America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

No Schitt!







http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/obamacare-gdp-growth_n_5529342.html?utm_hp_ref=business&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D493398

Ya he fixed us allrighty.

fixed = neutered

but it wasn't suppose to hurt it either, but it did.

My, my, how things change. The Fox News conservative mantra has been "Obamacare will DESTROY the economy".

So now it's not "fixing it"?

How very predictable.....
It is to laugh.

Naw, unregulated insurance companies and medical costs alway help the economy . . . .

Don't be a chump.

How predictable.

Change the subject, or attack the opponent.



"chump"?

[quote=Gene363]Got it, I'll put you down as too ashamed to answer, thank you for your participation.

Yes, only a chump would let the insurance companies write obamacare and pass it without reading the bill.[/quote]



No ****....and how Anyone can see this ANY differently needs to take the blinders off.

AAnd he's only broken His Own Law by changing how it reads twenty something times.....I guess that's just the cost of forcing something onto the public without qualifying/ vetting it FIRST. This Admin. Is the poster children for doing Dumb ****.

Well, for one thing it disallows insurance companies form refusing you due to a pre-existing condition.
And it limits the amount of profit (or profiteering) that an insurance company can make.

Of course these are the apocalyptic sort of changes that will destroy the economy, neuter your pets, and give you laundry static cling. So let’s not pretend that they are a good thing . . . .

Nope....Too Much Obama Adninistration and his Merry Band of Theives but thanks for asking

Brewha, in 2010 the year prior to a mandated medical loss ratio of 80/20 the mean average was 80/20. So the regulation had a net zero effect on money paid out. My concern is that nothing was done to regulate medical costs. To truly be beneficial to Americans medical malpractice lawsuits needed to be regulated. Also using an emergency room instead of a doctors office visit needed to be regulated. Finally eventually being taxed 40% for a quality healthcare plan is going to harm many people.

While it is very positive to insure our whole population in theory, in the real world Obama care is not positive when considered as a whole, at least at this point in time.

Obamacare 'Bailout' For One Insurer Will Cost Up To $450 Million In 2014



There’s been a lot of discussion about whether the risk adjustment tools embedded in ObamaCare amount to a bailout for the insurance companies, or are a reasonable feature of the law. There’s been far less information about how much money the insurers stand to gain from these measures, to offset their expected losses.

Now we have some hard numbers. Humana announced that it expects to tap the three risk adjustment mechanisms in ObamaCare for between $250 and $450 million in 2014. This amounts to about 25 percent of the insurer’s expected exchange revenue. This money is needed to offset losses that the insurer will take as a result of slower enrollment in its ObamaCare plans, and a skewed risk pool that weighs more heavily toward older and less healthy members than it originally budgeted.

More than half of the money will come from the $25 billion reinsurance pool that ObamaCare provides (collected through a tax on employer-sponsored health plans). The other half will come mostly from the risk corridors. Humana is expected to book the money as revenue to offset shortfalls between what it collects in exchange premiums and pays out in medical claims.

The company blamed the Obama Administration’s decision late last year to extend grandfathering of individual market plans for the overall deterioration in the risk pool. That means that Humana (like other insurers) was counting on people from the individual market being forced to transition into ObamaCare plans. It’s widely perceived that the Obama Administration counted on that migration as well. But Humana’s statement was a very clear expression of this expectation.

Humana said that it had enrolled 202,000 people on its exchange-based health plans as of January 31st, of which 82 percent were eligible for subsidies.

Among the other nuggets that Humana offered: Most people (58%) are selecting silver plans, but not as many as the insurer originally anticipated. Cost sharing subsidies only attach to silver plans. These are extra subsidies designed to offset out of pocket costs for consumers who fall between 150% and 250% of the Federal poverty level. The tilt toward silver plans suggests that the exchanges are still drawing heavily from this income demographic — but not as heavily as expected.

Humana management told the UBS managed care analyst team, in a follow up call, that this was a concern for the insurer. Humana is seeing more people enrolling in platinum plans (21%) than it expected. These are most likely higher cost members who are paying the higher premiums to buy down their anticipated co-pays and deductibles. In other words, they plan to tap their health coverage for medical claims. The company also reported that bronze plans account for 9% of applications, gold for 10%, and catastrophic plans for 2%.

Finally, the mix of people enrolling in Humana plans still skews toward older individuals. Only 20 percent of enrollees are below the age of 30,while 42 percent are aged 50-64. This is consistent with earlier estimates put out by the Federal government, which suggests that the demographic mix is largely unchanged.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/02/06/obamacare-bailout-for-one-insurer-450-million-in-2014/



Save you say?

If you ran a business (insurance IS a business) would you want the government to tell you that you HAD to take on a liability (pre-existing condition) and then limit the amount of profit you could make?

Why the heck would any insurance company say; "Sure, pay your $500 premium for this month and we'll go ahead and take on that $35,000 bill for the surgery you'll need... that you already KNOW you'll need... that you didn't have insurance for until you knew you needed it".

True, making something illegal does not prevent it from happening.
I’m sure this is important.
Some how.






Perhaps with the right friends and a few more margaritas . . . . .

don't forget about the $8 Big Macs soon to come with the minimum wage increase...

Big Macs and Healthcare . . . . . there is a joke lurking near . . .

The analogy is fine the scenario is not. A certain percentage of the gamblers rigged the machine. They win 100 percent of the time. For the casino to still make a profit the rest of the gamblers have to lose more money. Then there are the gamblers who bet way less and win because the government subsidizes their bet with other gamblers money. And so it goes.

.....
come on gene...

I'm sure back when the stock market crashed under Obama you were in the group claiming it was evidence that the economy was crap under obama....

I agree with you there, but I do demand consistency.... :)

Out where I am in CA the economy appears to be booming. House prices are out of control, and people are still buying... stocks are going up (twitter's been skyrocketing)... I keep getting calls for work I don't even need...

Now, I don't believe it's great everywhere... but I think it's a stretch to say it's going down.

No, no, no... that's illegal and can be (and has been) litigated and won. What we are talking about is denying insurance to someone with a pre-existing condition, not canceling someone who already has insurance that gets sick. Don't try to change the rules halfway through the game, dude... and no I don't think it is fair to cancel someone who HAS insurance and gets sick.

However... if you never had insurance, and you find out you're sick and want to get insurance... YOU gambled and lost and it is just as unfair to try to get the insurance companies to pay for your 'gambling loss', to use your own analogy.

Selling insurance IS gambling... so is buying it. You're betting you'll need it, they're betting you won't... and despite what you believe, most of the people who have insurance that have a need to use it do not get denied or canceled. If they did, insurance companies would be out of business due to lack of customers because of bad business practices or due to having the fvcking pants sued off them.

I'll give you "deny claims"... because that's part of their game. I'll even give you slow payments (but that's really more a function of deny claims until required to pay)... and every time I've dealt with it I just waited until the insurance company paid up, then paid my percentage. If I had to pay up early and the insurance company then came through, I got my money back from one of the parties.

But legally they cannot just "drop" a person. Hell, they're obligated to continue insuring you a few months past when you leave them.

All kidding aside, most government programs start out flawed. I think this is due to political compromise. If Obama care was properly fixed it would benefit America. The way it stands now it hurts America.

Alright, if you don’t buy my version of why we are doing it, what is your explanation?

Obama is making insurance companies take people we pre-existing condition, why?