OMG - another ACA lie from HuffPo

[Luddly Neddite]

Obamacare Health Insurance Rules Saved Customers $1.5 Billion Last Year: Study

The health care law enacted by President Barack Obama requires that health insurance companies selling plans to individual consumers spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they collect on medical care. Health insurance companies selling plans to groups of at least 50 people, such as employers offering benefits to workers, must spend 85 percent of premiums on medical care. Companies that fail to meet these standards under the so-called medical loss ratio rule must refund the difference to their customers.

Here's the study -

Insurers' Responses to Regulation of Medical Loss Ratios - The Commonwealth Fund

I know this won't stop the incessant and childishly stooopid lied from the rw's but, wth, who cares. Not me. What I care about is that I'm getting better coverage for less money and, unlike the lazy ass rw's, I'm paying for my own insurance.

 

[Oddball]

Yippy skippy...The feds dictating profit margins for private businesses.

Hope you're not too disappointed when you find out that Mao jackets only come in gray.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

That's an idiotic comment but since you're a good little "capitalist", you'll be sending your refund back.

Good for you.

 

[Amelia]

Informative links. Thanks.

The ACA driving insurers out of the market, forcing people to choose new insurers, and likely new doctors.

Another notch in the belt of the liar-in-chief.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Informative links. Thanks.

The ACA driving insurers out of the market, forcing people to choose new insurers, and likely new doctors.

Another notch in the belt of the liar-in-chief.

LOL

I do admire the rws' talent for writing fiction and then telling themselves its fact.

 

[Amelia]

Informative links. Thanks.

The ACA driving insurers out of the market, forcing people to choose new insurers, and likely new doctors.

Another notch in the belt of the liar-in-chief.

LOL

I do admire the rws' talent for writing fiction and then telling themselves its fact.

From your link:

Although these consumers benefited in the short-term, negative profit margins are cause for concern, the researchers cautioned. If insurance companies can't profit from selling products to individuals, or can't make large enough profits selling to groups to offset other losses, then it could become harder to find coverage in the future, the report said.

"Going forward, if insurers are not able to balance overall profitability in this manner, some might choose to withdraw from less-profitable market segments, which could leave consumers with fewer choices as well as higher premiums," McCue and Hall wrote.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Luddly:
1. That's good if it means people are paying for their OWN health care, and getting refunds if they don't use what they paid in. What's questioned is people paying for OTHER people's health care without the same level of accountability and standards the payer believes in.

So for example, Luddly, where I believe in FREE spiritual healing to cut the costs of addiction, recovery from abuse and cancer, etc. I would still be required to pay into a system where it is becoming legal for people to smoke pot and run up medical costs for complications of cancer, psychological dependency, and other symptoms that 'could have been' eliminated by using spiritual healing for free instead of addictive substances.

How do you fix that Luddly, without changing the opt out requirements to include beliefs like mine that are DISCRIMINATED against by this bill, where govt is regulating religion?

2. As for paying for your own insurance, the Conservatives I know who are against the ACA DO agree that everyone should have equal choice and responsibility for paying for their own way. Quit making a straw man argument out of this, just so you can shoot down your own argument.

If you are saying that people are lying and basically DO want the govt to keep paying their medical care, then the complaint is mutual.

3. As for getting better coverage for the money, USAA was already top in service WITHOUT govt regulation imposing on the free market. So this and other charitable companies were already PROOF that insurance providers could work on an equitable basis, including paying back dividends, WITHOUT federal mandates forcing them to.

Luddly this is like the prolife prochoice argument.

I believe people can choose to prevent abortion better WITHOUT making it illegal or criminalizing/penalizing people for abortions.

Same here, I believe people can provide better means of health care services by FREE choice, i.e. WITHOUT mandating how this is done through federal regulations people disagree with.

Luddly, do you really NEED the govt to tell you to do the right thing before you do it?

The people I know who believe in taking responsibility do so WITHOUT depending on govt.
THAT is the difference, Luddly.

Do you get it?

People CHOOSING to buy insurance or CHOOSING to fund medical education and charitable service programs FREELY in order to take responsibility.

vs.

People DEPENDING on govt to force them or regulate the medical system
which then PRECLUDES spiritual therapies and treatments that cannot
be legislated or regulated by govt so this causes a conflict.

Do you not trust people to take responsibility? Why not?

Especially if we trust people with the choice of something as serious as abortion,
why do you NOT trust someone with the choice of funding their own health care?

Obamacare Health Insurance Rules Saved Customers $1.5 Billion Last Year: Study

The health care law enacted by President Barack Obama requires that health insurance companies selling plans to individual consumers spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they collect on medical care. Health insurance companies selling plans to groups of at least 50 people, such as employers offering benefits to workers, must spend 85 percent of premiums on medical care. Companies that fail to meet these standards under the so-called medical loss ratio rule must refund the difference to their customers.

Here's the study -

Insurers' Responses to Regulation of Medical Loss Ratios - The Commonwealth Fund

I know this won't stop the incessant and childishly stooopid lied from the rw's but, wth, who cares. Not me. What I care about is that I'm getting better coverage for less money and, unlike the lazy ass rw's, I'm paying for my own insurance.

The "lazy ass rw" I know would rather invest in building charity hospitals to provide services for free instead of relying on govt funded by forced mandates into a bureucratic system that isn't free.

Do you just not know anyone who is responsible and that is why you think this way?

 

[Mad Scientist]

That's an idiotic comment but since you're a good little "capitalist", you'll be sending your refund back.

Good for you.

That's your problem right there: You think all money belongs to the Gov't. It doesn't The Gov't has no money until it steals it from someone.

I NEVER send a refund back because they never should have taken my money in the first place.

 

[Sallow]

Informative links. Thanks.

The ACA driving insurers out of the market, forcing people to choose new insurers, and likely new doctors.

Another notch in the belt of the liar-in-chief.

"Insurers" were the main part of the problem.

The "bottom line" didn't include keeping people alive.

And..that's a problem.

 

[Sallow]

That's an idiotic comment but since you're a good little "capitalist", you'll be sending your refund back.

Good for you.

That's your problem right there: You think all money belongs to the Gov't. It doesn't The Gov't has no money until it steals it from someone.

I NEVER send a refund back because they never should have taken my money in the first place.

The government makes the money in the first place.

No really..literally makes it.

As in mints it.

Check the Constitution. You might have an epiphany.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

That's an idiotic comment but since you're a good little "capitalist", you'll be sending your refund back.

Good for you.

That's your problem right there: You think all money belongs to the Gov't. It doesn't The Gov't has no money until it steals it from someone.

I NEVER send a refund back because they never should have taken my money in the first place.

The government makes the money in the first place.

No really..literally makes it.

As in mints it.

Check the Constitution. You might have an epiphany.

Amazingly, he doesn't seem to understand that it is the insurance companies that took his money and are now refunding his money that they spent in things other than his care.

Rw's are so damn dense but I don't mind that they want to throw their own money away.

But, I do mind when they demand to throw away my money too.

 

[Political Junky]

That's your problem right there: You think all money belongs to the Gov't. It doesn't The Gov't has no money until it steals it from someone.

I NEVER send a refund back because they never should have taken my money in the first place.

The government makes the money in the first place.

No really..literally makes it.

As in mints it.

Check the Constitution. You might have an epiphany.

Amazingly, he doesn't seem to understand that it is the insurance companies that took his money and are now refunding his money that they spent in things other than his care.

Rw's are so damn dense but I don't mind that they want to throw their own money away.

But, I do mind when they demand to throw away my money too.

Health Care CEO's Lavish Pay Package Shows How the 1% Get Paid - Business - The Atlantic Wire


John Hammergren, the CEO of health-care giant McKesson Corp., made $46 million last year thanks to one of the most generous executive pay packages in his, or any other business. Gary Rivlin of The Daily Beast has a breakdown of some of the outrageous provisions that contribute to Hammergren's outrageous wealth including some figures that at least one compensation consultant calls "excessive." When someone whose job is to craft multi-million dollar pay packages for corporate CEOs thinks you're overpaid, you're probably overpaid.

Hammergren is not the richest or even the highest-paid CEO in the world, but the structure of his compensation is raising eyebrows even in the already outsized world of the 1%. He took over McKesson, a firm that specializes in supplying presrciption drugs to pharmacies, in 1999 after a fraud scandal took out of many of the company's top executives. Since that time he's been paid nearly $500 million as the CEO and Chairman of the Board.

His salary is a modest $1.66 million a year, but he also gets annual cash bonuses of between $10 million and $13 million. His perks are many and lavish, including a company car and chauffeur, unlimited personal use of the firm's corporate jet, and a generous pension plan not available to rank-and-file employees. (Their pension program was canceled in 1997.) Last year, McKesson contributed $13 million to Hammergren's retirement fund, which if he walked away tomorrow, would be worth $125 million.

Then there's the stock grants and options, a standard form of compensation at most corporations, but one that McKesson has used with reckless abandon. Hammergren owns $129 million in McKesson stock, plus another 1 million in options that have yet to vest. (In 2011, he received $12 million in stock and another $7 million worth of options in his pay.) Oh, but don't worry. According to Rivlin, the company paid him $483,000 last year to make up for the dividends Hammergren didn't earn because he doesn't own the stock yet.

And then there’s a provision so outsize it’s drawn the attention of corporate-governance watchdogs like GMI, the research group that put Hammergren in the top spot of its latest survey of CEO salaries. If Hammergren loses his job due to a change in ownership, he receives an immediate $469 million payout, GMI found—giving him perverse incentive to see it happen.
In other words, despite all the money that McKesson gives him each every year, Hammergren stands to make even more if he can find a way to sell the company to someone else.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

His salary is a modest $1.66 million a year, but he also gets annual cash bonuses of between $10 million and $13 million. His perks are many and lavish, including a company car and chauffeur, unlimited personal use of the firm's corporate jet, and a generous pension plan not available to rank-and-file employees. (Their pension program was canceled in 1997.) Last year, McKesson contributed $13 million to Hammergren's retirement fund, which if he walked away tomorrow, would be worth $125 million.

No wonder rw's don't want to take refunds back from their insurance companies. I mean, its cruel and inhuman to expect a CEO to eke by on such a piddly amount of money.

And, of course, the rw's will agree that the minions, the worker bees, the SERFS who had NO union, had their pension plan canceled.

Note to rw's - please do send your refunds back because, obviously, those poor giant insurance companies need it.

 

[dblack]

His salary is a modest $1.66 million a year, but he also gets annual cash bonuses of between $10 million and $13 million. His perks are many and lavish, including a company car and chauffeur, unlimited personal use of the firm's corporate jet, and a generous pension plan not available to rank-and-file employees. (Their pension program was canceled in 1997.) Last year, McKesson contributed $13 million to Hammergren's retirement fund, which if he walked away tomorrow, would be worth $125 million.

No wonder rw's don't want to take refunds back from their insurance companies. I mean, its cruel and inhuman to expect a CEO to eke by on such a piddly amount of money.

And, of course, the rw's will agree that the minions, the worker bees, the SERFS who had NO union, had their pension plan canceled.

Note to rw's - please do send your refunds back because, obviously, those poor giant insurance companies need it.

What we ought to do is cancel our policies and tell them to lost. But the corporatist cocksuckers running our government made that illegal. For that, **** them. **** them very much.