I already gave it to you in that other thread where you were bitching about McDonald's threatening to end their shitty program. Go look it up there, junior.
Healthcare mandate: Union style
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
I already gave it to you in that other thread where you were bitching about McDonald's threatening to end their shitty program. Go look it up there, junior.
Good Luck
New member
And here you have it: the program will be "cheaper" because the government will be spending more money we don't have to balance out the numbers. (IOW: it will actually be more expensive, but that's OK because we'll have mommy government to tuck us in at night and sing a lullaby.)
Exactly what numbers have you seen? The ones advertised by the DNC? Or did the donkey fart in your face and you saw numbers instead of stars?
Right. It will be cheaper for low income people to get health insurance. That's why I said they are the big winners under the bill. That's why I like it and that's why you hate it.
It's fine for you to not like the law. I understand that. I think you're wrong, but I understand it. What I don't understand is starting out with an "I hate the law" standpoint and then shopping around for reasons to support that conclusion. Even if you hate the law, these waivers make 100% good sense.
You idiot. That was the outdated info you dug up. the original post referenced your source info and clearly stated the costs were underestimated.
Do you ever recognize the reality?
I posted a link to an assessment of the costs of good insurance in the exchange for a McDonald's worker versus the cost of shitty insurance for a McDonald's worker now. What was outdated? I'm sincerely at a loss here.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
True. Until we actually try to solve the problem of rising costs, the costs will indeed continue upward. The Obamacare plan does NOTHING to address rising costs and will instead increase the costs due to supply and demand.
complete garbage. It is not a universal plan that causes prices to go down. Unless of course that plan allows the government to restrict the services and determine what 'acceptable' procedures are.
Those universal plans in the industrialized countries are bankrupting their governments. Just as our system is.
As for per capita spending....
1. higher prices for the same health care goods and services than are paid in other countries for the same goods and services; (WE SUBSIDIZE a lot of costs so that third world countries can get better pricing... note... why is it that the same meds can be found in Canada and Mexico at far cheaper prices than in the US???)
2. significantly higher administrative overhead costs than are incurred in other countries with simpler health-insurance systems; (This is an area we need to address. It is insanely stupid to have 50 sets of rules for insurance companies to follow. This does not mean we need a universal plan, but rather a standard set of rules)
3. more widespread use of high-cost, high-tech equipment and procedures than are used in other countries; (something the left continually forgets when comparing costs per capita)
4. higher treatment costs triggered by our uniquely American tort laws, which in the context of medicine can lead to “defensive medicine” — that is, the application of tests and procedures mainly as a defense against possible malpractice litigation, rather than as a clinical imperative. (without question our litigious society leads to wasteful defensive medical practices)
above four points came from...
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-i/
The data are expressed in Purchasing Parity Dollars (PPP$). This metric is designed to adjust for cross-national differences in the purchasing power of national currencies relative to the real goods and services. One can think of PPP$s as dollars that buy roughly the same basket of real goods and services in different countries.
You’ll notice that there is enormous variation in health spending per capita in different countries within the O.E.C.D. But the graph also indicates that there exists a very strong relationship between the G.D.P. per capita of these countries (roughly a measure of ability to pay) and per-capita health spending. The dark line in the graph is a so-called regression equation (whose precise mathematical form is shown in the upper left corner).
For the above.... see chart at link
Of course they do. When you tell them it is 'free' and that they don't have to pay, they are going to want to keep it that way. That is the problem with our societies today, once you give something for 'free'... it is hard to take back. So we just keep passing the debt on to future generations.
I disagree.... this ignorant path Obama/Pelosi/Reid have put us on will be set straight.
We can reduce health care costs and insurance premiums without the monstrosity of a governmental universal plan.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
should have stopped with just this.
Good Luck
New member
Exactly what has been said that leads you to the conclusion that I hate the law, THEN look for reasons to hate it?
The bottom line is they NEED those waivers because Obamacare is making health insurance coverage more expensive.
Yes the waivers make sense for the people - because NOT following Obama's fucked up health care law MAKES SENSE.
Glad we agree on that.
Bfgrn
New member
'For profit' health insurance will never fit in a market based model. The incentives for increasing profit are all catastrophic for customers. The model is to collect years of premiums and then deny payment for coverage.
I love how the right can embrace something like tort reform. It violates 'states rights' it is not a federal matter. It is the ultimate form of statism. The state dictates what is fair compensation. It violates our freedoms and liberties by undermining our judicial system and our right to a fair trial by our peers and removes their ability to award just compensation based on each case...
The insurance cartels have been taken over by the same Wall Street that destroyed our economy...
Medical Loss Ratio
Wendell Potter -former Vice President of corporate communications at CIGNA, one of the United States' largest health insurance companies. With almost 20 years inside the health insurance industry, Wendell Potter saw for-profit insurers hijack our health care system and put profits before patients.
BILL MOYERS: You told Congress that the industry has hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street. You said, "I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors." How do they satisfy their Wall Street investors?
WENDELL POTTER: Well, there's a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.
So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves.
I've seen a company stock price fall 20 percent in a single day, when it did not meet Wall Street's expectations with this medical loss ratio.
For example, if one company's medical loss ratio was 77.9 percent, for example, in one quarter, and the next quarter, it was 78.2 percent. It seems like a small movement. But investors will think that's ridiculous. And it's horrible.
BILL MOYERS: That they're spending more money for medical claims.
WENDELL POTTER: Yeah.
BILL MOYERS: And less money on profits?
WENDELL POTTER: Exactly. And they think that this company has not done a good job of managing medical expenses. It has not denied enough claims. It has not kicked enough people off the rolls. And that's what-- that is what happens, what these companies do, to make sure that they satisfy Wall Street's expectations with the medical loss ratio.
BILL MOYERS: And they do what to make sure that they keep diminishing the medical loss ratio?
WENDELL POTTER: Rescission is one thing. Denying claims is another. Being, you know, really careful as they review claims, particularly for things like liver transplants, to make sure, from their point of view, that it really is medically necessary and not experimental. That's one thing. And that was that issue in the Nataline Sarkisyan case.
But another way is to purge employer accounts, that-- if a small business has an employee, for example, who suddenly has have a lot of treatment, or is in an accident. And medical bills are piling up, and this employee is filing claims with the insurance company. That'll be noticed by the insurance company.
And when that business is up for renewal, and it typically is up, once a year, up for renewal, the underwriters will look at that. And they'll say, "We need to jack up the rates here, because the experience was," when I say experience, the claim experience, the number of claims filed was more than we anticipated. So we need to jack up the price. Jack up the premiums. Often they'll do this, knowing that the employer will have no alternative but to leave. And that happens all the time.
They'll resort to things like the rescissions that we saw earlier. Or dumping, actually dumping employer groups from the rolls. So the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes.
BILL MOYERS: So, the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes.
WENDELL POTTER: That's right. Exactly right.
BILL MOYERS: So they want to reverse that. They don't want my premium to go for my health care, right?
WENDELL POTTER: Exactly right. They--
BILL MOYERS: Where does it go?
WENDELL POTTER: Well, a big chunk of it goes into shareholders' pockets. It's returned to them as part of the investment to them. It goes into the exorbitant salaries that a lot of the executives make. It goes into paying sales, marketing, and underwriting expenses. So a lot of it goes to pay those kinds of administrative functions. Overhead.
Good Luck
New member
Point one: Try looking up the profit margin of medical insurance compared to any other industry. IF you can show that medical insurance has an unreasonably high profit margin, you MAY have a point. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of typical liberal anti-profit class warfare bullshit.
Point two: the largest (by far) medical insurance carrier in the United States is Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Blue Cross/Blue Shield is NON-PROFIT.
So much for your "insurance company profit greed is ruining health care" liberal bullshit.
Funny, funny, funny.....the Obama apologists are as entertaining as ever.....their stupidity is boundless.....a pathetic lot.....
Well....you gotta be braindead to buy stuff like...."Obama's economic policy saved a trillion jobs last month" or some such crap like that.......and unemployment at +10%....
Well....you gotta be braindead to buy stuff like...."Obama's economic policy saved a trillion jobs last month" or some such crap like that.......and unemployment at +10%....
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The ignorance of the above suggests I should stop reading right there. I will still address some of the rest of your post, but the insurance industry does not have profit margins that are out of line with other sectors... in fact, the insurance industry tends to be in the bottom half of sectors.
no one said tort reform HAD to be federal. Second, the state does not 'dictate fair compensation'. Without reform it is left up to juries and judges. You whine about high costs then bitch about reforms that will help to stop defensive medical practices... which is a large component of high health care costs.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Point one is spot on.
Point two is incorrect. Wellpoint merged with BCBS in 2004 and is a for profit insurance company.
Bfgrn
New member
You ignored my premise, you have to try again.
After the stimulus passed, many on the right were telling us it would lead to outright disaster: unemployment in the teens for years, and a stock market under 8,000.
It wouldn't have really mattered what happened in the past year - you'd be spinning it as a disaster for Obama. On any good news (and there is good news out there), he would have just gotten "lucky."
Why did the liberals ignore the fact that the union supported and promoted the Health Bill and now has to file for an exemption because it's too expensive?
That was the point of the thread.
Even if the health bill made costs lower-- which it definitely does not, but even if it did-- the unions still filed to be exempt.
What does that tell you about the economics of the law?
Liberals , you are not expected to have an answer
They aren't filing for an exemption because it is too expensive. They filed to an exemption because the plan has an annual cap on prescription drug costs that the law now prohibits.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yes.... it is true... try talking to doctors, their lawyers, hospitals. It is standard CYA and it runs up the costs of health care. Because the more they do it, the more their bill is going to be to cover the needless tests, the more the insurance company is going to be billed, the more the insurance company raises premiums to cover the bills.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
so the unions are trying to screw the employees by diverting to a plan that doesn't allow them everything their hearts desire?