Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You missed the fact that this is a direct copy of what Romney did as governor and a healthcare plan that was once brought up by Republicans. The biggest mistake Democrats have made was not running with this idea when the Republicans had their names tattooed all over it because you Cons would of jumped in line and supported this plan.
What a load of BS. What makes you think what someone did for a STATE will work NATIONALLY? THAT is where you Lefties lost the argument, if you guys truly believed that a STATE program would work NATIONALLY, then the blame is on the Left, not the Right.
BTW, This ACA was NOT a carbon copy of what R's proposed in the 90's, nor is it a carbon copy of what Romney did. This was dusted off the shelves of a far Left think tank. FACT!!!!!
You missed the fact that this is a direct copy of what Romney did as governor and a healthcare plan that was once brought up by Republicans. The biggest mistake Democrats have made was not running with this idea when the Republicans had their names tattooed all over it because you Cons would of jumped in line and supported this plan.
No its not.. Not even close.. Why dont you stop repeating talking points and educate yourself.
You obviously did not understand your own linked article. Indeed, so far none of you have read it, or, if read, understood.
The article points out a clear conflict. Even if one does not agree with the conflict described, I want to see if any of you can point it out.
Why the lofty attitude, the arrogant I'm-smarter-than-you-simple-peons tone? It's a simple article with a clear point of view. Pretending it's something it isn't and we're all just a bunch of dumba$$es for not getting it is just silly.
ooh I see, I cant label you, but you can go ahead and label me..
blah blah blah blah..
Is that what they taught you on MSNBC? Guess what jmk, no one liked it when a handful of Republicans suggested it a decade ago, so why the hell do you think it would make sense now?
It doesn't. To me it show's how powerful these insurance companies are. To sway the federal government to move 100% into their corner at the expense of Americans and compromising the credibility of the US Supreme Court. I know what Obama wanted and he did not get it. A compromise was made with the opposite isle and the insurance companies who wrote the bill in place today. I'm sure the same thing took place decades ago. For-profit health insurance companies can not be the primary deliverer of health care in this nation. They need to be supplemental in nature and regulated.
No its not.. Not even close.. Why dont you stop repeating talking points and educate yourself.
Sure it is close to Romney's healthcare plan. The earlier 1990s, Republican plan mandated individuals to buy healthcare..... where does that sound familiar.
Don't you find it amusing that Romney never mentioned or focused on his relatively successful state healthcare system during the election? I know it must be hard to hear how Obamacare has it's roots in your Republican party, but it is the truth.
The "conflict" was not identified by you. It was identified in the article. Don't you think there was a "conflict" when the Obama admin and the CBO fudged the numbers to make Obamacare look affordable in the first place?
Even though there is a presumed "conflict" that does not mean that their data and analysis is incorrect.
First, I shall explain something that I hope you can understand.
In law, during a trial, attorneys will call ‘witnesses’ to the stand to testify.
When an attorney calls a witness to the stand, the attorney is said to be ‘sponsoring’ the witness; i.e., the attorney, by putting the person on the stand under oath, is essentially warranting to the court that said witness will give truthful testimony.
For instance, I once represented a criminal defendant who wanted to take the stand on his own behalf. I knew that he was going to lie. Now, he had the utter right to take the stand in his own defense, but I, as an ‘officer of the court’ (as attorneys like to be known) could not ‘sponsor’ his testimony, since he was going to lie. My solution (the common solution by those in the same situation): I called the defendant to the stand, and I said “Mr. Jones, do you have anything to say to the jury”. I then stepped back and let the defendant talk. The District Attorney then got to cross-examine the witness.
Now, why did I tell this story?
Because I believe that when a person starts a thread and posts a link to a news story, blog, etc., the poster is ‘sponsoring’ the facts or opinions contained in the link. That is why I rarely ever provide a link: I cannot truthfully vouch for the veracity of the contents.
Now, you created a thread that provides a link to a website that contains a story. The headline of said story is “Health Actuaries: Obamacare Rates Will Soar”.
The ‘sub’ headline is: “But health law supporters are pushing back, noting ties between the actuaries making the forecasts and an insurance industry that has been complaining about taxes”.
You have refused to explain the ‘conflict’ in the linked story, which makes me believe you did not read it, beyond the large headline. I shall now discuss the story.
Now, what to ‘actuaries’ do. According to the Occupational Outlook Handbook:
“Actuaries analyze the financial costs of risk and uncertainty. They use mathematics, statistics, and financial theory to assess the risk that an event will occur and help businesses and clients develop policies that minimize the cost of that risk. Actuaries' work is essential to the insurance industry.”
The Handbook also states:
“Most actuaries work at insurance companies, where they help design policies and determine the premiums that should be charged for each policy. They must ensure that the premiums are profitable, yet competitive with other insurance companies.”
Note that I do have confidence in my link, since I use this Occupational Outlook Handbook frequently in my work.
The article you link to states that, on the one hand, the actuaries that work for the health insurance companies are forecasting large health care cost increases, citing that ‘medical claims per member will rise 32 percent in the individual plans’.
Yet, the main thrust of the article is this: many (but not all) of these actuaries actually work for the health insurance industry. In states like Texas these health insurance companies must get state approval to raise rates. How much they may raise rates is, in large part, determined by the forecasts of health actuaries.
The insurance companies wish to make a profit. They do not desire that their profits decrease; indeed, they desire an increase. The actuaries that work for these insurance companies are forecasting a large increase in future health care costs, which means that the insurance companies try to raise their rates accordingly (although in many states the size of the increase will be limited by law).
In a nutshell: an actuary will claim: “Next year, I forecast that you (the insurance company) will have to pay out $1,000.00 in health care benefits”.
The insurance company responds: “Thank you actuary. We will set our rates so that we take in gross income of $1,200.00, so that at the end of the year we have $200.00 in profit”.
Now, if the forecast of the future increase in costs is overstated (which the article is claiming, in part), then the insurance company’s profits will be more. So, if the actual benefits paid out are, say, $800.00, then the insurance company will have a profit of $400.00, instead of $200.00. Part of the article is claiming that the actuaries are overstating the future rise in cost, so that the insurance companies may actually earn more.
Now, one of the ‘linked’ articles within your original article notes that while the study by the Society of Actuaries predict that the payout by health insurance companies are expected to rise by 32 percent next year, that does not mean that premiums will rise by that much. From the sub-linked site:
“Q: Does the study predict health insurance premiums will go up 32 percent by 2017?
No. First, it’s only forecasting the individual insurance market. That’s where millions of Americans newly covered under the ACA are expected to find policies. The report says nothing about costs for employer-based health insurance.
Equally important, the 32 percent forecast is for medical expenses paid by insurers, not what insurers will charge in premiums, and not what consumers will pay.”
I do not ‘sponsor’ the foregoing link. However, since several other posters herein claim that the ‘read the other links’ in the original article, I thought it well to examine it.
The original article also notes that some proponents of Obamacare claim that the actuaries are ignoring the fact that due to the rather large number of new insured people entering the marketplace, that competition among the health care insurance provides will act to keep any increase to consumers down.
I will note that while many of those, presently uninsured, entering the new insurance pool will have pre-existing health problems that will cause an immediate new expense to the health care insurance companies, many healthy, younger people will also be entering the pool, who will not require the payout of benefits for many years.
Now, I believe that health care rates will increase. Of course, my rates have increased over the past two-plus decades, without Obamacare. My real estate taxes also rise each year, to cover the cost for the local county hospital that provides care (emergency and clinical) to those who do not have any health insurance.
Believe me, in my job, I review disability cases on a daily basis concerning claimants whom go to the emergency room claiming a headache and receiving MRI brain scans and a host of other diagnostic tests, all of which the local real estate owners pay for. An alarming percentage of these people seem to have money for cigarettes, liquor and cell phones, but then claim they can’t afford health insurance. I hope that Obamacare will get these deadbeats to tossing in some of their own money.
I have eaten up most of my lunch writing this response. However, I say: if you are going to link to an article, have the gonads to read the article and explain to other posters what the article is about.
It doesn't. To me it show's how powerful these insurance companies are. To sway the federal government to move 100% into their corner at the expense of Americans and compromising the credibility of the US Supreme Court. I know what Obama wanted and he did not get it. A compromise was made with the opposite isle and the insurance companies who wrote the bill in place today. I'm sure the same thing took place decades ago. For-profit health insurance companies can not be the primary deliverer of health care in this nation. They need to be supplemental in nature and regulated.
Wierd how the democrats controlled the house, senate and presidency and still couldn't get this done.
Ever consider that the Health companies are just as deeply in bed with the democrats as they are the republicans? Oh, perish the thought.
Even now you are blaming just the insurance companies and republicans.....well congratulations you are 2/3rds correct.
It's funny watching the party completely in charge escape all blame for what came to pass.
Ummmmm................... healthcare prices will "necessarily skyrocket".
Obama's "signature legislation" is a disaster. Couple that with the "stimulus" and we have two of the most inept, destructive pieces of legislation initiated in modern times.
Yet the GOP can't win and hold Congress only because they rigged it. That says much more than how you feel about anything "Doctor."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Don't you think there was a "conflict" when the Obama admin and the CBO fudged the numbers to make Obamacare look affordable in the first place?
