Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare)

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Further, what happens when the gov't doesn't ensure a profit? I highly doubt the insurance companies just start losing money and go....well, ho hum, I guess we'll start losing money but keep things the same.

Even futher, why is the federal government providing reinsurance to the insurance companies? The max out of pocket expense the insurance companies are responsible for is 60k trying to go to 45k. Yet, are the feds providing that to those companies that are self-insured? I don't think so. Insurance companies can still charge a hefty premium for reinsurance while getting it for free from the feds.

Gross. This whole thing, in a nutshell, [expletive] blows.

[Socnorb11]

AW - this whole "gross" thing was never intended to be judged short-term. I think that was made pretty clear to everyone. There are going to be start-up expenses, hiccups, growing pains, etc. Long-term, it is intended to stabilize the insurance and health industries.

"Gross" and "Blows" would be good terms to describe our health care and insurance industries to date. At least there's some attempt at transparency and accountability now. It's not perfect, but sometimes in order to get out of the mud that you've been stuck in for decades, you've got to spin your wheels a little bit and see what happens.

[tlombard]

Two-Thirds Oppose Any ObamaCare Insurer Bailout http://news.investors.com/politics-obam ... ailout.htm

I know ibd leans right and I didnt read the entire thing...but s this accurate? Is the govt really guaranteeing insurance companies they wont lose money? That's. That's something I never imagined.

I know its real easy to spend other people's money and all that...but the article says "the bailout could reach half a billion dollars in the first year"...and the law only has the "bailout" provision for the first 3 years. When we are overspending on health care by like half a trillion dollars, this seems small.

Also some perspective: we used over a quarter billion dollars worth of munitions in 9 days when we intervened in Libya.

but but but war is good. We gotta defend ourself from African nations with 1950s technology.

And if we kill them now, they can't sneak into the country illegally and steal our jobs... so let's bomb Mexico!!!

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

The federal government is guaranteeing big insurance a profit. That is gross and it blows. Spin it however you want. There's a lot of [expletive] in this whole thing, this just pushes it over the top.

It's a sham. Will it work, long term? Possibly, with a metric [expletive] ton of modifications. With the opening of it, kind of laying the ground rules like it is okay to guarantee profits to big insurance companies, I'm not so optimistic the modifications will happen or be worthwhile.

They should have done a single payer system or nothing. This is a [expletive] hole piece of legislation.

[Socnorb11]

The federal government is guaranteeing big insurance a profit. That is gross and it blows. Spin it however you want. There's a lot of [expletive] in this whole thing, this just pushes it over the top.

It's a sham. Will it work, long term? Possibly, with a metric [expletive] ton of modifications. With the opening of it, kind of laying the ground rules like it is okay to guarantee profits to big insurance companies, I'm not so optimistic the modifications will happen or be worthwhile.

They should have done a single payer system or nothing. This is a [expletive] hole piece of legislation.

I agree. They should have done a single-payer. All Republicans and a couple of Democrats would have never let that happen.


The federal government cuts deals with big business almost every day. I'm not sure why this one is the one that you're so appalled by. At least this bill requires accountability and transparency for the institute that they're catering to. That in itself is pretty unusual.

[Socnorb11]

By the way, haven't we basically been doing this for farmers for decades?

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Are u suggesting they follow the subsidy route, pay the insurance companies in order for the premiums to be lower for everyone and the services be regulated? Sounds like a better plan than what they're doing.

Even in the states that expanded medicaid, a lot of the premiums will be anything but affordable. For instance, a couple in their 50s living in wheaton, il making 65k combined wont qualify for any assistance. Their premiums through the market would be around 1k/month. Almost 20% of pretax income will be for premiums. And thats just for an 80/20 insurance split. Is that fair? No. Is it better than what's happening? Meh. Maybe. Perhaps if they were going to spend all this political clout, they could have come up w something better. Jmo and im back to being firmly against this.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

The federal government is guaranteeing big insurance a profit. That is gross and it blows. Spin it however you want. There's a lot of [expletive] in this whole thing, this just pushes it over the top.

It's a sham. Will it work, long term? Possibly, with a metric [expletive] ton of modifications. With the opening of it, kind of laying the ground rules like it is okay to guarantee profits to big insurance companies, I'm not so optimistic the modifications will happen or be worthwhile.

They should have done a single payer system or nothing. This is a [expletive] hole piece of legislation.

I agree. They should have done a single-payer. All Republicans and a couple of Democrats would have never let that happen.


The federal government cuts deals with big business almost every day. I'm not sure why this one is the one that you're so appalled by. At least this bill requires accountability and transparency for the institute that they're catering to. That in itself is pretty unusual.

can u point me to another scenario where the govt ensures a profit for the business? I will be equally opposed most likely. Also, for like the trillionth time, thi is a democratic bill passed when they had the house, senate and presidency. Its not the republicans that made this bill.

[Socnorb11]

The federal government is guaranteeing big insurance a profit. That is gross and it blows. Spin it however you want. There's a lot of [expletive] in this whole thing, this just pushes it over the top.

It's a sham. Will it work, long term? Possibly, with a metric [expletive] ton of modifications. With the opening of it, kind of laying the ground rules like it is okay to guarantee profits to big insurance companies, I'm not so optimistic the modifications will happen or be worthwhile.

They should have done a single payer system or nothing. This is a [expletive] hole piece of legislation.

I agree. They should have done a single-payer. All Republicans and a couple of Democrats would have never let that happen.


The federal government cuts deals with big business almost every day. I'm not sure why this one is the one that you're so appalled by. At least this bill requires accountability and transparency for the institute that they're catering to. That in itself is pretty unusual.

can u point me to another scenario where the govt ensures a profit for the business? I will be equally opposed most likely. Also, for like the trillionth time, thi is a democratic bill passed when they had the house, senate and presidency. Its not the republicans that made this bill.

I specifically said "all Republicans and a couple of Democrats" would have killed single-payer.

I don't think you're fully understanding the purpose of the "bailout". It's a "risk corridor" for insurance companies, just in case they end up with more sick customers than expected. It's intended to cover some (not all) of their expenses above their target cost. It doesn't just protect insurers. It protects consumers by requiring insurers whose actual costs are below their target cost to refund a portion of the money to the federal government. It's a temporary attempt to mitigate risk until insurers determine appropriate prices.

In simpler terms, some insurance companies are going to have LESS cost (because they're receiving more "healthy" new customers). They will have to refund some of their profits to the federal government, who will use that money to compensate the insurers who have experienced MORE costs (because they're receiving more "sick" customers).

If there wasn't "insurance" for the insurers, the insurers would just jack up prices and pocket the additional profits.


Republican legislation used the same type of "risk corridors" in 2006 for Medicare Part D.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

I don't think republucans are any smarter than democrats. Not nearly as many young healthy people are signing up as expected. Since the tax is a fraction of the premiums, imo.

Also, how much money is the gov't expecting to receive ftom insurance companies through this corridor?