Why won't Democrats repeal the individual mandate?

[Bfgrn]

The most important function of ACA is, apparently, to funnel money to the insurance industry. That's the one 'feature' the Dems won't budge on.

Parroting MORE faux news propaganda Poly?

Then explain this...

Medical Loss Ratio

Many insurance companies spend a substantial portion of consumers’ premium dollars on administrative costs and profits, including executive salaries, overhead, and marketing.

The Affordable Care Act requires health insurance issuers to submit data on the proportion of premium revenues spent on clinical services and quality improvement, also known as the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR). It also requires them to issue rebates to enrollees if this percentage does not meet minimum standards. MLR requires insurance companies to spend at least 80% or 85% of premium dollars on medical care, with the review provisions imposing tighter limits on health insurance rate increases. If they fail to meet these standards, the insurance companies will be required to provide a rebate to their customers starting in 2012.

 

[dblack]

The most important function of ACA is, apparently, to funnel money to the insurance industry. That's the one 'feature' the Dems won't budge on.

Parroting MORE faux news propaganda Poly?

Then explain this...

Medical Loss Ratio

Many insurance companies spend a substantial portion of consumers’ premium dollars on administrative costs and profits, including executive salaries, overhead, and marketing.

The Affordable Care Act requires health insurance issuers to submit data on the proportion of premium revenues spent on clinical services and quality improvement, also known as the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR). It also requires them to issue rebates to enrollees if this percentage does not meet minimum standards. MLR requires insurance companies to spend at least 80% or 85% of premium dollars on medical care, with the review provisions imposing tighter limits on health insurance rate increases. If they fail to meet these standards, the insurance companies will be required to provide a rebate to their customers starting in 2012.

Tell me you're joking. You really think the insurance lobby, having exercised enough clout to ram this fucker through despite all the opposition, will have any trouble controlling and manipulating the regulations to favor their interests? To put it another way, do you think we'll any chance competing with their interests in the eyes of Congress? How naive are you?

 

[Bfgrn]

The most important function of ACA is, apparently, to funnel money to the insurance industry. That's the one 'feature' the Dems won't budge on.

Parroting MORE faux news propaganda Poly?

Then explain this...

Medical Loss Ratio

Many insurance companies spend a substantial portion of consumers’ premium dollars on administrative costs and profits, including executive salaries, overhead, and marketing.

The Affordable Care Act requires health insurance issuers to submit data on the proportion of premium revenues spent on clinical services and quality improvement, also known as the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR). It also requires them to issue rebates to enrollees if this percentage does not meet minimum standards. MLR requires insurance companies to spend at least 80% or 85% of premium dollars on medical care, with the review provisions imposing tighter limits on health insurance rate increases. If they fail to meet these standards, the insurance companies will be required to provide a rebate to their customers starting in 2012.

Tell me you're joking. You really think the insurance lobby, having exercised enough clout to ram this fucker through despite all the opposition, will have any trouble controlling and manipulating the regulations to favor their interests? To put it another way, do you think we'll any chance competing with their interests in the eyes of Congress? How naive are you?

Listen you whining little turd, if you want 'free market' health care the private insurance cartels come with it. There is PLENTY in the ACA that is a bone in the throat for insurance cartels.

The REAL solution is to shut down private health insurance and implement a single payer government program like most industrialized nations. And it didn't turn any of those countries into socialists.

Are you in???? Or are you just going to have a tantrum because you can no longer be a parasite?

 

[dblack]

... if you want 'free market' health care the private insurance cartels come with it.

No. They don't. A government sanctioned cartel is the opposite of a free market.

The REAL solution is to shut down private health insurance and implement a single payer government program like most industrialized nations. And it didn't turn any of those countries into socialists.

Are you in????

It would be better than ACA. I'm not 'in' because I think it's still a shitty solution that dangerously centralizes control over our most basic needs. But it's a moot point. Democrats don't want that and didn't pass that kind of reform when they had the chance.

Fwiw, I know I'm not supposed to edit your quotes, but I'm going to continue chopping out the childish insults and slurs. If you don't like it, let me know. I can just ignore your posts if you prefer.

 

[Politico]

Looky here. Put all the dancing bill faux crap aside. Bottom line if it is sooooo great they would gave no trouble with amending the law and let it be voluntary. According to them everyone loves it so they will come in droves. But the truth is they know that won't happen. And that's a problem with Ponzi schemes. Without a constant influx of cash they collapse on themselves.

 

[BDBoop]

That didn't stop Obammy from changing said law for the unions. Your point?

Why are you suddenly incapable of typing his name correctly whenever somebody makes a point that pisses you off.

 

[Politico]

I am not pissed off. It is the internets. But I don't tolerate fools. If someone wants to have an honest debate I welcome it. Just don't blow smoke up my ass.

 

[Interpol]

Howard Dean had it right.

Because it's the law now. And because Republicans don't actually have anything better to offer.

And because it's the law now and negotiations on Obamacare are now closed.

I hope Republicans have a hard time accepting it and keep the House from voting on a CR, it'll only ensure their downfall next year, and I'll be happy to see this bunch go, because the Tea Party promised us a lot and I can't think of anything they actually did for me except make me bite the ends of my fingers off every time they rile up global markets with shutdown talk and talk of not raising the debt ceiling.

Having a political position that says, "Because we don't like having bills to pay, we refuse to pay them!" has to qualify as a mild form of retardation if you also believe that you're pro-business.

 

[Bfgrn]

... if you want 'free market' health care the private insurance cartels come with it.

No. They don't. A government sanctioned cartel is the opposite of a free market.

The REAL solution is to shut down private health insurance and implement a single payer government program like most industrialized nations. And it didn't turn any of those countries into socialists.

Are you in????

It would be better than ACA. I'm not 'in' because I think it's still a shitty solution that dangerously centralizes control over our most basic needs. But it's a moot point. Democrats don't want that and didn't pass that kind of reform when they had the chance.

Fwiw, I know I'm not supposed to edit your quotes, but I'm going to continue chopping out the childish insults and slurs. If you don't like it, let me know. I can just ignore your posts if you prefer.

Well at least we have identified your problem. You are a retard.

There is no 'free market' solution to health insurance...NONE.

Why?

There are people employed by insurance cartels whose sole job is to go over your health records with a fine tooth comb and find a loophole, a previous treatment for a mole, wart or something they can create a link to your current illness, and they get rewarded for finding and denying treatment.

THAT my naive friend is how a 'free market' works. Insurance companies are not in the healthcare business. They are in the PROFIT business. Denial of expensive treatments feed the bottom line.

Do you understand the keys to a market transaction? Do you understand the term 'leverage'? If one party in a market transaction has little or no leverage, it is NOT a free market. It is a captured market.

The whole basis of a 'free market' is the buyer has leverage, i.e. he/she can take his/her business elsewhere. That works perfectly fine when the stakes are 'things' (cars or TV sets etc). But a person's health is not a 'thing', and the consumer's stake is their very life. An unhappy consumer can go buys a different car or TV. If a person has a life threatening illness and is denied coverage for treatment, WHAT leverage does that person have...take their business elsewhere IN ANOTHER LIFE?

 

[BDBoop]

I am not pissed off. It is the internets. But I don't tolerate fools. If someone wants to have an honest debate I welcome it. Just don't blow smoke up my ass.

Or - what. You'll mangle the president's name? Phfft.

 

[Bfgrn]

Wendell Potter, who retired last April from his job as head of communications for the CIGNA health insurance company, has been in the news since then as a whistle-blowing critic of the insurance industry. Today I belatedly read his June 24 testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (see here) watched his July 10 interview with Bill Moyers (see here).

Potter is especially clear about the way short term considerations drive the behavior of for-profit insurers:

The top priority of for-profit companies is to drive up the value of their stock. Stocks fluctuate based on companies’ quarterly reports, which are discussed every three months in conference calls with investors and analysts. On these calls, Wall Street investors and analysts look for two key figures: earnings per share and the "medical-loss" ratio - the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits.

To win the favor of powerful analysts, for-profit insurers must prove that they made more money during the previous quarter than a year earlier and that the portion of the premium going to medical costs is falling. Even very profitable companies can see sharp declines in stock prices moments after admitting they’ve failed to trim medical costs. I have seen an insurer’s stock price fall 20 percent or more in a single day after executives disclosed that the company had to spend a slightly higher percentage of premiums on medical claims during the quarter than it did during a previous period. The smoking gun was the company’s first-quarter medical loss ratio, which had increased from 77.9% to 79.4% a year later.

Health Care Organizational Ethics: Wendell Potter on For-Profit Health Insurance

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That didn't stop Obammy form changing said law for the unions. Your point?

The point is that you, like most on the right, are clearly ignorant of how laws are passed and enforced.

If you believe the president failed to implement the ACA correctly, take him to court.

Otherwise, the Administration didn’t ‘change’ the law in any manner, only Congress can repeal or amend laws.

Actually, the GOP thought that Obama failed to implement the ACA correctly (calling it unconstitutional), and they DID take him to court.

Guess what? The SC ruled that it was constitutional.

And you're right, only Congress can change the law, but they haven't yet, all they've tried to do was repeal it 41 times (all of which failed).

I'm shocked that some people don't know it's an actual law, and has been for some time. Lots of low information types (aka FAUX Nooze viewers) have stated repeatedly that it's a bill.

Not so shocking when one considers the comprehensive ignorance of most conservatives.

What’s confusing many on the right is how provisions of the law come into effect at different times. They must incorrectly believe the ACA is a series of separate pieces of legislation, which it is not – it’s one single law that can only be repealed or amended by Congress.

For example, there’s an ignorant thread currently asking why ‘democrats’ don’t ‘repeal’ the IM.

The IM can’t be ‘repealed,’ it’s not ‘standalone’ legislation, and democrats can’t make changes to the ACA alone, that must be done by both Houses of Congress, where the ACA would be amended to remove the IM.

Of course the entire notion is idiocy given the fact the Supreme Court upheld the IM as Constitutional.

 

[Geaux4it]

The point is that you, like most on the right, are clearly ignorant of how laws are passed and enforced.

If you believe the president failed to implement the ACA correctly, take him to court.

Otherwise, the Administration didn’t ‘change’ the law in any manner, only Congress can repeal or amend laws.

Actually, the GOP thought that Obama failed to implement the ACA correctly (calling it unconstitutional), and they DID take him to court.

Guess what? The SC ruled that it was constitutional.

And you're right, only Congress can change the law, but they haven't yet, all they've tried to do was repeal it 41 times (all of which failed).

I'm shocked that some people don't know it's an actual law, and has been for some time. Lots of low information types (aka FAUX Nooze viewers) have stated repeatedly that it's a bill.

Not so shocking when one considers the comprehensive ignorance of most conservatives.

What’s confusing many on the right is how provisions of the law come into effect at different times. They must incorrectly believe the ACA is a series of separate pieces of legislation, which it is not – it’s one single law that can only be repealed or amended by Congress.

For example, there’s an ignorant thread currently asking why ‘democrats’ don’t ‘repeal’ the IM.

The IM can’t be ‘repealed,’ it’s not ‘standalone’ legislation, and democrats can’t make changes to the ACA alone, that must be done by both Houses of Congress, where the ACA would be amended to remove the IM.

Of course the entire notion is idiocy given the fact the Supreme Court upheld the IM as Constitutional.

Not all laws have to be enforced

If so, the border fence would have been completed

-Geaux

 

[dblack]

Howard Dean had it right.

Because it's the law now. And because Republicans don't actually have anything better to offer.

And because it's the law now and negotiations on Obamacare are now closed.

I hope Republicans have a hard time accepting it and keep the House from voting on a CR, it'll only ensure their downfall next year, and I'll be happy to see this bunch go, because the Tea Party promised us a lot and I can't think of anything they actually did for me except make me bite the ends of my fingers off every time they rile up global markets with shutdown talk and talk of not raising the debt ceiling.

Having a political position that says, "Because we don't like having bills to pay, we refuse to pay them!" has to qualify as a mild form of retardation if you also believe that you're pro-business.

That's all you got? 'Because Republicans ....'?

I could care less about the partisan pissing match. Selling us out to the insurance industry was a shitty thing to do.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The point is that you, like most on the right, are clearly ignorant of how laws are passed and enforced.

If you believe the president failed to implement the ACA correctly, take him to court.

Otherwise, the Administration didn’t ‘change’ the law in any manner, only Congress can repeal or amend laws.

Actually, the GOP thought that Obama failed to implement the ACA correctly (calling it unconstitutional), and they DID take him to court.

Guess what? The SC ruled that it was constitutional.

And you're right, only Congress can change the law, but they haven't yet, all they've tried to do was repeal it 41 times (all of which failed).

I'm shocked that some people don't know it's an actual law, and has been for some time. Lots of low information types (aka FAUX Nooze viewers) have stated repeatedly that it's a bill.

Not so shocking when one considers the comprehensive ignorance of most conservatives.

What’s confusing many on the right is how provisions of the law come into effect at different times. They must incorrectly believe the ACA is a series of separate pieces of legislation, which it is not – it’s one single law that can only be repealed or amended by Congress.

For example, there’s an ignorant thread currently asking why ‘democrats’ don’t ‘repeal’ the IM.

The IM can’t be ‘repealed,’ it’s not ‘standalone’ legislation, and democrats can’t make changes to the ACA alone, that must be done by both Houses of Congress, where the ACA would be amended to remove the IM.

Of course the entire notion is idiocy given the fact the Supreme Court upheld the IM as Constitutional.

As a tax. Is that how the bill was sold to the public? What's worse than lying politicians? Their devoted sycophants that will repeat those lies and cover them without shame.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[dblack]

Pretty pictures!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Looky here. Put all the dancing bill faux crap aside. Bottom line if it is sooooo great they would gave no trouble with amending the law and let it be voluntary. According to them everyone loves it so they will come in droves. But the truth is they know that won't happen. And that's a problem with Ponzi schemes. Without a constant influx of cash they collapse on themselves.

After you rw's look up the definitions of Socialism, Fascism, Marxism, Communism, would you also PLEASE look up the real definition of "ponzi scheme"?

Thanks ever so much.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Howard Dean had it right.

Because it's the law now. And because Republicans don't actually have anything better to offer.

And because it's the law now and negotiations on Obamacare are now closed.

I hope Republicans have a hard time accepting it and keep the House from voting on a CR, it'll only ensure their downfall next year, and I'll be happy to see this bunch go, because the Tea Party promised us a lot and I can't think of anything they actually did for me except make me bite the ends of my fingers off every time they rile up global markets with shutdown talk and talk of not raising the debt ceiling.

Having a political position that says, "Because we don't like having bills to pay, we refuse to pay them!" has to qualify as a mild form of retardation if you also believe that you're pro-business.

That's all you got? 'Because Republicans ....'?

I could care less about the partisan pissing match. Selling us out to the insurance industry was a shitty thing to do.

Which is exactly what the GObP/pubs want to continue.

ObamaCare does exactly the opposite.

 

[dblack]

Because it's the law now. And because Republicans don't actually have anything better to offer.

And because it's the law now and negotiations on Obamacare are now closed.

I hope Republicans have a hard time accepting it and keep the House from voting on a CR, it'll only ensure their downfall next year, and I'll be happy to see this bunch go, because the Tea Party promised us a lot and I can't think of anything they actually did for me except make me bite the ends of my fingers off every time they rile up global markets with shutdown talk and talk of not raising the debt ceiling.

Having a political position that says, "Because we don't like having bills to pay, we refuse to pay them!" has to qualify as a mild form of retardation if you also believe that you're pro-business.

That's all you got? 'Because Republicans ....'?

I could care less about the partisan pissing match. Selling us out to the insurance industry was a shitty thing to do.

Which is exactly what the GObP/pubs want to continue.

ObamaCare does exactly the opposite.

Google Liz Fowler.