Billy, Wyldeman...Consider it an early Christmas present.
"That would be the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care.
This is the true ‘bomb’ contained in Obamacare and the one item that will have more impact on the future of how medical care is paid for in this country than anything we’ve seen in quite some time. Indeed, it is this aspect of the law that represents the true ‘death panel’ found in Obamacare—but not one that is going to lead to the death of American consumers. Rather, the medical loss ration will, ultimately, lead to the death of large parts of the private, for-profit health insurance industry.
Why? Because there is absolutely no way for-profit health insurers are going to be able to learn how to get by and still make a profit while being forced to spend at least 80 percent of their receipts providing their customers with the coverage for which they paid. If they could, we likely would never have seen the extraordinary efforts made by these companies to avoid paying benefits to their customers at the very moment they need it the most."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...day-halleluja/
- F-Sharp
- 12-02-2011, 11:31 PM
- kingorpawn
- 12-03-2011, 12:43 AM
Obama-care has always been an attack on the Insurance companies and little with health care. Obama's goal has always been to get rid of the health insurance companies and eventually create a universal health care plan. He already cut 500 million from medicare to pay for Obama-care. He's also targeting medicaid too. He's goal is to eventually get rid of both and move people towards Obama-care. He took over the federal student loan program to use the interest earned to pay for Obama-care. His estimate was 15yrs to make universal healthcare in the US.
- kingorpawn
- 12-03-2011, 12:47 AM
Of course, its not like health insurance companies have always
done things in the best interest of the people either.
done things in the best interest of the people either.
- F-Sharp
- 12-03-2011, 12:54 AM
- kingorpawn
- 12-03-2011, 01:22 AM
- kingorpawn
- 12-03-2011, 01:37 AM
By taking over the student loan program which is part of Obama's healthcare law or Obama-Care
"The government estimates it will save $61 billion over 10 years because it has a lower cost of funds than the banks it is replacing and won't have to pay them a subsidy. Some of that money will go toward Pell grants for needy students, community colleges and minority-serving colleges. The rest will go to other uses including deficit reduction and health care reform."
"The government estimates it will save $61 billion over 10 years because it has a lower cost of funds than the banks it is replacing and won't have to pay them a subsidy. Some of that money will go toward Pell grants for needy students, community colleges and minority-serving colleges. The rest will go to other uses including deficit reduction and health care reform."
- F-Sharp
- 12-03-2011, 09:58 AM
Some of that money will go toward Pell grants for needy students, community colleges and minority-serving colleges. The rest will go to other uses including deficit reduction and health care reform. Originally Posted by kingorpawnI am always entertained when people speculate on how government money is allocated and spent. You do realize that the government pays its bills from one single general fund right?
Here's some other uses for that money. They only left out a few small items...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/winning-th...ractive-budget
- theaustinescorts
- 12-03-2011, 04:22 PM
No matter what the payment system is, health care in the US will consume more and more of the economy because of the crimes of the providers - pharma, hospitals, device manufacturers and MDs.
Most medical "treatments" and "screenings" and "tests" are unnecessary [including vaccinations].
At a minimum what's needed is to return to the pre-1980s insurance system where insurance only covered hosptialization, and everyone had to reach into their own pockets for everything else.
That's what kept the blank check closed.
The problem was the fraud of the "preventive care" movement of the 1970s which sold the idea that money could be saved by paying for every office visit anyone wanted to make.
ps....
Is it true that the average American dog owner spends over $700 yearly on vet bills? The radio says so.
Most medical "treatments" and "screenings" and "tests" are unnecessary [including vaccinations].
At a minimum what's needed is to return to the pre-1980s insurance system where insurance only covered hosptialization, and everyone had to reach into their own pockets for everything else.
That's what kept the blank check closed.
The problem was the fraud of the "preventive care" movement of the 1970s which sold the idea that money could be saved by paying for every office visit anyone wanted to make.
ps....
Is it true that the average American dog owner spends over $700 yearly on vet bills? The radio says so.
- kingorpawn
- 12-03-2011, 05:10 PM
No matter what the payment system is, health care in the US will consume more and more of the economy because of the crimes of the providers - pharma, hospitals, device manufacturers and MDs.
Most medical "treatments" and "screenings" and "tests" are unnecessary [including vaccinations].
At a minimum what's needed is to return to the pre-1980s insurance system where insurance only covered hosptialization, and everyone had to reach into their own pockets for everything else.
That's what kept the blank check closed.
The problem was the fraud of the "preventive care" movement of the 1970s which sold the idea that money could be saved by paying for every office visit anyone wanted to make.
ps....
Is it true that the average American dog owner spends over $700 yearly on vet bills? The radio says so. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts
I'm agreeing with Mr. TAE again!!! I have family in the medical industry and I have been around nurses and doctors my whole life. One of them told me clearly years ago: "A hospital is no different then a corporation. We are here to make money. We'll try to fix your health problems, but its not our job to prevent them. That's your job." The pharmaceutical companies lobbied hard for Obama-care because they are going to sell more drugs. David Axelrod, former senior advisor to Obama, former partners were paid millions to provide ads for pharmaceutical companies support of Obamacare.
- Gentleman
- 12-03-2011, 05:19 PM
Is it true that the average American dog owner spends over $700 yearly on vet bills? The radio says so. Originally Posted by theaustinescortsBefore we lost our dog, we were spending about 4k a year on her after she was diagnosed with Lupus, but we could afford it. She was our son's dog before we lost him so it was def worth it to us!
Between the wife and I our insurance costs about 12k a year.... But I would rather pay that than have the government deciding my health care needs!
G
- WyldemanATX
- 12-03-2011, 06:00 PM
The government is so great at running things just look at the USPS....
- F-Sharp
- 12-03-2011, 06:37 PM
The government is so great at running things just look at the USPS.... Originally Posted by Wyldeman30Well, let's see... The postal service was established in 1792 and has been run completely independent of tax payer dollars since the 80's. So let's recap...in business 211 years and is still running independently despite the modernization of electronic communication, and more dependable than either UPS of FedEx in my experience. Yes, I would say pretty fucking great.
Perhaps you should try again? Maybe this time you can try some dimwitted, misguided crack at the Navy. They've only been around since 1798.
- WyldemanATX
- 12-03-2011, 06:59 PM
They are going bankrupt and shutting down locations.....Fed ex and UPS both can guarantee next day delivery.
- Guest040616
- 12-03-2011, 07:32 PM
Well, let's see... The postal service was established in 1792 and has been run completely independent of tax payer dollars since the 80's. So let's recap...in business 211 years and is still running independently despite the modernization of electronic communication, and more dependable than either UPS of FedEx in my experience. Yes, I would say pretty fucking great.Don't pay any attention to Wylde Bird. He doesn't know any better.
Perhaps you should try again? Maybe this time you can try some dimwitted, misguided crack at the Navy. They've only been around since 1798.
He is merely repeating the recycled RNC/Faux News/Rush talking points!
- kingorpawn
- 12-03-2011, 11:26 PM
The USPS couldn't adapt to changing times because of a lot of different factors. There are laws that force the USPS to operate a certain way which can only be changed with congressional approval and their business model doesn't work as well in this changing times. Changes in technology also hurt it such as email. Payroll and benefits also takes a huge part of their budget. They didn't do a good job of competing price wise with UPS for parcel shipping because they(USPS) had plenty of mail volume to work with and they(USPS) weren't able to adjust to the coming changes.
The funny thing is that if it wasn't for junk mail, the USPS would probably be out of business, but on the other hand junk mail gets subsidized and if they(USPS) would handle junk mail differently they might be able to make a profit.
They'll be around for a while. They economy still needs them they just won't be as relevant as in the past.
The funny thing is that if it wasn't for junk mail, the USPS would probably be out of business, but on the other hand junk mail gets subsidized and if they(USPS) would handle junk mail differently they might be able to make a profit.
They'll be around for a while. They economy still needs them they just won't be as relevant as in the past.