|
|
Post by drjohnnyfever on Nov 14, 2013 16:29:05 GMT -5
Dang-don't tell me you're drinking the hopium laced kool-aid? Either I don't understand you, or you need to read more than the part of the post you bolded. I'm referring to the well known leftinista tactic of blaming all and sundry on bush...no matter how convoluted or tortured the reasoning. I would have put a smiley on it so that you know I was breing facetious but for some reason I can't get them to stay where I put them. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 14, 2013 18:51:21 GMT -5
And, of course, everyone to the right of the New York Times will be asking where his authority to do this is. That's not real hard. It's in the regulations. The very same regulations that narrowly defined a "grandfathered" plan can be rewritten as to not so narrowly define it. I don't believe his initiative forces insurance companies to write the old policies as Mary Landrieu's legislation would. It just leaves them on the hook when they're forced to get the "new" plans approved by state regulators, not tot mention the risk pool being skewed in an unknown direction yet again. These "new" plans will have to have higher - perhaps much higher - premiums baked into them. Is it cynical of me to note that this gets them past another election? I really don't think this does get them past another election. Mainly because none of these 'fixes' are actually going to fix anything. There may be a few people who get their plans back until next year, but those same cancellation letters will start going out just before election day. And somehow, I doubt many insurance companies will actually re-issue those cancelled policies. Indeed, in a few states they simply can't, because the state regulators won't allow it. |
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 14, 2013 19:04:29 GMT -5
That's not real hard. It's in the regulations. The very same regulations that narrowly defined a "grandfathered" plan can be rewritten as to not so narrowly define it. I don't believe his initiative forces insurance companies to write the old policies as Mary Landrieu's legislation would. It just leaves them on the hook when they're forced to get the "new" plans approved by state regulators, not tot mention the risk pool being skewed in an unknown direction yet again. These "new" plans will have to have higher - perhaps much higher - premiums baked into them. Is it cynical of me to note that this gets them past another election? I really don't think this does get them past another election. Mainly because none of these 'fixes' are actually going to fix anything. There may be a few people who get their plans back until next year, but those same cancellation letters will start going out just before election day. And somehow, I doubt many insurance companies will actually re-issue those cancelled policies. Indeed, in a few states they simply can't, because the state regulators won't allow it. I don't see it fixing anything either. What they've done is turned risk pools and actuarials on their ear. Insurance premiums will by necessity go up, or the taxpayer will be funneling huge piles of cash to insurance companies to subsidize them. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 14, 2013 19:27:48 GMT -5
I really don't think this does get them past another election. Mainly because none of these 'fixes' are actually going to fix anything. There may be a few people who get their plans back until next year, but those same cancellation letters will start going out just before election day. And somehow, I doubt many insurance companies will actually re-issue those cancelled policies. Indeed, in a few states they simply can't, because the state regulators won't allow it. I don't see it fixing anything either. What they've done is turned risk pools and actuarials on their ear. Insurance premiums will by necessity go up, or the taxpayer will be funneling huge piles of cash to insurance companies to subsidize them. Which is why I don't think the insurance companies will be re-issuing the cancelled policies. At least not on a large scale. I'm sure there will be some that get their policies back for a year, but I'm guessing it'll be less than half. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 14, 2013 19:33:53 GMT -5
...or the taxpayer will be funneling huge piles of cash to insurance companies to subsidize them. Already going to happen. They're called subsidies. |
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 14, 2013 19:35:05 GMT -5
I don't see it fixing anything either. What they've done is turned risk pools and actuarials on their ear. Insurance premiums will by necessity go up, or the taxpayer will be funneling huge piles of cash to insurance companies to subsidize them. Which is why I don't think the insurance companies will be re-issuing the cancelled policies. At least not on a large scale. I'm sure there will be some that get their policies back for a year, but I'm guessing it'll be less than half. And those that get them back are not likely to have them by the first of the year. He left out dealing with state insurance regulation bureaucracies. Washington state, for example, says none of this is happening in their state. They're concerned about turning the market upside down. And Washington state is hardly a bastion of conservatism. |
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 14, 2013 19:36:56 GMT -5
...or the taxpayer will be funneling huge piles of cash to insurance companies to subsidize them. Already going to happen. They're called subsidies. To those who lost policies so that they could be driven to the exchanges? Most don't qualify, which is why if they are subsidized, it'll be covered under that part of the law that says insurance companies are immune from losses on this scam. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 14, 2013 19:43:41 GMT -5
Which is why I don't think the insurance companies will be re-issuing the cancelled policies. At least not on a large scale. I'm sure there will be some that get their policies back for a year, but I'm guessing it'll be less than half. And those that get them back are not likely to have them by the first of the year. He left out dealing with state insurance regulation bureaucracies. Washington state, for example, says none of this is happening in their state. They're concerned about turning the market upside down. And Washington state is hardly a bastion of conservatism. I sort of suspect if the insurance company has to do any real work to re-issue the policy, those policies won't be re-issued. |
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 14, 2013 19:49:59 GMT -5
And those that get them back are not likely to have them by the first of the year. He left out dealing with state insurance regulation bureaucracies. Washington state, for example, says none of this is happening in their state. They're concerned about turning the market upside down. And Washington state is hardly a bastion of conservatism. I sort of suspect if the insurance company has to do any real work to re-issue the policy, those policies won't be re-issued. If it was Barry's intention to toss the industry under the bus - and to me, it's a rather obvious intention - I think it would behoove the companies to be as accommodating as they can. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 14, 2013 20:03:50 GMT -5
I sort of suspect if the insurance company has to do any real work to re-issue the policy, those policies won't be re-issued. If it was Barry's intention to toss the industry under the bus - and to me, it's a rather obvious intention - I think it would behoove the companies to be as accommodating as they can. Well sure. But if you're going to have to go re-program everything to re-issue these policies for a year, there's no way they'll recover those costs. It's a lose-lose for the insurance company. Even if they end up getting thrown under the bus. In short, this 'fix' is also them being thrown under the bus. Now, if it's as simple as hitting an 'undo' button somewhere. Or if everything is in a saved file that can just be recalled, that's different. |
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 14, 2013 20:03:50 GMT -5
That's it, Mr. President. Keep your eye on the ball.There's nothing like some fundraising after turning 1/6 of the economy on its ear. |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 14, 2013 20:05:20 GMT -5
I sort of suspect if the insurance company has to do any real work to re-issue the policy, those policies won't be re-issued. If it was Barry's intention to toss the industry under the bus - and to me, it's a rather obvious intention - I think it would behoove the companies to be as accommodating as they can. Can I help him ? Not a fan of insurance |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 14, 2013 22:38:11 GMT -5
Few people are fans of insurance, who aren't earning from the industry. But I'll bet you're also not a fan of healthcare bankruptcy, which is what you'd get if you got sick without it.
Insurance should cover you if you have a heart attack and run up $40,000 in hospital bills. It is not there if little Jimmy gets the sniffles and Mommy runs him to the pediatrician to demand antibiotics for a viral infection because she's too uneducated or dumb to understand why they won't help. It is not there to buy your yearly or so checkup (common sense should have you at the doctor's office for assessment as recommended for your age).
Bronze and silver plans, with their high deductibles, might actually do us some good. They'll make people shop for care, and maybe even keep 'em home except when it is a real emergency. (One thing the law should have done and didn't? Make a website titled "Do I need to see the doctor?" which would explain what things need medical help and what things people should take care of themselves.)
|
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Nov 15, 2013 8:05:37 GMT -5
If it was Barry's intention to toss the industry under the bus - and to me, it's a rather obvious intention - I think it would behoove the companies to be as accommodating as they can. Can I help him ? Not a fan of insurance I'm not surprised at your sentiment. Some of us are great "fans" of insurance, and All the social technologies. We appreciate how long it took to developthese institutions and the extreme effort our forfathers exerted in thier learning curve. Even today there are societies who struggle with risk and lack of capital since they have no banks, insurance, organized markets, or rule of law. The major distinction between a pathetic society and a prosperous one is that the developed society has the tools that enable it to trust strangers. The big threat we have in our modern world is that government sees these social technologies as competitors and "threats" to big government. Hence, a constant attack on the effectiveness and credibility of the institutions that brought us into prosperity. Governments don't use insurance companies, why should you? Note: It's hard to go wrong in public expressing a dislke for lawyers, politicians, bankers, speculators or insurance companies!  |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 15, 2013 9:29:58 GMT -5
And, of course, everyone to the right of the New York Times will be asking where his authority to do this is. That's not real hard. It's in the regulations. The very same regulations that narrowly defined a "grandfathered" plan can be rewritten as to not so narrowly define it. I don't believe his initiative forces insurance companies to write the old policies as Mary Landrieu's legislation would. It just leaves them on the hook when they're forced to get the "new" plans approved by state regulators, not tot mention the risk pool being skewed in an unknown direction yet again. These "new" plans will have to have higher - perhaps much higher - premiums baked into them. Is it cynical of me to note that this gets them past another election? But where was his authority to grant waivers to whomever paid him enough money? Or to simply decide to "delay" parts of the law? It was "settled law" after all. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 15, 2013 9:36:15 GMT -5
Few people are fans of insurance, who aren't earning from the industry. But I'll bet you're also not a fan of healthcare bankruptcy, which is what you'd get if you got sick without it. Insurance should cover you if you have a heart attack and run up $40,000 in hospital bills. It is not there if little Jimmy gets the sniffles and Mommy runs him to the pediatrician to demand antibiotics for a viral infection because she's too uneducated or dumb to understand why they won't help. It is not there to buy your yearly or so checkup (common sense should have you at the doctor's office for assessment as recommended for your age). Bronze and silver plans, with their high deductibles, might actually do us some good. They'll make people shop for care, and maybe even keep 'em home except when it is a real emergency. (One thing the law should have done and didn't? Make a website titled "Do I need to see the doctor?" which would explain what things need medical help and what things people should take care of themselves.)That's just asking for a lawsuit. Someone would read it, and not understand it, and a death would follow. Some lawyer would see dollar signs, and the lawsuit races would be on. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 15, 2013 15:18:29 GMT -5
That's just asking for a lawsuit. Someone would read it, and not understand it, and a death would follow. Some lawyer would see dollar signs, and the lawsuit races would be on. WebMD presents medical advice. They also have various disclaimers. A disclaimer suggesting that if you're not sure, seek medical help would cover it, I would think. You'd need to get a lawyer to write it. The target audience are the people who don't know. "I have a blinding headache and trouble moving my right arm. Should I wait for it to go away, make an appointment with my regular doctor, or visit the nearest emergency department?" (The answer is: visit the ED - these are symptoms suggesting a stroke in progress.) Believe it or not, there are many people who have no idea what to make of their body's "error reports". |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 15, 2013 18:11:18 GMT -5
That's not real hard. It's in the regulations. The very same regulations that narrowly defined a "grandfathered" plan can be rewritten as to not so narrowly define it. I don't believe his initiative forces insurance companies to write the old policies as Mary Landrieu's legislation would. It just leaves them on the hook when they're forced to get the "new" plans approved by state regulators, not tot mention the risk pool being skewed in an unknown direction yet again. These "new" plans will have to have higher - perhaps much higher - premiums baked into them. Is it cynical of me to note that this gets them past another election? But where was his authority to grant waivers to whomever paid him enough money? Or to simply decide to "delay" parts of the law? It was "settled law" after all. Obamacare has NEVER been settled law. There have been at least 27 major changes to it - so many that it bears little resemblance to the law that we had to pass to find out what's in it. Link |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 15, 2013 18:19:00 GMT -5
That's just asking for a lawsuit. Someone would read it, and not understand it, and a death would follow. Some lawyer would see dollar signs, and the lawsuit races would be on. WebMD presents medical advice. They also have various disclaimers. A disclaimer suggesting that if you're not sure, seek medical help would cover it, I would think. You'd need to get a lawyer to write it. The target audience are the people who don't know. "I have a blinding headache and trouble moving my right arm. Should I wait for it to go away, make an appointment with my regular doctor, or visit the nearest emergency department?" (The answer is: visit the ED - these are symptoms suggesting a stroke in progress.) Believe it or not, there are many people who have no idea what to make of their body's "error reports". I know, but WebMD, until now, wasn't a 'government' website. There are a lot of people that see the government as the last word in everything, and believe everything the government tells them. And you are absolutely correct about the 'error reports'. Being married to an RN for 37 years, she's had people call, sometimes in the middle of the night, with "my baby has had a fever of 103 for 3 days. What should I do?" |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 15, 2013 18:19:56 GMT -5
But where was his authority to grant waivers to whomever paid him enough money? Or to simply decide to "delay" parts of the law? It was "settled law" after all. Obamacare has NEVER been settled law. There have been at least 27 major changes to it - so many that it bears little resemblance to the law that we had to pass to find out what's in it. LinkSo, the Democrats have been lying to us for the last several months, telling us all that Puppettax can't be changed in any way because it's "settled law"? |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 15, 2013 18:22:45 GMT -5
Obamacare has NEVER been settled law. There have been at least 27 major changes to it - so many that it bears little resemblance to the law that we had to pass to find out what's in it. LinkSo, the Democrats have been lying to us for the last several months, telling us all that Puppettax can't be changed in any way because it's "settled law"? No no no. You've got it all wrong. The democrats have been lying to us for the last few YEARS. Telling us that if you like your insurance you can keep it. Obama either knew that wasn't true because the only way he could make this work was to jack up everyone's rates; or is far too stupid to be let out in public unsupervised. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 15, 2013 18:23:59 GMT -5
So, the Democrats have been lying to us for the last several months, telling us all that Puppettax can't be changed in any way because it's "settled law"? No no no. You've got it all wrong. The democrats have been lying to us for the last few YEARS. Telling us that if you like your insurance you can keep it. Obama either knew that wasn't true because the only way he could make this work was to jack up everyone's rates; or is far too stupid to be let out in public unsupervised. Nawwwww, The Puppet lying? Say it ain't so. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 15, 2013 18:31:13 GMT -5
No no no. You've got it all wrong. The democrats have been lying to us for the last few YEARS. Telling us that if you like your insurance you can keep it. Obama either knew that wasn't true because the only way he could make this work was to jack up everyone's rates; or is far too stupid to be let out in public unsupervised. Nawwwww, The Puppet lying? Say it ain't so. *smiles* I know, I know.... I'm just a racist. |
|
