3rd Largest Health Insurer Will Likely Pullout Of ACA

[dblack]

What I find interesting is that dblack's fellow travelers post things like "My premiums went up like a thousand percent" and "MY deductible is like a thousand times higher than it was"...without offering any proof, but not one of them can offer proof that they're paying more taxes.

Interesting, considering that income taxes are lower than they have been since the Reagan administration.

The only conclusion is that, like my neighbor's three-year-old, they're just howling because they're enamored of their own voices.

Wail on, dblack, wail on.

??? fellow travelers ???

Wow.... you're blaming me for what other people say?

No, I'm watching you try to pretend your opinions are unique all the world while simultaneously cozying up to anyone who cites the RW manifesto. Your best opinion is no opinion at all.

Alrighty then.

???

Can't see what you are posting against...so I'll just proceed.

Nothing worthwhile. I think they were supposed to be insults. But even less coherent than usual.

I find it interesting that Obamacare is not an issue in the current presidential race (from what I've paid attention to).

I think we've just conceded that neither candidate will touch it. If Johnson or Stein gain traction, it'll come up again.

 

[BlueGin]

(1) the company is not a major player in ACA, which you fail to point out

(2) other companies will happily pick up those customers, which you fail to point out

Yes it is

 

[Vandalshandle]

Anything that the government buy's, from paperclips to stealth bombers, is put out for competitive bids, EXCEPT pharmaceuticals for medicare. Their lobbyists have made it illegal for the government to negotiate those prices. This even applies to Glaxo, which is a British company.

Competative bids....you really don't buy that do you (pardon the pun).

You have to qualify as a bidder which takes a great many of the potential suppliers out of the picture. Next, you have the cost associated with bidding (all the paperwork) which runs up the price of the bids. Finally, bidders know when to actually compete and when to just provide a "courtesy bid" (a bid that is so stupidly high they know they will never get it).

Then there is the strategy that many large bidders follow which is to bid low and then make it up using change orders.

Then there is the fact that nobody is reviewing if there was even a need for what was being bid in the first place.

Sometimes this cost more than single sourcing.

BTW: How did lobbyists "make it illegal" ? Just curious. Probably know the answer, but I'll wait for your response.

I'm sure that you are right. The legislators did on their own, as sort of a surprise gift to the pharmacy lobbyists, who have always just contributed millions of dollars to the legislators' campaigns, all the while insisting that they were doing it for altruistic reasons, and refusing anything in return from the legislators, The legislators felt so guilty about all this largess from the lobbyists that they threw a surprise party for them and presented them with the law that prohibits the government to bargain for better prices on prescription drugs. The lobbyists were so embarrassed about the whole thing that they don't even want to talk about it.

Pharmaceuticals / Health Products | OpenSecrets

 

[JakeStarkey]

(1) the company is not a major player in ACA, which you fail to point out

(2) other companies will happily pick up those customers, which you fail to point out

Yes it is

Thank you for admitting I am right.

 

[BlueGin]

(1) the company is not a major player in ACA, which you fail to point out

(2) other companies will happily pick up those customers, which you fail to point out

Yes it is

Thank you for admitting I am right.

You are wrong

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Anything that the government buy's, from paperclips to stealth bombers, is put out for competitive bids, EXCEPT pharmaceuticals for medicare. Their lobbyists have made it illegal for the government to negotiate those prices. This even applies to Glaxo, which is a British company.

Competative bids....you really don't buy that do you (pardon the pun).

You have to qualify as a bidder which takes a great many of the potential suppliers out of the picture. Next, you have the cost associated with bidding (all the paperwork) which runs up the price of the bids. Finally, bidders know when to actually compete and when to just provide a "courtesy bid" (a bid that is so stupidly high they know they will never get it).

Then there is the strategy that many large bidders follow which is to bid low and then make it up using change orders.

Then there is the fact that nobody is reviewing if there was even a need for what was being bid in the first place.

Sometimes this cost more than single sourcing.

BTW: How did lobbyists "make it illegal" ? Just curious. Probably know the answer, but I'll wait for your response.

I'm sure that you are right. The legislators did on their own, as sort of a surprise gift to the pharmacy lobbyists, who have always just contributed millions of dollars to the legislators' campaigns, all the while insisting that they were doing it for altruistic reasons, and refusing anything in return from the legislators, The legislators felt so guilty about all this largess from the lobbyists that they threw a surprise party for them and presented them with the law that prohibits the government to bargain for better prices on prescription drugs. The lobbyists were so embarrassed about the whole thing that they don't even want to talk about it.

Pharmaceuticals / Health Products | OpenSecrets

What I am right about ?

I ASKED A QUESTION....you want to stay with that and keep out of the rabbit hole ?

Moron.

Lobbyists don't make anything legal or illegal. Legislators do.

Regardless of what transpires in between, it is the legislators who run for office and pass bills.

If I have that wrong, I am sure you'll point it out.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

(1) the company is not a major player in ACA, which you fail to point out

(2) other companies will happily pick up those customers, which you fail to point out

Yes it is

Thank you for admitting I am right.

You are wrong

Who is wrong ? AirInHead ?

Hint: You don't even need to say it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What I find interesting is that dblack's fellow travelers post things like "My premiums went up like a thousand percent" and "MY deductible is like a thousand times higher than it was"...without offering any proof, but not one of them can offer proof that they're paying more taxes.

Interesting, considering that income taxes are lower than they have been since the Reagan administration.

The only conclusion is that, like my neighbor's three-year-old, they're just howling because they're enamored of their own voices.

Wail on, dblack, wail on.

??? fellow travelers ???

Wow.... you're blaming me for what other people say?

No, I'm watching you try to pretend your opinions are unique all the world while simultaneously cozying up to anyone who cites the RW manifesto. Your best opinion is no opinion at all.

Alrighty then.

???

Can't see what you are posting against...so I'll just proceed.

Nothing worthwhile. I think they were supposed to be insults. But even less coherent than usual.

I find it interesting that Obamacare is not an issue in the current presidential race (from what I've paid attention to).

I think we've just conceded that neither candidate will touch it. If Johnson or Stein gain traction, it'll come up again.

Are Johnson or Stein saying anything about our huge spending ?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Anything that the government buy's, from paperclips to stealth bombers, is put out for competitive bids, EXCEPT pharmaceuticals for medicare. Their lobbyists have made it illegal for the government to negotiate those prices. This even applies to Glaxo, which is a British company.

Competative bids....you really don't buy that do you (pardon the pun).

You have to qualify as a bidder which takes a great many of the potential suppliers out of the picture. Next, you have the cost associated with bidding (all the paperwork) which runs up the price of the bids. Finally, bidders know when to actually compete and when to just provide a "courtesy bid" (a bid that is so stupidly high they know they will never get it).

Then there is the strategy that many large bidders follow which is to bid low and then make it up using change orders.

Then there is the fact that nobody is reviewing if there was even a need for what was being bid in the first place.

Sometimes this cost more than single sourcing.

BTW: How did lobbyists "make it illegal" ? Just curious. Probably know the answer, but I'll wait for your response.

I'm sure that you are right. The legislators did on their own, as sort of a surprise gift to the pharmacy lobbyists, who have always just contributed millions of dollars to the legislators' campaigns, all the while insisting that they were doing it for altruistic reasons, and refusing anything in return from the legislators, The legislators felt so guilty about all this largess from the lobbyists that they threw a surprise party for them and presented them with the law that prohibits the government to bargain for better prices on prescription drugs. The lobbyists were so embarrassed about the whole thing that they don't even want to talk about it.

Pharmaceuticals / Health Products | OpenSecrets

What I am right about ?

I ASKED A QUESTION....you want to stay with that and keep out of the rabbit hole ?

Moron.

Lobbyists don't make anything legal or illegal. Legislators do.

Regardless of what transpires in between, it is the legislators who run for office and pass bills.

If I have that wrong, I am sure you'll point it out.

Never mind, Sun. It all flew right over your head.......

 

[JakeStarkey]

(1) the company is not a major player in ACA, which you fail to point out

(2) other companies will happily pick up those customers, which you fail to point out

Yes it is

Thank you for admitting I am right.

You are wrong

Nope, I am right.

The company is not a major player and other companies will pick up the slack.

 

[dblack]

??? fellow travelers ???

Wow.... you're blaming me for what other people say?

No, I'm watching you try to pretend your opinions are unique all the world while simultaneously cozying up to anyone who cites the RW manifesto. Your best opinion is no opinion at all.

Alrighty then.

???

Can't see what you are posting against...so I'll just proceed.

Nothing worthwhile. I think they were supposed to be insults. But even less coherent than usual.

I find it interesting that Obamacare is not an issue in the current presidential race (from what I've paid attention to).

I think we've just conceded that neither candidate will touch it. If Johnson or Stein gain traction, it'll come up again.

Are Johnson or Stein saying anything about our huge spending ?

I assume so. I know they are both opposed to ACA, and I think both would actually do something about it, albeit in radically different directions.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Anything that the government buy's, from paperclips to stealth bombers, is put out for competitive bids, EXCEPT pharmaceuticals for medicare. Their lobbyists have made it illegal for the government to negotiate those prices. This even applies to Glaxo, which is a British company.

Competative bids....you really don't buy that do you (pardon the pun).

You have to qualify as a bidder which takes a great many of the potential suppliers out of the picture. Next, you have the cost associated with bidding (all the paperwork) which runs up the price of the bids. Finally, bidders know when to actually compete and when to just provide a "courtesy bid" (a bid that is so stupidly high they know they will never get it).

Then there is the strategy that many large bidders follow which is to bid low and then make it up using change orders.

Then there is the fact that nobody is reviewing if there was even a need for what was being bid in the first place.

Sometimes this cost more than single sourcing.

BTW: How did lobbyists "make it illegal" ? Just curious. Probably know the answer, but I'll wait for your response.

I'm sure that you are right. The legislators did on their own, as sort of a surprise gift to the pharmacy lobbyists, who have always just contributed millions of dollars to the legislators' campaigns, all the while insisting that they were doing it for altruistic reasons, and refusing anything in return from the legislators, The legislators felt so guilty about all this largess from the lobbyists that they threw a surprise party for them and presented them with the law that prohibits the government to bargain for better prices on prescription drugs. The lobbyists were so embarrassed about the whole thing that they don't even want to talk about it.

Pharmaceuticals / Health Products | OpenSecrets

What I am right about ?

I ASKED A QUESTION....you want to stay with that and keep out of the rabbit hole ?

Moron.

Lobbyists don't make anything legal or illegal. Legislators do.

Regardless of what transpires in between, it is the legislators who run for office and pass bills.

If I have that wrong, I am sure you'll point it out.

Never mind, Sun. It all flew right over your head.......

Sorry....but you don't get to blame lobbyists for what legislators do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anything that the government buy's, from paperclips to stealth bombers, is put out for competitive bids, EXCEPT pharmaceuticals for medicare. Their lobbyists have made it illegal for the government to negotiate those prices. This even applies to Glaxo, which is a British company.

Of course lobbyists can be blamed for what their legislators do. Anyone says differently does not believe in accountability.

Competative bids....you really don't buy that do you (pardon the pun).

You have to qualify as a bidder which takes a great many of the potential suppliers out of the picture. Next, you have the cost associated with bidding (all the paperwork) which runs up the price of the bids. Finally, bidders know when to actually compete and when to just provide a "courtesy bid" (a bid that is so stupidly high they know they will never get it).

Then there is the strategy that many large bidders follow which is to bid low and then make it up using change orders.

Then there is the fact that nobody is reviewing if there was even a need for what was being bid in the first place.

Sometimes this cost more than single sourcing.

BTW: How did lobbyists "make it illegal" ? Just curious. Probably know the answer, but I'll wait for your response.

I'm sure that you are right. The legislators did on their own, as sort of a surprise gift to the pharmacy lobbyists, who have always just contributed millions of dollars to the legislators' campaigns, all the while insisting that they were doing it for altruistic reasons, and refusing anything in return from the legislators, The legislators felt so guilty about all this largess from the lobbyists that they threw a surprise party for them and presented them with the law that prohibits the government to bargain for better prices on prescription drugs. The lobbyists were so embarrassed about the whole thing that they don't even want to talk about it.

Pharmaceuticals / Health Products | OpenSecrets

What I am right about ?

I ASKED A QUESTION....you want to stay with that and keep out of the rabbit hole ?

Moron.

Lobbyists don't make anything legal or illegal. Legislators do.

Regardless of what transpires in between, it is the legislators who run for office and pass bills.

If I have that wrong, I am sure you'll point it out.

Never mind, Sun. It all flew right over your head.......

Sorry....but you don't get to blame lobbyists for what legislators do.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

No, I'm watching you try to pretend your opinions are unique all the world while simultaneously cozying up to anyone who cites the RW manifesto. Your best opinion is no opinion at all.

Alrighty then.

???

Can't see what you are posting against...so I'll just proceed.

Nothing worthwhile. I think they were supposed to be insults. But even less coherent than usual.

I find it interesting that Obamacare is not an issue in the current presidential race (from what I've paid attention to).

I think we've just conceded that neither candidate will touch it. If Johnson or Stein gain traction, it'll come up again.

Are Johnson or Stein saying anything about our huge spending ?

I assume so. I know they are both opposed to ACA, and I think both would actually do something about it, albeit in radically different directions.

It's the spending piece that seems to be the 800# gorilla in the room.

It's been a year or so, but it used to be that we spend 30% of all health care on people in their last year of life.

That's a tough conversation.

But one that needs to take place.

 

[dblack]

Alrighty then.

???

Can't see what you are posting against...so I'll just proceed.

Nothing worthwhile. I think they were supposed to be insults. But even less coherent than usual.

I find it interesting that Obamacare is not an issue in the current presidential race (from what I've paid attention to).

I think we've just conceded that neither candidate will touch it. If Johnson or Stein gain traction, it'll come up again.

Are Johnson or Stein saying anything about our huge spending ?

I assume so. I know they are both opposed to ACA, and I think both would actually do something about it, albeit in radically different directions.

It's the spending piece that seems to be the 800# gorilla in the room.

It's been a year or so, but it used to be that we spend 30% of all health care on people in their last year of life.

That's a tough conversation.

But one that needs to take place.

It probably does, but it shouldn't be a government decision. If families want to squander their wealth keeping grandma alive a few more weeks, that's their business.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Alrighty then.

???

Can't see what you are posting against...so I'll just proceed.

Nothing worthwhile. I think they were supposed to be insults. But even less coherent than usual.

I find it interesting that Obamacare is not an issue in the current presidential race (from what I've paid attention to).

I think we've just conceded that neither candidate will touch it. If Johnson or Stein gain traction, it'll come up again.

Are Johnson or Stein saying anything about our huge spending ?

I assume so. I know they are both opposed to ACA, and I think both would actually do something about it, albeit in radically different directions.

It's the spending piece that seems to be the 800# gorilla in the room.

It's been a year or so, but it used to be that we spend 30% of all health care on people in their last year of life.

That's a tough conversation.

But one that needs to take place.

I knew you were for corporatist-based death panels.

 

[Arianrhod]

Can't see what you are posting against...so I'll just proceed.

Nothing worthwhile. I think they were supposed to be insults. But even less coherent than usual.

I find it interesting that Obamacare is not an issue in the current presidential race (from what I've paid attention to).

I think we've just conceded that neither candidate will touch it. If Johnson or Stein gain traction, it'll come up again.

Are Johnson or Stein saying anything about our huge spending ?

I assume so. I know they are both opposed to ACA, and I think both would actually do something about it, albeit in radically different directions.

It's the spending piece that seems to be the 800# gorilla in the room.

It's been a year or so, but it used to be that we spend 30% of all health care on people in their last year of life.

That's a tough conversation.

But one that needs to take place.

It probably does, but it shouldn't be a government decision. If families want to squander their wealth keeping grandma alive a few more weeks, that's their business.

If Grandma is sound of mind, the choice should be hers, I'd think. Families make decisions out of guilt. Most elderly people would rather be free of pain than spends months or years hooked up to machines that keep them alive.

Then there are all those younger people with terminal illnesses. Who has the right to decide for them?

 

[Arianrhod]

Can't see what you are posting against...so I'll just proceed.

Nothing worthwhile. I think they were supposed to be insults. But even less coherent than usual.

I find it interesting that Obamacare is not an issue in the current presidential race (from what I've paid attention to).

I think we've just conceded that neither candidate will touch it. If Johnson or Stein gain traction, it'll come up again.

Are Johnson or Stein saying anything about our huge spending ?

I assume so. I know they are both opposed to ACA, and I think both would actually do something about it, albeit in radically different directions.

It's the spending piece that seems to be the 800# gorilla in the room.

It's been a year or so, but it used to be that we spend 30% of all health care on people in their last year of life.

That's a tough conversation.

But one that needs to take place.

I knew you were for corporatist-based death panels.

 

[Arianrhod]

Anything that the government buy's, from paperclips to stealth bombers, is put out for competitive bids, EXCEPT pharmaceuticals for medicare. Their lobbyists have made it illegal for the government to negotiate those prices. This even applies to Glaxo, which is a British company.

Competative bids....you really don't buy that do you (pardon the pun).

You have to qualify as a bidder which takes a great many of the potential suppliers out of the picture. Next, you have the cost associated with bidding (all the paperwork) which runs up the price of the bids. Finally, bidders know when to actually compete and when to just provide a "courtesy bid" (a bid that is so stupidly high they know they will never get it).

Then there is the strategy that many large bidders follow which is to bid low and then make it up using change orders.

Then there is the fact that nobody is reviewing if there was even a need for what was being bid in the first place.

Sometimes this cost more than single sourcing.

BTW: How did lobbyists "make it illegal" ? Just curious. Probably know the answer, but I'll wait for your response.

I'm sure that you are right. The legislators did on their own, as sort of a surprise gift to the pharmacy lobbyists, who have always just contributed millions of dollars to the legislators' campaigns, all the while insisting that they were doing it for altruistic reasons, and refusing anything in return from the legislators, The legislators felt so guilty about all this largess from the lobbyists that they threw a surprise party for them and presented them with the law that prohibits the government to bargain for better prices on prescription drugs. The lobbyists were so embarrassed about the whole thing that they don't even want to talk about it.

Pharmaceuticals / Health Products | OpenSecrets

What I am right about ?

I ASKED A QUESTION....you want to stay with that and keep out of the rabbit hole ?

Moron.

Lobbyists don't make anything legal or illegal. Legislators do.

Regardless of what transpires in between, it is the legislators who run for office and pass bills.

If I have that wrong, I am sure you'll point it out.

So you're saying bribery is cool.

 

[Vandalshandle]