Your costs are going to rise....

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704304504574610040924143158.html

Interesting article on how this health care fiasco could potentially kill the insurance market (not to mention the economy).

Next, it's the government that requires extensive coverage including "ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance abuse disorder services, prescription drugs, rehabilitative and habilitative [sic!] services and devices, laboratory services, preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management, pediatric services, including oral and vision care." The price squeeze gets even tighter because in every required area of care a collection of government standards will help set the minimum level of required services.

Seriously... why are the above all MANDATORY? It is quite simply moronic to think that by making all of that mandatory that it will do anything other than raise costs.

Ostensibly, the Reid bill does not impose any direct price controls on what health insurers can charge for this veritable cornucopia of services. But the bill's complex, cooperative federalism scheme authorizes state regulators, after recommendations from the federal government, to exclude insurers from the exchanges if their prices are too high, which would again be a competitive death knell. Exile from the exchange does not, however, restore traditional underwriting controls, as the Reid bill and other federal and state regulation continue to apply to these firms.

This bill is creating far more bureaucracy and problems than we can handle.

more at link...

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Seriously... why are the above all MANDATORY? It is quite simply moronic to think that by making all of that mandatory that it will do anything other than raise costs.

It will raise total prices slightly and half the price per person covered compared to a plan without individual mandates. Again, without the mandatory insurance scheme this bill is not worth passing. Without the mandatory coverage it would lead to huge increases in personal insurance rates, because people would obviously just game the system.

cooperative federalism scheme authorizes state regulators, after recommendations from the federal government, to exclude insurers from the exchanges if their prices are too high, which would again be a competitive death knell.

Good. Cut their profits.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It will raise total prices slightly and half the price per person covered compared to a plan without individual mandates. Again, without the mandatory insurance scheme this bill is not worth passing. Without the mandatory coverage it would lead to huge increases in personal insurance rates, because people would obviously just game the system.

Good. Cut their profits.

Cut their profits and there is no reason for them to exist. Which is the plan from the left... drive out those evil corporations and let the government save us.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It will raise total prices slightly and half the price per person covered compared to a plan without individual mandates. Again, without the mandatory insurance scheme this bill is not worth passing. Without the mandatory coverage it would lead to huge increases in personal insurance rates, because people would obviously just game the system.

Good. Cut their profits.

dumbass. do you seriously believe that the health insurance companies are going to reduce their costs because they are guaranteed billions upon billions in profits? fuck no. They are going to dole out bigger bonuses to executive positions and increase shareholder earnings, THEN, when medical costs do pinch their wallet, they'll just raise premiums bringing in another hundred billion dollars of profit.

you're such a fucking douchebag dumbass.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Cut their profits and there is no reason for them to exist. Which is the plan from the left... drive out those evil corporations and let the government save us.

LOL, yeah, they'll fold because they're now making sane profits instead of 300% profits.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

LOL, yeah, they'll fold because they're now making sane profits instead of 300% profits.

thats a lie, ins co are not making those to that kind of profits, not even close

try around 5%

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

LOL, yeah, they'll fold because they're now making sane profits instead of 300% profits.

Please show me the insurance company that is making 300% profits.

http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains.html

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

thats a lie, ins co are not making those to that kind of profits, not even close

try around 5%

Obviously that is much closer than his extreme exaggeration... but even your 5% is too high. It was 3.4% last year.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Obviously that is much closer than his extreme exaggeration... but even your 5% is too high. It was 3.4% last year.

i'm sure watermark will claim he is using that merged opinion thingy him and grind use to "debate" with

 

[zappasguitar]

Cut their profits and there is no reason for them to exist. Which is the plan from the left... drive out those evil corporations and let the government save us.

"Cut their profits and there is no reason for them to exist."

Not necessarliy.

How about so they can continue paying the bills?

If somone's been in the insurance business for a while, they aren't just going to look for work in an entirely different area. People who could potentially lose their job under your scenario are simply going to have to accept smaller profit margins.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

i'm sure watermark will claim he is using that merged opinion thingy him and grind use to "debate" with

No, he will use the ditzie 'you took me out of context' argument and tell us that when he says 300% he really meant 3% and that we should know he was figuratively speaking and not being literal and that had he typed out three hundred percent then he would have been speaking of our country, not the country as in everyone in it, but really of the song, because he likes Mellancamps eyes.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Cut their profits and there is no reason for them to exist."

Not necessarliy.

How about so they can continue paying the bills?

If somone's been in the insurance business for a while, they aren't just going to look for work in an entirely different area. People who could potentially lose their job under your scenario are simply going to have to accept smaller profit margins.

LMAO.... their current profit margins average about 3.4%. Not a whole lot of room to be cutting it. Also... go tell those people that THEIR jobs do not get wage increases or bonuses and their company's stock isn't allowed to go up etc....

If profits are not to be made, then there is NO reason for them to take on the liability. NONE.

 

[zappasguitar]

LMAO.... their current profit margins average about 3.4%. Not a whole lot of room to be cutting it. Also... go tell those people that THEIR jobs do not get wage increases or bonuses and their company's stock isn't allowed to go up etc....

If profits are not to be made, then there is NO reason for them to take on the liability. NONE.

Well a 3.4% profit margin doesn't seem to be forcing too many insurance industry professionals onto foodstamps so I guess maybe it's not QUITE as bad as you and those starving insurance industry fatcats make it out to be.

 

[Damocles]

Well a 3.4% profit margin doesn't seem to be forcing too many insurance industry professionals onto foodstamps so I guess maybe it's not QUITE as bad as you and those starving insurance industry fatcats make it out to be.

It certainly is incentive to see if you can get government to mandate your product so that the margin can get higher. Most businessmen would not invest too heavily for such a small return, but once the government forces you to buy it regardless of any circumstance, you get the win if you are a "fatcat".

 

[Jarod]

My costs will go down, I am on COBRA from my wife's old company... and the plan allows me to continue that past the 18 months.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Well a 3.4% profit margin doesn't seem to be forcing too many insurance industry professionals onto foodstamps so I guess maybe it's not QUITE as bad as you and those starving insurance industry fatcats make it out to be.

strawman....nobody said it was bad or people are starving

simply that the exaggerated profits by the anti insurance crowd and the one man hyperbole circus watermark....are not true

 

[Damocles]

My costs will go down, I am on COBRA from my wife's old company... and the plan allows me to continue that past the 18 months.

No, it doesn't. You will long have run out of time on COBRA before 2013 rolls around. The good news is you'll get to pay the higher taxes anyway.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

My costs will go down, I am on COBRA from my wife's old company... and the plan allows me to continue that past the 18 months.

Well then, no shit... if you are on Cobra and NOT looking for alternatives, then you are not quite right in the head. Cobra is typically twice as high as you would normally pay.

Go out and get a personal plan, hell even if you have minor pre-existing conditions you are likely to pay less than when on Cobra. The ONLY time Cobra is the better option is if you have a major pre-existing condition.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Well then, no shit... if you are on Cobra and NOT looking for alternatives, then you are not quite right in the head. Cobra is typically twice as high as you would normally pay.

Go out and get a personal plan, hell even if you have minor pre-existing conditions you are likely to pay less than when on Cobra. The ONLY time Cobra is the better option is if you have a major pre-existing condition.

this is true

but we already know jarod is not right in the head

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

I hope it passes and cost go Way up. I'm about to buy someonsurand stocks.