Jump to content
Merry Christmas to you John and everyone revisiting this thread. Those on this thread have some real differences, but I purport to set them aside and move on.
I was actually referring to Joe's negative "I am a victim and can't do anything about it" type of wisdom. But you probably agree with him. I am blown away by the defeatism. There are positive things happening, but if all one sees is negativism, then that defines ones life. That is the press you will believe. That is the outcome you are essentially ensuring. It takes a lot of positive people to counteract this force.
All the best...
Ok then. Thanks for the wisdom.
I find myself surprisingly in agreement with most of what you say above. The govt corruption by moneyed interests is sickening. And I am all about exposing how the public is defrauded by this activity. However... the guardian article is way off base.
First... the Guardian is saying how there was no public option for healthcare because industry reps were involved in writing the Act. Really? As most have said in this set of commentaries, they don't want a public option.
Second... the article and Bill Moyers ascribes evil motivation to the people involved in writing the Act, because they come from the insurance industry. One can easily generalize and make this bad assumption. But the facts are quite different. Fowler came from the industry (only 2 years) but wanted desperately to change it. Her motivations were pure. Read about her in other articles (even one link in the guardian article shows her in a highly favorable light). The profits of her ex-employer (Wellpoint) are much lower after 2010, and the long term fix is in place to limit insurance company profits by a very specific formula to which I have referred before. So Fowler is no Industry puppet.
Also in 2010, 75% of the money Wellpoint spent via lobbyists and PACs went to Republicans to fight the Act being passed.
Hmmm... the analogy doesn't work.
The minimum medical loss ratio requirement in the ACA means the payout for medical expenses must be at least 80-85% (private vs group policies) of the sum of the policy premiums. This defines how much room a company has for "expenses", employee benefits, perks, and executive salaries. Your widget story is completely off base for the ACA situation.
I will take that bet. The whole point of the Act is to reduce profiteering and to make insurance coverage affordable.
One of the provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is that it limits the profits of health insurance companies. The ACA imposes a minimum medical loss ratio (MLR) on all insurers. The MLR is the amount of money spent on covered person medical care divided by the total revenue received through premiums.
The ACA requires health insurers in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of their premiums (after subtracting taxes and regulatory fees) on medical costs. The corresponding figure for large groups is 85 percent. According to a recent Kaiser tracking poll, 60 percent of the public views the MLR concept favorably, although only 38 percent was aware that the provision is in the ACA. Insurance brokers may be getting squeezed for insurers to meet this amount.
Mark. Wow. I hardly know how or whether to respond. You lack any reasonable frame of reference. Your responses make you sound like a hillbilly hermit that has withdrawn from society. I don't think I can deal with that.
Before I sign off, I will just make you aware that you will not get all treatments you might need to prolong your life from a hospital for free. If you have cancer and require Chemotherapy, Radiation Therapy, Targeted Therapy or Transplantation... If you need a major surgery, hospice care, palliative care... if you need long term medical care... good luck with the free service expectation.
If you don't know why antitrust legislation was needed to be introduced by the govt, I can't converse with you.
If you don't know how to quantify "reasonable profits", you are simply removed from reality and don't seem to care to rejoin by asking questions.
I am signing off from you and wish you all the best in your existence.
The message you repeat is that of the lobbyists and shills. The govt is going to manage your heart surgery... really. I can't believe that you really think that. But the insurance industry loves having you out there tooting their horn. They pay good money for that. What about the fictional death squads?
Nobody touts that the more govt involvement the better, so stop attributing that to anybody of any party. Everybody generally thinks profit is great. I love profits. If this were Hollywood, sports, automotive, or plumbing supply profits there would be no discussion and I would join in applauding the company's fine efforts. So stop attributing that to people you don't know.
Analogous to antitrust laws, government does need to be involved where private entities become abusive or as a whole are doing something counter to the best interest of society. Healthcare differs from Hollywood. You can choose not to go to a movie. For many people insurance is life or death. For many management teams it is a labor contract clause to provide health insurance. The union doesn't care about the cost, and the Insurance company knows that, so they jack the price 25% year over year. People that have paid premiums for 30 years suddenly get cancer so they become unprofitable... they get dropped. No other Insurance company will pick them up due to existing conditions. The person dies, or loses their home trying to pay the medical bills. These examples could be you or your neighbors. It is real and it is happening. Most reasonable people would say maybe the govt is appropriately getting involved in the way they are. The insurance and the providers are still for the most part private, and they are allowed reasonable profits.
I want to address insurance company profitability.
Example: Anthem Blue Cross (A Colorado provider)
They are owned by Wellpoint Health Networks. WellPoint, Inc. is the largest managed health care, for-profit company in the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. Use financial info for stock code WLP.
2005, Net Income = $2.46 Billion (5.5% of Sales)
2009, Net Income = $4.75Billion (7.3% of Sales)
Then Net Income dropped…
2010, Net Income = $2.89 Billion (4.9% of Sales)
2011, Net Income = $2.65 Billion (4.4% of Sales)
2012, Net Income = $2.66 Billion (4.3% of Sales)
For those of you not used to looking at financial performance numbers, looking at Net Income as a percent of Sales can be deceiving. An increase from 5.5% to 7.3% looks like less than 2 percentage points, big deal. It is a huge deal. I invite you to search for stories about this company during the years of interest. You will find public reports of highly aggressive price increases, cancellation of policies for those needing healthcare coverage the worst, several state lawsuits regarding price gouging, and on and on.
This company spent 2.3 Million dollars to influence politicians to kill the ACA in 2010.
Last login: Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |