The HC Summit

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    The HC Summit

    What do you think it accomplished?

    I think it was more informative of the republicans ideas which have been covered less by the media.

    I think Obama made a mistake when he was condescending to McCain.

    I think at times the republicans looked uncompromising.

    I do not think it was fair to give Obama 1/3 of the time dems 1/3 of the time and republicans 1/3 of the time. That made it basically 2/3 a liberal view forum.

    Obama should have mediated it by letting one side speak and then letting the other rebute not, him rebutting then going to a dem for more rebuttal then changing the subject.

    I don't think it changed anyones mind and the public is still largly against it.

    I think dems will try to force it through with reconciliation but, may not have the votes which would be a good thing for their chances in the upcoming election.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to The HC Summit:
    What do you think it accomplished? I think it was more informative of the republicans ideas which have been covered less by the media. I think Obama made a mistake when he was condescending to McCain. I think at times the republicans looked uncompromising. I do not think it was fair to give Obama 1/3 of the time dems 1/3 of the time and republicans 1/3 of the time. That made it basically 2/3 a liberal view forum. Obama should have mediated it by letting one side speak and then letting the other rebute not, him rebutting then going to a dem for more rebuttal then changing the subject. I don't think it changed anyones mind and the public is still largly against it. I think dems will try to force it through with reconciliation but, may not have the votes which would be a good thing for their chances in the upcoming election.
    Posted by sk8ter2008
      BINGO !!  GOOD POST........  THE "BIG O" AND THE LIBERAL DEMS ARE MAKING A SERIOUS MIS-Q IN THEIR READING OF AMERICA !!!!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 1984-Redux. Show 1984-Redux's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    Sk8ter,

    Wasn't really a summit.. was it? It was a 3 sides infomercial. In fact it's not a lead story on state controlled CNN. They downplay it to a "stunt".

    If this is Obamas idea of reaching across the aisle, then our POTUS is a naive simpleton. He must worry about Democratic splintering but maybe this is all about him. After all the cheap campaign talk about bringing the country together, he's poised to pull the trigger on the nuclear option and further DIVIDE the country and jeopardize any/all of the current congressional advantage the Dems have.
     
    The man appears incapable of bending. That may change but HIS priority is NOT the same as the majority of the citizens he is SUPPOSED to represent. This could have been different.. he could have said things to change the tone but that's not in him. His rhetoric sound more like a dictator than a uniter. He wants what he wants.
     
    See ya Bama !!
     




     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12angrymen. Show 12angrymen's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    Someone at the summit made a good point. It shouldn't be just the politicians in the room but also insurers, doctors, consumers etc. Basically the real stakeholders in health care reform should be included in the debate.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12angrymen. Show 12angrymen's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    he's poised to pull the trigger on the nuclear option
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That's Congress's call.

    HIS priority is NOT the same as the majority of the citizens he is SUPPOSED to represent.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It's not his job to 'represent' the people. His primary functions are to defend the country and be the CEO of the gov't. He is responsible to the people but doesn't represent them. The Constitution was written so that the president wouldn't have lawmaking power with the idea that the president shouldn't be swayed by popular opinion.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    I understand Obama's desire to get the 15% that are uninsured coverage but, to ignore the 85% who have coverage and are ok with it is a huige mistake. Tort reform and cutting waste medicare, medicaid would go along way towards getting that 15% coverage but, Obama dissmissed Tort reform and really cutting waste.

    Why pour more resources into a plan that waste 35% of it's money now!!
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansonbrother. Show Hansonbrother's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    "Much to do about nothing"

    that is gd priceless

    (borg)
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12angrymen. Show 12angrymen's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    Obama dissmissed Tort reform and really cutting waste.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He didn't dismiss it he put it in proper perspective. The CBO estimates that tort reform would save 54 billion over 10 years. That on a 2 trillion gov't health care budget. It's less than 1/10th of 1%. Not the cure all wingnuts claim. 
    It's funny that the wingnuts don't think gov't should dictate insurance policy minimums. They say gov't should stay out of the market. Unless of course it's to dictate what a jury deems appropriate in lawsuits. Then they want to dictate to the country at large and the judiciary in particular what they feel is right. Hypocritize much.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 1984-Redux. Show 1984-Redux's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:
    he's poised to pull the trigger on the nuclear option ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That's Congress's call. HIS priority is NOT the same as the majority of the citizens he is SUPPOSED to represent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's not his job to 'represent' the people. His primary functions are to defend the country and be the CEO of the gov't. He is responsible to the people but doesn't represent them. The Constitution was written so that the president wouldn't have lawmaking power with the idea that the president shouldn't be swayed by popular opinion.
    Posted by 12angrymen


    IF and only IF the nuclear option is played it will ONLY be because Obama wants it. You can't tell me Congress want to commit political suicide. It may be Congresses legal call but the gun is in Obamas hand. 

    To say that it's not his responsibility to represent the people.. is a stretch. To phrase it differently, the presidents primary responsibility should NOT be to push his own radical personal and political agendas up the azzes of American citizens. 
    Your other points are duly noted and respected. We need a leader.  
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:
    Obama dissmissed Tort reform and really cutting waste. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He didn't dismiss it he put it in proper perspective. The CBO estimates that tort reform would save 54 billion over 10 years. That on a 2 trillion gov't health care budget. It's less than 1/10th of 1%. Not the cure all wingnuts claim.  It's funny that the wingnuts don't think gov't should dictate insurance policy minimums. They say gov't should stay out of the market. Unless of course it's to dictate what a jury deems appropriate in lawsuits. Then they want to dictate to the country at large and the judiciary in particular what they feel is right. Hypocritize much.
    Posted by 12angrymen


    I think it makes perfect sense for the govt who knows NOTHING about insurance industry to dictate what is and isn't an appropriate increase. Why stop there? Let's have the govt control all industries and dictate what is and isn't acceptable pricing.
    The can tell Sony they're charging too much for a flat screen, Gap charging too much for cargo shorts, and for god sakes General Mills you are charging way too much for Cheerios. Get your act together will ya!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12angrymen. Show 12angrymen's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    I think it makes perfect sense for the govt who knows NOTHING about insurance industry to dictate what is and isn't an appropriate increase. Why stop there? Let's have the govt control all industries and dictate what is and isn't acceptable pricing. 
    The can tell Sony they're charging too much for a flat screen, Gap charging too much for cargo shorts, and for god sakes General Mills you are charging way too much for Cheerios. Get your act together will ya!
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current bill doesn't dictate prices. That's just another wingnut distortion of the facts.
    It only sets minimum standards for what policies need to cover if they are going to be in a federal co-op. The same way it sets standards for what you can put in Cheerios. 
    I guess you'd rather have General Mills putting mercury or lead in your kids food. Geez
     
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:
    I think it makes perfect sense for the govt who knows NOTHING about insurance industry to dictate what is and isn't an appropriate increase. Why stop there? Let's have the govt control all industries and dictate what is and isn't acceptable pricing.  The can tell Sony they're charging too much for a flat screen, Gap charging too much for cargo shorts, and for god sakes General Mills you are charging way too much for Cheerios. Get your act together will ya! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The current bill doesn't dictate prices. That's just another wingnut distortion of the facts. It only sets minimum standards for what policies need to cover if they are going to be in a federal co-op.  
    Posted by 12angrymen


    Wasn't talking about prices. If you notice in my post I used the word "increase" in regards to health insurance industry. The current bill, at least what was reported on boston.com, was that the govt wanted control on being able to decide if certain rate increase were acceptable or not.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:
    I think it makes perfect sense for the govt who knows NOTHING about insurance industry to dictate what is and isn't an appropriate increase. Why stop there? Let's have the govt control all industries and dictate what is and isn't acceptable pricing.  The can tell Sony they're charging too much for a flat screen, Gap charging too much for cargo shorts, and for god sakes General Mills you are charging way too much for Cheerios. Get your act together will ya! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The current bill doesn't dictate prices. That's just another wingnut distortion of the facts. It only sets minimum standards for what policies need to cover if they are going to be in a federal co-op. The same way it sets standards for what you can put in Cheerios.  I guess you'd rather have General Mills putting mercury or lead in your kids food. Geez  
    Posted by 12angrymen


    Yes, because the ONLY reason General Mills ISN'T putting mercury or lead in Cheerios is because the govt won't let them. Brilliant!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    The government should repeal McCarran-Ferguson which gives Insurance companies their anti trust exemption and open up competition.  This is America and we are all about the free market so why does the Inusrance industry require an anti trust exemption?  I bet Anthem Blue Cross wouldn't have proposed increasing its rates nearly 40 percent if there were  real competition in California, for example.  Those hypocrites in Congress floated revoking Major League Baseballs Anti trust exemption as a result fo the steroid scandals but won't touch the Insurance industry anti trust exemption?  Does anyone sense that our pols lack a clear understanding of what is important and what isn't?  Lets see a kids game played my millionaires that is largely entertainment, versus HEALTH INSURANCE! 

    And rates are soaring all over the country, not just California. Insurers have been seeking to raise premiums 24 percent in Connecticut, 23 percent in Maine, 20 percent in Oregon and a wallet-popping 56 percent in Michigan. How can insurers raise prices as much as they want without fear of losing customers?  Because under the current rules of the game they have no significant competition so one insurer can easily dominate the market in an entire state!  Would you like it if you could only go to one company for car insurance?  Do you think your life would be better if you could only buy groceries at one supermarket?  How is this model beneficial for the American consumer?  It clearly is not. 

    Look at this example of market dominance by Anthem and explain to me where you see the "free" in free market:

    Anthem’s parent is WellPoint, one of the largest publicly traded health insurers in America, which runs Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in 14 states and Unicare plans in several others. WellPoint, through Anthem, is the largest for-profit health insurer here in California, as it is in Maine, where it controls 78 percent of the market. In Missouri, WellPoint owns 68 percent of the market; in its home state, Indiana, 60 percent. With 35 million customers, WellPoint counts one out of every nine Americans as a member of one of its plans. 

    This kind of concetration worked when health insruance providers were non profit but in the age of for profit providers who deny coverage to their clients because procedures are too expensive this model is unsustainbale, especially considering the political clout these multi billion dollar conglomerates can exercise over the political process for pennies on the dollar relative to their earnings.  Spending a $1,000,000.00 to lobby Congress to insure their protected status is nothing when companies like Wellpoint make nearly $2,500,000,000.00 (that's billions) in profits a year!  The little guy can't compete with that and his voting power is effectively undermined by politicians who gladly gobble up insurance lobbying money and then - as if it were magic - vote to prevent common sense from prevailing and doing something about health insurance crisis. 

    This is clearly an area where the government has an obligation to protect the citizens from business because business is CLEARLY gouging the people. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    Was that their small group business? If so, anyone who understands how small group business is underwritten knows how volatile it is.

    Insurers don't raise premiums willy nilly. Now, I don't expect you to believe that because you have a hate towards insurers and that's fine. I spent time in the business so I have an idea of what I'm talking about. I go off of actual experience versus news articles and/or anecdotal evidence.
    That being said, what does the govt know about what is needed for healthcare premium increases?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12angrymen. Show 12angrymen's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    Wasn't talking about prices. If you notice in my post I used the word "increase" in regards to health insurance industry. The current bill, at least what was reported on boston.com, was that the govt wanted control on being able to decide if certain rate increase were acceptable or not.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Still a non-issue when it comes to the bill. The president is referring to individual policies. The idea being that individuals do not have the clout that large corporations have. Those people who buy through the co-op would be represented by the gov't in any disputes regarding rate increases.  
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:
    Wasn't talking about prices. If you notice in my post I used the word "increase" in regards to health insurance industry. The current bill, at least what was reported on boston.com, was that the govt wanted control on being able to decide if certain rate increase were acceptable or not. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Still a non-issue when it comes to the bill. The president is referring to individual policies.  The idea being that individuals do not have the clout that large corporations have. Those people who buy through the co-op would be represented by the gov't in any disputes regarding rate increases.  
    Posted by 12angrymen


    Could you provide a link to that? Thanks!
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12angrymen. Show 12angrymen's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    Could you provide a link to that? Thanks!
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:
    Was that their small group business? If so, anyone who understands how small group business is underwritten knows how volatile it is. Insurers don't raise premiums willy nilly. Now, I don't expect you to believe that because you have a hate towards insurers and that's fine. I spent time in the business so I have an idea of what I'm talking about. I go off of actual experience versus news articles and/or anecdotal evidence. That being said, what does the govt know about what is needed for healthcare premium increases?
    Posted by hawkeye01


    So seeing as how you are the expert on the matter please explain how these rate increases are necessary when many of the companies proposing them already have near monopolies in the areas they operate.  I don't hate insurers anymore than I hate Toyota for potentially selling me a defective vehicle.  Next time I buy a vehicle I won't buy one from Toyota.  So what happens when you have an insurer that raises your premiums 20, 30, or 40 percent and you don't have a viable alternative?  This is the crux of the issue and it is one you are ignoring by claiming to be some sort of sage on pricing policies simply because you worked for an insurance company doing whatever you did. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

  22. Review of unreasonable insurance premium increases and rebates if unjustified; health insurers with a pattern of excessive rate increases can be blocked from selling through new insurance exchanges;


  23. This doesn't say anything about "individual policies".

    Who deems a premium increase as "unreasonable" and what will be considered "unreasonable". Quite a slippery slope they are setting up.

    From what I read it seems like our govt is going to grow bigger than it already is...sigh

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit : So seeing as how you are the expert on the matter please explain how these rate increases are necessary when many of the companies proposing them already have near monopolies in the areas they operate.  I don't hate insurers anymore than I hate Toyota for potentially selling me a defective vehicle.  Next time I buy a vehicle I won't buy one from Toyota.  So what happens when you have an insurer that raises your premiums 20, 30, or 40 percent and you don't have a viable alternative?  This is the crux of the issue and it is one you are ignoring by claiming to be some sort of sage on pricing policies simply because you worked for an insurance company doing whatever you did. 
    Posted by DamainAllen

    As I said it all depends on whether this is small group market. Makes a HUGE difference on underwriting guidelines. Aging of employees and changes in group sizes have an affect on premium growth variability.
    Here's an example on an individual group basis to give you an idea.
    Take a company that has 9 employees:

    The rate increase if one employee of average age leaves the group, resulting in a group of 8 employees AND a current employee ages from 29 years to 30 years the rate increase would be 17.6%


    Same size company:

    Rate increase if one employee in early 60s retires and a 40-year-old replacement is hired is -5.3%


    The reason I picked 9 is because the average small group size (in MA) is 9

    At an average size of 9 members in a small group market the variability of just even 1 member changing from a healthy 25 year old to a 60 year old smoker can have these large 40% year to year increases as reported by the Boston Globe. These increases are due to the Adjustment Factors for that group changing and not due to the insurer charging a much higher base rate



     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from The-Portugee. Show The-Portugee's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    As long as the Health Care industry is a profit making industry this problem will never be fixed. Profiting off of the health and well being of people IMHO was doomed from the start.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from 12angrymen. Show 12angrymen's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

  • Review of unreasonable insurance premium increases and rebates if unjustified; health insurers with a pattern of excessive rate increases can be blocked from selling through new insurance exchanges;
  • This doesn't say anything about "individual policies". 

    Who deems a premium increase as "unreasonable" and what will be considered "unreasonable". Quite a slippery slope they are setting up.

    From what I read it seems like our govt is going to grow bigger than it already is...sigh

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I know you're not stupid so I can only assume you either missed the part about individual policies or chose to ignore it. Right there at the beginning of the second paragraph outlining to whom this bill would apply.

    "Americans without insurance coverage will be able to choose the insurance coverage that works best for them in a new open, competitive insurance market – the same insurance market that every member of Congress will be required to use for their insurance. The insurance Exchange will pool buying power and give Americans new affordable choices of private insurance plans that have to compete for their business based on cost and quality."

    If you read the proposal it refers to how it will determine 'unreasonable'

     "... insurance companies when they spend a large percentage of consumers’ premiums on advertising, bonuses and other administrative expenses instead of patient care;"


     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:

    Review of unreasonable insurance premium increases and rebates if unjustified; health insurers with a pattern of excessive rate increases can be blocked from selling through new insurance exchanges; This doesn't say anything about "individual policies".  Who deems a premium increase as "unreasonable" and what will be considered "unreasonable". Quite a slippery slope they are setting up. From what I read it seems like our govt is going to grow bigger than it already is...sigh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know you're not stupid so I can only assume you either missed the part about individual policies or chose to ignore it. Right there at the beginning of the second paragraph outlining to whom this bill would apply. "Americans without insurance coverage will be able to choose the insurance coverage that works best for them in a new open, competitive insurance market – the same insurance market that every member of Congress will be required to use for their insurance. The insurance Exchange will pool buying power and give Americans new affordable choices of private insurance plans that have to compete for their business based on cost and quality." If you read the proposal it refers to how it will determine 'unreasonable'  "...  insurance companies when they spend a large percentage of consumers’ premiums on advertising, bonuses and other administrative expenses instead of patient care;"  
    Posted by 12angrymen

    Ah but this part was just before the the bullet points about reform...

    "Starting in six months, American families and small business owners will begin to experience the benefits of this common-sense reform:"

    As it includes small business owners that means it's not just individual policies as small businesses fall under employer group insurance. So it includes both individual and employer group

     
  • Share