Sebelius: Insurers Will Be Punished For Telling The Truth

[johnrocks]

What?

Are you claiming you did not know about this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/business/27health.html?_r=1&ref=business

Democrats are fascists at heart, which is why they always attack business, even when it is telling the truth.

Do you even know what fascism is? Corporatism = Fascism.

It's the Corporate State, Stupid

Yep (to the corporatism=Fascism part , not questioning anyone's intelligence)

 

[Flopper]

Are the insurers lying? Sebelius is claiming that no more than 2% of the rate increase is the fault of Obamacare, and threatening the insurers for mentioning it at all.

Well, in the past they have had no problem lying about reasons for their huge premium increases. I have no reason to believe that's going to change. I would think the new healthcare law will be an ideal scapegoat to blame rate increases and decreases in service.

Insurance companies do not make money paying claims. They money by collecting premiums. The more claims they can deny and higher they push their premiums, the higher the profits.

The more claims thy deny, and higher their premiums, the higher their profits.

Wow, what a concept. I have a question for you now.

If insurers are evil incarnate, why did Obama, Reid, and Pelosi work so hard to make sure they signed on to Obamacare, supporting most of its provisions outright, and tweaking the ones they had problems with?

I am not a great fan of the new healthcare law, but I think it's an improvement. It should have been a single payer system cutting out the insurance companies, but the opposition was too great. In order to get it passed they had to bring the insurance companies on board. I see it as a bargain with the devil, but it's better than nothing.

 

[boedicca]

Spoken like a true statist.

 

[MaggieMae]

My bottom line is that I don't know why this particular issue is even being discussed at this point in time. In fact, the health care reform bill as passed will be hacked to pieces if the Republicans gain control of the House and therefore the Appropriations Committee.

Then we'll all be back to Square One. But that also means that all the cost savings in Medicare won't happen and those billions given to insurance companies to subsidize coverage for eye care, dentures, hearing aids, etc., under Medicare Advantage will continue. Happy? Republicans will keep it all completely intact because that's what they promised. So when somewhere down the line all you pubs start bitching and moaning about the high cost of Medicare (again), please don't blame the dems for trying to do something about it. Okay?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, in the past they have had no problem lying about reasons for their huge premium increases. I have no reason to believe that's going to change. I would think the new healthcare law will be an ideal scapegoat to blame rate increases and decreases in service.

Insurance companies do not make money paying claims. They money by collecting premiums. The more claims they can deny and higher they push their premiums, the higher the profits.

The more claims thy deny, and higher their premiums, the higher their profits.

Wow, what a concept. I have a question for you now.

If insurers are evil incarnate, why did Obama, Reid, and Pelosi work so hard to make sure they signed on to Obamacare, supporting most of its provisions outright, and tweaking the ones they had problems with?

First, being a health insurance company that gets rich by denying coverage to the sick is simply immoral. Insurance is to be a pool that covers the extreme ranges as well as the middle.

Because the health insurance industry has many conservative Democrats in their lobbyists' pockets.

The health insurance industry is going to do quite well with the regulations.

Was that supposed to be intelligible?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.
2. It will put Medicare on better fiscal footing.
3. It will cost around $900 billion.
4. It won’t cut Medicare benefits.
5. It will be paid for “mostly” by shifting around money that we’re already spending.
6. It will give consumers more access and greater choice.
7. It will bring down the price of insurance.

See the link for why all of the above qualify as "empty promises" and outright lies. I already posted about numero uno in this thread but there is more info at the link.

Enjoy...

Don't believe everything you read, especially when it's poorly researched.

Too bad for you Reason Magazine is always well researched.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I just can't believe right wingnuts DEFEND insurance companies.

These people cut polices and let people DIE because saving them would cost money.

Before the Health Care bill, if Dad got cancer, the entire family could be cut because within 6 months, mom had a mammogram or junior had an allergy and those could be called "pre existing condition".

Then you have the CEO of Cigna getting a 73 million dollar paycheck AND REPUBLICANS DEFEND THAT! That is indefensible. How many insurance policies does it take to pay a SINGLE 73 million dollar paycheck??????????????????????

The right wing has gone so far right, they fell off a cliff into insanity.

I should have known rdean would defend the government.

If they say that people are dying because they do not have insurance, it just has to be true, because the government never lies.

Before the government started telling him what to do he used to have to think for himself, and actually believed that health insurance was a good thing. Now I know that they want everyone dead, so no one will be paying premiums.

We have people in the government who do not pay taxes, but that is OK because they are for the middle class, even if they owe more taxes than the middle class makes in their lifetime.

 

[boedicca]

Oh Puh-leeeeze.

There are no cost savings in Medicare. It is headed towards insolvency very soon:

While the financial outlook for Medicare in this year’s report is substantially improved relative to last year, further reforms will be needed. It is expected that the HI Trust Fund balance will fall below one year’s projected expenditure beginning in 2012, which means the test for short-range financial adequacy is not met. And it is projected that SMI will continue to put increasing pressure on the federal budget and beneficiaries in the years ahead, though to a much lesser extent than was projected last year prior to the ACA. Over the next 75 years, SMI costs are expected to average 3.3 percent of GDP, which is 1.4 percentage points higher than the SMI cost share of GDP in 2009.

Trustees Report Summary

 

[Quantum Windbag]

so uhm take no.3, this is going to cost 900 billion? Thats already been blown out of the window, you know it, I know it.

The justification given in the article for identifying that estimate as a lie (which, frankly, doesn't even make sense as the offending quote is about Obama's proposal in his September 2009 speech, which presumably most people understand isn't exactly what came out of Congress later that year) is a CBO estimate of discretionary spending related to the law which supposedly hadn't been accounted for. Except that two days after releasing that estimate, the CBO clarified that indeed most of it had already been accounted for: "Thus, CBO’s discretionary baseline, which assumes that 2010 appropriations are extended with adjustments for anticipated inflation, already accounts for much of the potential discretionary spending under PPACA. In addition, there are a number of other items that could overlap some or even by a considerable amount with current law activities assumed in CBO’s baseline."

I think my favorite item in the list is #7, the other cost argument. We're told two things:

1) First that the CBO estimated that individual market premiums would be higher in a few years. Which is true and it isn't. An apples-to-apples comparison of plan costs before and after reform actually shows that prices for equivalent plans will decrease. But a great many plans in the individual market right now offer shoddy coverage, which they won't after the reforms go into effect. The end result is that the the price of the average plan will rise as the quality of coverage offered increases. So that's true. But CBO estimates that about 80% of the people in the exchanges will be receiving subsidies. CBO tells us that the "amount that subsidized enrollees would pay for nongroup coverage would be roughly 56 percent to 59 percent lower, on average, than the nongroup premiums charged under current law."

In other words, the vast majority of people in the exchanges are going to be getting substantially better coverage (which will overall cost less than that same coverage would cost if offered in the non-group market today) and they'll personally be paying substantially less for it than they're paying right now for their, on average, inferior coverage.

2) We're told that in July 2009 Doug Elemendorf testified that the reform bills would bend the cost curve the wrong way. From the very article they link to:

Asked what provisions should be added, Elmendorf suggested changing the way Medicare reimburses providers to create incentives for reducing costs. He also suggested ending or limiting the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health benefits, calling it a federal "subsidy" that encourages spending on ever-more-expensive health packages.

And it's true, in July 2009 those provisions weren't in the legislation. But they are in the bill signed by the President last March. Let me repeat that: the things Elmendorf suggested in July 2009 were necessary for bending the cost curve were put into the final bill. Using an outdated article to make the argument that Elmendorf says this law will bend the cost curve upwards is either shoddy research or outright dishonesty.

Did you neglect the subsidies in your claim that insurance prices will go down?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wat. You seem to not get the fact that nobody is forcing these companies to do anything. The government can pick and choose who gets a contract, just like a boss of a company can choose which suppliers he wants supplying his company. Just like the shareholders of a publicly traded company however, we the shareholders of the government can vote against the boss if we don't like what the boss is doing.

I don't think they can. There is nothing in the law itself, as far as I know, that allows the government to prohibit any company from participating in the exchanges. If the Obama administration can do so simply because they do not like what that company says, what is to prohibit the Beck administration from doing the same thing when he gets elected? What if he decides to only award contracts to companies that do not support abortion, or cover breast cancer?

Supporting it one way, and opposing it the other, is a double standard. You are better off just opposing it completely.

Is that a little dangling carrot I see?

Thanks for the heads up as to where you're really coming from. Beck & Palin 2012? Sure.

First, Beck is not going to run.
Second, even if he does I will not vote for him.

I used Beck as an example because I know no one would support his policies if they are sane. This enabled me to point out that anyone who would support Obama, but not Beck, has a double standard.

Thanks for playing though.

 

[boedicca]

The BECK Administration?

*snicker*

MaggieMoron cannot tell the difference between an infotainer and an elected official.

 

[johnrocks]

I don't think they can. There is nothing in the law itself, as far as I know, that allows the government to prohibit any company from participating in the exchanges. If the Obama administration can do so simply because they do not like what that company says, what is to prohibit the Beck administration from doing the same thing when he gets elected? What if he decides to only award contracts to companies that do not support abortion, or cover breast cancer?

Supporting it one way, and opposing it the other, is a double standard. You are better off just opposing it completely.

Is that a little dangling carrot I see?

Thanks for the heads up as to where you're really coming from. Beck & Palin 2012? Sure.

First, Beck is not going to run.
Second, even if he does I will not vote for him.

I used Beck as an example because I know no one would support his policies if they are sane. This enabled me to point out that anyone who would support Obama, but not Beck, has a double standard.

Thanks for playing though.

Ouch, setting traps and snaring partisan hacks is so easy around here at times

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What?

Are you claiming you did not know about this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/business/27health.html?_r=1&ref=business

Democrats are fascists at heart, which is why they always attack business, even when it is telling the truth.

Do you even know what fascism is? Corporatism = Fascism.

It's the Corporate State, Stupid

Which makes me wrong how?

Democrats attack business even if they are telling the truth because they do not toe the party line, while holding out their hands to the business that are willing to be quite, and use the power of government to stifle competition. This explains everything about Obamacare, and proves that Democrats are fascists.

Or do you not get how it works?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, in the past they have had no problem lying about reasons for their huge premium increases. I have no reason to believe that's going to change. I would think the new healthcare law will be an ideal scapegoat to blame rate increases and decreases in service.

Insurance companies do not make money paying claims. They money by collecting premiums. The more claims they can deny and higher they push their premiums, the higher the profits.

The more claims thy deny, and higher their premiums, the higher their profits.

Wow, what a concept. I have a question for you now.

If insurers are evil incarnate, why did Obama, Reid, and Pelosi work so hard to make sure they signed on to Obamacare, supporting most of its provisions outright, and tweaking the ones they had problems with?

I am not a great fan of the new healthcare law, but I think it's an improvement. It should have been a single payer system cutting out the insurance companies, but the opposition was too great. In order to get it passed they had to bring the insurance companies on board. I see it as a bargain with the devil, but it's better than nothing.

How is something that almost everyone admits is probably going to make things worse an improvement? Bargains with the devil are never better than nothing, and they are always worse than working against the devil. If you really want reform you should tell your congressman and your senators to scrap this and start over.

 

[boedicca]

How? If the objective is not to improve health care, but to expand the scope of Big Government and its power over our lives, then ObamaCare will be raging success.

 

[Greenbeard]

Too bad for you Reason Magazine is always well researched.

Then I assume the use of outdated articles to present a picture rotated 180 degrees from the facts is simple dishonestly. Disappointing.

Did you neglect the subsidies in your claim that insurance prices will go down?

I assume you're asking about the apples-to-apples comparison of plans based on actuarial value I referenced. Yes, that estimate is in the absence of subsidies ("Those figures indicate what enrollees would pay, on average, not accounting for the new federal subsidies."), meaning that doesn't yet factor in that most people in the non-group market would actually be paying even less than that full cost.

The reality is that Obama has always held up the individual market subsidies as the vehicle for lowering the cost of insurance paid by people in the individual market. "Affordability" is used to refer to premium assistance. Which as I already noted, is in line with what the CBO has said will occur.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then I assume the use of outdated articles to present a picture rotated 180 degrees from the facts is simple dishonestly. Disappointing.

Outdated?

The third point is based on Obama's speech, which they clearly state. They then cite why that promise is inaccurate by citing the current CBO estimates. These were promises Obama made about the law, and it was backed up by a promise not to sign it if it cost more than this.

What exactly is your problem with this again? That the bill is more expensive than Obama said it would be? Or that they are calling him on a promise that was not meant to be more than political hype in the first place?

As for point 7, they are pointing out that it is not likely that the curve will bend down. The official estimates I have seen posted in this thread indicate that the new estimates show that the curve will only slightly decrease, even with the new provisions. Since the government rarely gets those predictions right, I see no problem with their statement that it is not likely to work.

I assume you're asking about the apples-to-apples comparison of plans based on actuarial value I referenced. Yes, that estimate is in the absence of subsidies ("Those figures indicate what enrollees would pay, on average, not accounting for the new federal subsidies."), meaning that doesn't yet factor in that most people in the non-group market would actually be paying even less than that full cost.

The reality is that Obama has always held up the individual market subsidies as the vehicle for lowering the cost of insurance paid by people in the individual market. "Affordability" is used to refer to premium assistance. Which as I already noted, is in line with what the CBO has said will occur.

Funny thing, those subsidies have to come out of somebodies pocket. Driving up the cost for some people so that others can pay less does not drive down the cost of health care, it just shifts the burden around. As I look at the overall cost of something, not just what it costs those who get the subsidy, I see no reason to argue that the costs will go down.

I know that making it more affordable for the right people was always the goal, but that is a goal that I always opposed.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch is not just a sound bite, it is a fact of life.

 

[Greenbeard]

Outdated?

I'm referring to point seven here: the context-less presentation of Elmendorf's 2009 testimony.

The third point is based on Obama's speech, which they clearly state. They then cite why that promise is inaccurate by citing the current CBO estimates. These were promises Obama made about the law, and it was backed up by a promise not to sign it if it cost more than this.

This is a reference to Obama's speech to the joint session. His promise was "First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future." The $900 billion figure was not a promise, it was a statement about the plan he was proposing to Congress at that point: "Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration."

What exactly is your problem with this again?

That this is shoddy research that does a much better job of trying to score political points than illuminate important issues.

Funny thing, those subsidies have to come out of somebodies pocket. Driving up the cost for some people so that others can pay less does not drive down the cost of health care, it just shifts the burden around. As I look at the overall cost of something, not just what it costs those who get the subsidy, I see no reason to argue that the costs will go down.

This is exactly the point. What is the long-term financing mechanism for this law? An excise tax on high-cost insurance plans, exactly in line with what Elmendorf testified should be included if the cost curve is to bent:

Asked what provisions should be added, Elmendorf suggested changing the way Medicare reimburses providers to create incentives for reducing costs. He also suggested ending or limiting the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health benefits, calling it a federal "subsidy" that encourages spending on ever-more-expensive health packages.​

Variants of this idea have been popular with figures on the right for years, from Milton Friedman (yes, he of TANSTAAFL) to John McCain in 2008, precisely because removing the limitless subsidy available to group insurance puts downward pressure on rising costs. The financing mechanism is a cost control (one of several different cost controls in the law). That's why the Senate's excise tax was always more popular among economists as a funding mechanism than the House's more populist (and much better-polling) surtax on the wealthy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is exactly the point. What is the long-term financing mechanism for this law? An excise tax on high-cost insurance plans, exactly in line with what Elmendorf testified should be included if the cost curve is to bent:

Asked what provisions should be added, Elmendorf suggested changing the way Medicare reimburses providers to create incentives for reducing costs. He also suggested ending or limiting the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health benefits, calling it a federal "subsidy" that encourages spending on ever-more-expensive health packages.​

Variants of this idea have been popular with figures on the right for years, from Milton Friedman (yes, he of TANSTAAFL) to John McCain in 2008, precisely because removing the limitless subsidy available to group insurance puts downward pressure on rising costs. The financing mechanism is a cost control (one of several different cost controls in the law). That's why the Senate's excise tax was always more popular among economists as a funding mechanism than the House's more populist (and much better-polling) surtax on the wealthy.

The Democrats made some sort of backroom deal with unions to get them to drop opposition to this tax, when are we going to get the bill for that? Is the bill for that going to be a continuous extension of the temporary exemptions on those plans?

It is not a cost control until it takes effect.

 

[Greenbeard]

The Democrats made some sort of backroom deal with unions to get them to drop opposition to this tax, when are we going to get the bill for that? Is the bill for that going to be a continuous extension of the temporary exemptions on those plans?

It is not a cost control until it takes effect.

Not exactly. The point of the excise tax isn't to actually tax benefits, it's to keep health plan costs below the tax's threshold, meaning wages are substituted for additional health benefits (which itself actually does generate new tax revenues). The reason health benefits are relatively more attractive to a worker than equivalent wages is that equivalent wages are taxed while health benefits aren't--hence the value of instituting an excise tax on health benefits above a certain threshold.

What the unions wanted was time to re-negotiate union contracts to do exactly that--reduce the emphasis on high-cost insurance plans and substitute it for wages. The "backroom" deal is that everyone, union or not, gets time to do that, through an implementation delay of 4 years on the tax.

But again, since the point of the tax is to eliminate incentives for high-cost plans and encourage substitution of wages for health benefits, if that's happening in the absence of the tax itself (i.e. prior to its formal implementation, in the run-up to its launch) then the effect is virtually the same.