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.
This is what bothers me most about the free market argument. Why does our healthcare insurance have to include money that goes to insurance company profits and exorbitant CEO salaries. It's expensive enough without adding on those costs. Does anyone else besides me remember when Blue Cross/Blue Shield was a non-profit organization?
During the creation of ACA people were worried about the effect it would have on their workplace insurance. Will the Republican bill change workplace insurance into policies that charge people in their 50s and above 5x as much as younger workers in the same workplace? I saw a discussion this morning about on FedSoup forum speculating that the federal health insurance would (or might be?) be changed to the age based model.
Interesting. This morning I was wondering if the next hit will be the Federal retiree health care plans.
The Paul Ryan/Trump plan does nothing to address overall cost, either.
What it does is change the maximum premium for older people to 5x that of younger people. It also allows younger/healthier people to opt out with only a minor penalty. It kills subsidies. Only expensive sick people will use the exchanges.
The net result? If you're in the 55 to 64 age bracket, your premiums will at least double and you'll get a $4,000 tax credit. That $1,700/mo will turn into $3K+/mo and you'll get a small tax credit that will look nothing like the the $15K premium increase you'll see.
If you're really high income and paying Medicare taxes on investment income, this is all a great deal. Only the 0.1% benefit from it.
That $3K+ number sounds like it was fabricated by the Fake News (CNN) industry. Think about the absurdity of your claim that .1% benefit and 99.9% are worse off, that wouldn't be possible if that was the goal.
Anyway, as I said already, Obamacare is a failure because it didn't address exorbitant cost. If whatever plan the GOP comes up with doesn't address exorbitant cost, it will also be a failure.
Why is that important? Non-profit status does not limit administrative pay or mean an organization is efficient
Quote:
William L. Jews, chief executive of CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, collected $2.7 million in salary and incentive pay last year, a 34 percent raise over the previous year's compensation, according to documents filed with the Maryland Insurance Administration.
Six executive vice presidents received $372,780 to $862,038, an average raise of 20 percent for the five who were with CareFirst throughout 2000 and 2001. Daniel J. Altobello, the chairman of the CareFirst board, was paid $84,667, an increase of 18 percent.
That $3K+ number sounds like it was fabricated by the Fake News (CNN) industry. Think about the absurdity of your claim that .1% benefit and 99.9% are worse off, that wouldn't be possible if that was the goal.
Anyway, as I said already, Obamacare is a failure because it didn't address exorbitant cost. If whatever plan the GOP comes up with doesn't address exorbitant cost, it will also be a failure.
The republican version is ignoring costs too, just arguing over who's going to pay. Same sh*t, different day.
Did I say it was important? Obviously I was replying to a poster.
Nevertheless, our nonprofits are required to reveal expenses including salaries, etc., unlike the for-profits. In addition, BCBS and other nonprofit insurance companies are required to donate a significant amount of their revenue to other nonprofit organizations in the state. I like that.
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.