The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-15-2010, 12:15 PM   #1
Redux
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
Well it looks like Anthem is taking a pre-emptive strike at the potential loopholes of the the single party healthcare reform bill now in Congress. Imagine that...

continues:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...tory?track=rss
I'm curious how you can explain it as a pre-emptive strike.

Given that these dramatic increases are on individual policies, not group policies.....and under the proposed Exchanges, those individuals would not only have more choice of providers, but the company in question would almost certainly not qualify for the Exchange at that premium/admin cost ratio?

These premium increases have everything to do with an unregulated, uncompetitive market and nothing to do with "loopholes" in the proposed reform.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 01:07 PM   #2
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff View Post
Which one is the more significant threat to American health and welfare based on hype vs. reality?
Healthcare
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 09:31 PM   #3
SamIam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 2,655
Well, I'm glad you finally concede that point, anyway.
SamIam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 08:16 AM   #4
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux View Post
I'm curious how you can explain it as a pre-emptive strike.

Given that these dramatic increases are on individual policies, not group policies.....and under the proposed Exchanges, those individuals would not only have more choice of providers, but the company in question would almost certainly not qualify for the Exchange at that premium/admin cost ratio?

These premium increases have everything to do with an unregulated, uncompetitive market and nothing to do with "loopholes" in the proposed reform.
Nothing in the Demoncratic Healthcare Reform Bills would protect anyone from these kinds of increases. That is the point I have been bringing up for months. This increase is how the insurance companies will recoup any cost increases they incur with the proposed plans. The fact that they are unregulated is not addressed in the proposed plans; the fact that they are in an uncompetitive market is not addressed in the proposed plans, although I do recall the Republickins introducing a proposal for there to be greater competition in a free market across state lines. Nothing in the proposed plans on the table would prevent an insurance company from doing this in the future.
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 08:34 AM   #5
Redux
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
Nothing in the Demoncratic Healthcare Reform Bills would protect anyone from these kinds of increases. That is the point I have been bringing up for months. This increase is how the insurance companies will recoup any cost increases they incur with the proposed plans. The fact that they are unregulated is not addressed in the proposed plans; the fact that they are in an uncompetitive market is not addressed in the proposed plans, although I do recall the Republickins introducing a proposal for there to be greater competition in a free market across state lines. Nothing in the proposed plans on the table would prevent an insurance company from doing this in the future.
And I have said repeatedly that you should actually read the text of the legislation (that I cited on numerous occasions) and not just opposition talking points and you would find that your assertions are in fact, incorrect.

And what the Republican proposal would have allowed is for the insurance companies to shop around for the least regulated state, including American Samoa, and apply those lowest standards across the board for consumers in any state in which the company has nexus.

But at this point, it really doesnt matter.

Have a healthy and truthful day!

Last edited by Redux; 02-16-2010 at 08:46 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 09:53 AM   #6
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux View Post
And I have said repeatedly that you should actually read the text of the legislation (that I cited on numerous occasions) and not just opposition talking points and you would find that your assertions are in fact, incorrect.
No my friend I have read it and there is nothing there to prevent it as I have stated numerous times over the last 6 months.
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.