinking about being ill!


----------



## DublinTexas (22 Feb 2007)

My Vivas health insurance is just up for renewal and I got a 12% price increase from last year.

Still they are about 203 € cheaper than the comparable option at VHI but 12% is a lot.

We need more competition in this market, it's suplementary health insurance we are talking here about. Nobody needs to have this kind of insurance as the main healthcare is paid for by taxes/duties. There should be an open market for this.


----------



## Spondulicks (24 Feb 2007)

The fact the that 52% buy this product notwithstanding the rate of increase in the last few years ( ie inelastic demand : it does not peter of when the price rises) shows it is not discretionary.

It is the sense that the taxes and duties are not delivering which causes this.


----------

