Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Health Insurance Increases

J

josephkk

Jan 1, 1970
0
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mon...e-shield-of-california-prompts-criticism.html

Note: they won't blame increases on Obamacare, generally. Sebilius
already sent a letter telling insurers she'd bankrupt anyone who did.


The rebate is actually bad--that's the insurer disgorging reserves, as
required under the unAffordable Care Act, but which previously
provided security against claims / a guarantee of the insurer's
solvency.
They are required to spend money on healthcare. Not corporate jets or
lavish parties. Blue Shield collected too much money and had to give it
back.

Note there are many Blue Shields in Ca. I'm in the nonprofit one. [Well
nonprofit in theory.]

I'd like to see the letter threatening to bankrupt health care
providers. That sounds like a Faux News report to me.

The irony is year ago, before these health care providers were on stock
exchanges, their overhead was about 5%. They didn't have pigs like Bill
McGuire or Rick Scott. If the pigs never got their grips on the health
care system, it would probably be much less regulated. Basically the
fucking asshole brought it all on themselves.

Two things: 1) the pigs got to health care a long time ago (40 years or
more, can you say Medicare); 2) if wishes were fishes beggars would feast.

You must mean the Obummer asshole and its cronies.

?-)
 
R

rickman

Jan 1, 1970
0
And there you have the real problem with all of these government programs;
they can't be counted upon. Some in Congress even want to seize retirement
plans and accounts.

"Some in Congress", well I guess that is vague enough that you can
follow it with anything you wish and it could be accurate.

Rick
 
R

rickman

Jan 1, 1970
0
With guaranteed issue, we're all mostly better off gaming the system.
The penalty is a lot cheaper than buying Obamacarp, for individuals
and employers alike. It's the perfect opportunity to make others pay
your fare, and the law encourages it.

I'm not sure what you are saying, but I think you are suggesting that
you would be better off paying the penalty for not having insurance and
getting insurance if and when you need it. In reality this is a very
dangerous thing to try. There are any number of illnesses that are very
serious and need immediate treatment. You don't get insurance at the
drop of a hat. It takes weeks or even months to get signed up. In the
meantime you could be paying out of pocket for very expensive treatments.

Still, that is a choice.
Those certainly are the talking points. Mostly wrong, but popular.

Just saying an argument is wrong is not of much value. Care to actually
contribute something substantive rather than just, "no, that's wrong"?

Rick
 
J

josephkk

Jan 1, 1970
0
Just saying an argument is wrong is not of much value. Care to actually
contribute something substantive rather than just, "no, that's wrong"?

Rick

You clearly do not understand what talking points are about. They
basically are: setting up "straw dogs" pretending that they are the
oppositions "points"; knocking them down to "show" that your "program" is
better (brushing off that those same "straw dogs" usually apply equally to
discredit your program); then proclaim that your "program" is thus
necessary.

Go get some brain rinse.

?-)
 
I'm not sure what you are saying, but I think you are suggesting that
you would be better off paying the penalty for not having insurance and
getting insurance if and when you need it.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's cheaper for individuals not to buy
it, and for employers to not provide insurance.

Under Obamacare's free-lunch theory--which is what Obamacare is--
insurers can't refuse you, the gov't promises to provide coverage to
employees that are dumped, so individuals can and should game it, and
employers too.

And they will.
In reality this is a very
dangerous thing to try.  There are any number of illnesses that are very
serious and need immediate treatment.  You don't get insurance at the
drop of a hat.  It takes weeks or even months to get signed up.  In the
meantime you could be paying out of pocket for very expensive treatments.

Still, that is a choice.

Oh pooh. What good would Obamacare be if you had to wait months and
months and perish first? Do you really propose that Kathleen Sebelius
would let insurers effectively avoid the guaranteed-issue mandate by
ignoring pre-existing life-threatening conditions? That pretty would
pretty well gut the whole pretext for forcing Obamacare on everyone,
wouldn't it?.
Just saying an argument is wrong is not of much value.  Care to actually
contribute something substantive rather than just, "no, that's wrong"?

We've beat it to death here in sed, with loads of references. Maybe
it's your task to support your argument before making it?

The truth is that uninformed people have been told that all sorts of
manipulated numbers--such as our life expectancy at birth, or the
World Health Organization's ranking of how socialized America's
medicine is--are proxies for health care quality, without
understanding that these are /not/ proxies for quality.

When you examine actual outcomes for actual medical conditions,
America's medical care is superb, better even for our poor than for
other countries' better off, despite the disparities that exist in
every country.

~~~

Obamacare's based on the premise that mandating more services to more
people can be made cheaper by federal decree, and hundreds of billions
annually in federal subsidies. Only the people who don't understand
it believe in it.

One of their mechanisms for "savings" is to simply declare Medicare
reimbursement rates will be half or so--substantially lower than
Medicaid's, eventually. Ta-da!

It's not cheaper, you can't keep your policy, you can't keep your
doctor, and 2/3rds of America will quickly lose their current
coverage, the coverage they liked, that Obama said they can keep.

It's happening already. miso's insurer's rates have been
skyrocketing, even if not for him personally, yet. And employers are
starting to realize they'll have to dump people in droves to survive.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/franchisors-warn-obamacare-will-halve-profits/article/2507920#
"Most, said Atlanta Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken franchiser
David Barr, presumed that the reports about how hard Obamacare will
hit them were overblown. [...]

That is until he pulled out his powerpoint showing how funding
Obamacare will cut his--and likely their--profits in half overnight.
With simple math the small business folks understood, he spelled out
that their only choice is to slash employee hours so they aren't
eligible for company-paid health care or stop offering insurance and
pay the $2,000 per employee fine."


"I haven't met a thinking person who believes it can work." --Sen. Bob
Corker
 
Top