The President, The Democrat Party, Lack Credibility

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[miles]

UD, Trouload, KO, et al, apparently have failed to check in and admit their gullibility.

You can't convince someone they're in denial.

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

It's also getting to the point where they lack credibility to get any more credit.

 

[unregistered]

 

[cebalrai]

Remember what you were told by the President, by the Democrat leadership, before you libs marched out to parrot the same in his behalf. Remember how you told us how screwed up we were to suggest they were wrong. Face your naivete, read it and weep:


Health Insurers Plan Hikes
Rate Increases Are Blamed on Health-Care Overhaul; White House Questions Logic


Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats' efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections.

Aetna Inc., some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators.

These and other insurers say Congress's landmark refashioning of U.S. health coverage, which passed in March after a brutal fight, is causing them to pass on more costs to consumers than Democrats predicted.

The rate increases largely apply to policies for individuals and small businesses and don't include people covered by a big employer or Medicare.

About 9% of Americans buy coverage through the individual market, according to the Census Bureau, and roughly one-fifth of people who get coverage through their employer work at companies with 50 or fewer employees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. People in both groups are likely to feel the effects of the proposed increases, even as they see new benefits under the law, such as the elimination of lifetime and certain annual coverage caps.

Many carriers also are seeking additional rate increases that they say they need to cover rising medical costs. As a result, some consumers could face total premium increases of more than 20%.

While the increases apply mostly to the new policies insurers write after Oct. 1, consumers could be subject to the higher rates if they modify their existing plans and cause them to lose grandfathered status.

The rate increases are a dose of troubling news for Democrats just weeks before an election in which they are at risk of losing their majority in the House and possibly the Senate.

In addition to pledging that the law would restrain increases in Americans' insurance premiums, Democrats front-loaded the legislation with early provisions they hoped would boost public support. Those include letting children stay on their parents' insurance policies until age 26, eliminating co-payments for preventive care and barring insurers from denying policies to children with pre-existing conditions, plus the elimination of the coverage caps.

Weeks before the election, insurance companies began telling state regulators it is those very provisions that are forcing them to increase their rates.

Aetna, one of the nation's largest health insurers, said the extra benefits forced it to seek rate increases for new individual plans of 5.4% to 7.4% in California and 5.5% to 6.8% in Nevada after Sept. 23. Similar steps are planned across the country, according to Aetna.

Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon said the cost of providing additional benefits under the health law will account on average for 3.4 percentage points of a 17.1% premium rise for a small-employer health plan. It asked regulators last month to approve the increase.

In Wisconsin and North Carolina, Celtic Insurance Co. says half of the 18% increase it is seeking comes from complying with health-law mandates.

The White House says insurers are using the law as an excuse to raise rates and predicts that state regulators will block some of the large increases.

"I would have real deep concerns that the kinds of rate increases that you're quoting... are justified," said Nancy-Ann DeParle, the White House's top health official. She said that for insurers, raising rates was "already their modus operandi before the bill" passed. "We believe consumers will see through this," she said.

Previously the administration had calculated that the batch of changes taking effect this fall would raise premiums no more than 1% to 2%, on average.

http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BH825A_RATEH_NS_20100907211302.gif

After Regence mailed a letter notifying plan administrators of its intention to raise group insurance rates in Washington state, the White House contacted company officials and accused them of inaccurately justifying the increase. Kerry Barnett, executive vice president for Regence BlueShield, said the insurer is changing the letter to more precisely explain the causes of the increase.

The industry contends its increases are justified. "Anytime you add a benefit, there are increased costs," said Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's lobbying group.

Massachusetts, which enacted universal insurance coverage several years ago, also has seen steadily rising insurance premiums since then. Proponents of that plan attribute the hikes there to an overall increase in medical costs, while insurers cite it as a cautionary example of what can happen when new mandates to improve benefits aren't coupled with a strong enough provision to force healthy people to buy coverage.

Republicans, who have sought voter support by opposing the health law, say premium increases could help in November's congressional races. "People are finding out what's in [the law], they don't like it, and I think it's going to play a big factor in this election," said Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.

About half of all states have the power to deny rate increases. Ms. DeParle pointed out that the law awards states $250 million to bolster their scrutiny of insurance-rate proposals, saying that will eventually curb premiums for people.

"In Kansas, I don't have a lot of authority to deny a rate increase, if it is justified," said Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger. She recently approved a 4% increase by Mennonite Mutual Aid Association to pay for the new provisions in the health law.

The process of reviewing rate increases varies by state. For instance, Ms. Praeger said she can deny only rate increases that are unreasonable or discriminatory.

Some regulators say not all insurers have adequately justified their increases. "A lot of it is guesswork for companies," said Tom Abel, supervisor at the Colorado Division of Insurance. "I was anticipating the carriers to be more uniform."

Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon, which estimates its increase covers 57,000 members, said its goal is to "anticipate the financial needs of our members as accurately as possible and to collect just enough premiums to cover costs," said a spokeswoman. Other insurers offered similar explanations or declined to discuss their increases.

A small number of insurers have submitted plans to lower rates and cite the new mandates in the legislation as the reason. HMO Colorado, a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan owned by WellPoint Inc., submitted a letter to state regulators saying small group rates would fall 1.8% starting Oct. 1 because of changes from the law.

Democrats had hoped to sell the bill in the fall elections. But in recent weeks, some Democrats who voted for the bill have shied away from advertising that fact, while the handful of House Democrats who cast "no" votes see it as a potential boost to their re-election bids.

"I think it's a question of short term versus long term," said North Carolina Insurance Commissioner Wayne Goodwin, a Democrat up for re-election in 2012. "Thankfully we're seeing people get more coverage and protections than they've ever had before. But until we see the medical-cost inflation affected, you're likely to see rate increases as long as they are not excessive and in violation of the law."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html

I like how Vettebigot left out that in the Republican's proposed plan, there was the same barring of insurers to drop patients because they were ill, deny coverage due to a preexisting condition, and deny coverage due to having a child with a medical condition.

All those things in the Republican plan would have increased rates in the same exact way.

 

[mercury14]

I like how Vettebigot left out that in the Republican's proposed plan, there was the same barring of insurers to drop patients because they were ill, deny coverage due to a preexisting condition, and deny coverage due to having a child with a medical condition.

All those things in the Republican plan would have increased rates in the same exact way.

Beat me to it. Why did Vetteman leave this out, when he's perfectly well aware that the Republican plan increased the cost of coverage?

But anyone who is not suspicious of this blame game is a fool. Before the new Health Care law we had the same rate increases going on. They were blamed on other things. Then along comes new legislation and there's a nice scapegoat.

Not that aspects of the new legislation will not increase costs for some people. Of course if insurers can't refuse coverage or drop coverage for individuals in the group, then they have to pay more for care. But this aspect had broad bipartisan support and a very high degree of support from the American people. And it's shady as hell that Republicans are criticizing bumps in cost when they supported the exact measures that caused the bumps. That's just bad leadership on their part.

 

[mercury14]

One thing is for certain, health insurers will continue to have record profits.

 

[Ham Murabi]

One thing is for certain, health insurers will continue to have record profits.

Got some examples of those record profits?
Would it be better if they had record losses?

 

[mercury14]

Got some examples of those record profits?
Would it be better if they had record losses?

Yeah I have examples. And no, don't accuse me of preposterous things like wishing record losses.

"The five largest US health insurance companies set new profit records in 2009. The five firms reported $12.2 billion in profits last year, an increase of $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, over 2008."


- WellPoint's (Blue Cross) profit increased $2.3 billion--91 percent--from 2008, to $4.75 billion (a new company record for annual net income).

•UnitedHealth's profit increased $845 million, or 28 percent, from 2008, to $3.8 billion.

•Humana's profit increased by 61 percent--$393 million--from 2008, to $1 billion.

- UnitedHealth's profit increased $845 million, or 28 percent, from 2008, to $3.8 billion in 2009.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/health-insurers-post-record-profits/story?id=9818699
http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/sto...mmed-dropped-coverage-raised-rates/2010-02-12

 

[mercury14]

Additionally, those articles assert that record profits are coming from dropping patients that are sick, thus creating groups that don't need much care but still pay them every month.

Among the report's findings on specific insurance companies:

Wellpoint increased profits 91 percent from 2008 while it chopped 3.9 percent of its total enrollment.

United Health's profit increased 28 percent from 2008, while enrollment dropped by 3.4 percent.

Cigna's profit increased 346 percent and enrollment dropped 5.5 percent.

Humana's profit increased by 61 percent while enrollment decreased by 1.7 percent.

Aetna increased enrollment by 7% and took a hit.



The Republicans' plan included barring insurers from dropping sick patients or refusing coverage in the first place. That's the industry's key to making a buck though. Then they bitch about how Obama's plan is raising costs by barring insurers from dropping sick patients or refusing coverage.

It's lying, hypocritical bullshit from the right. Pure bull pucky, political opportunism, and massive failure to lead.

 

[off2bed]

Since when does the Chief Executive of the Federal Government get to tell private businesses how much to charge for goods and services? Isn't that a symptom of government control of the means of production?

Nope, no socialism going on here.

 

[Killswitch]

Maybe the CEO's need to take a little less profit.

This is what they all made last year.

* Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
* Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
* Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
* Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
* Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
* U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
* Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212



The Health Care Companies are all about Greed. Nothing more. Nothing less and the way they treat some subscribers is shameful, sinful, and should be criminal.

 

[mercury14]

Since when does the Chief Executive of the Federal Government get to tell private businesses how much to charge for goods and services? Isn't that a symptom of government control of the means of production?

Nope, no socialism going on here.

The government... is not doing this. Private insurers can charge whatever they want. The government is setting up a special exchange program with participation requirements. But nowhere is any private company mandated to participate. They're free to ignore it.

 

[koalabear]

Maybe the CEO's need to take a little less profit.

This is what they all made last year.

* Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
* Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
* Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
* Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
* Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
* U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
* Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212



The Health Care Companies are all about Greed. Nothing more. Nothing less and the way they treat some subscribers is shameful, sinful, and should be criminal.

On the other hand, the hospitals that charge the outrageous rates are good.

 

[off2bed]

The government... is not doing this. Private insurers can charge whatever they want. The government is setting up a special exchange program with participation requirements. But nowhere is any private company mandated to participate. They're free to ignore it.

From the OP:
"After Regence mailed a letter notifying plan administrators of its intention to raise group insurance rates in Washington state, the White House contacted company officials and accused them of inaccurately justifying the increase. Kerry Barnett, executive vice president for Regence BlueShield, said the insurer is changing the letter to more precisely explain the causes of the increase."

 

[mercury14]

From the OP:
"After Regence mailed a letter notifying plan administrators of its intention to raise group insurance rates in Washington state, the White House contacted company officials and accused them of inaccurately justifying the increase. Kerry Barnett, executive vice president for Regence BlueShield, said the insurer is changing the letter to more precisely explain the causes of the increase."

Uhm. And?

 

[mercury14]

Here's the truth about why America has preposterous health care costs compared to the rest of the world:

1) Our huge insurance industry increases cost so it can pull a profit.

2) Our pharmaceutical industry is huge and has to pull a profit.

3) We pay our doctors and other providers far more than other countries, so costs must be higher to pay them.

4) We pay our hospitals and clinics more than other countries since they need a ton of money to cover losses they take from treating the masses of uninsured Americans they care for (many still take losses in a regular basis).

5) The masses of uninsured ofen use the emergency room as primary care, which is an insanely expensive way to go.

 

[firespin]

Oh look. Economic morons on parade.

Yeah I have examples. And no, don't accuse me of preposterous things like wishing record losses.

"The five largest US health insurance companies set new profit records in 2009. The five firms reported $12.2 billion in profits last year, an increase of $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, over 2008."


- WellPoint's (Blue Cross) profit increased $2.3 billion--91 percent--from 2008, to $4.75 billion (a new company record for annual net income).

•UnitedHealth's profit increased $845 million, or 28 percent, from 2008, to $3.8 billion.

•Humana's profit increased by 61 percent--$393 million--from 2008, to $1 billion.

- UnitedHealth's profit increased $845 million, or 28 percent, from 2008, to $3.8 billion in 2009.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/health-insurers-post-record-profits/story?id=9818699
http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/sto...mmed-dropped-coverage-raised-rates/2010-02-12

Wellpoint's revenue was $65 billion, so they're actually making 7% margins.

UnitedHealth's revenue will be $93 billion, so that's 4% margins.

Humana will do about $35B, so that's 3% margins or so.

These profits don't sound like the reason that premiums are expensive.

Additionally, those articles assert that record profits are coming from dropping patients that are sick, thus creating groups that don't need much care but still pay them every month.

Among the report's findings on specific insurance companies:

Wellpoint increased profits 91 percent from 2008 while it chopped 3.9 percent of its total enrollment.

United Health's profit increased 28 percent from 2008, while enrollment dropped by 3.4 percent.

Cigna's profit increased 346 percent and enrollment dropped 5.5 percent.

Humana's profit increased by 61 percent while enrollment decreased by 1.7 percent.

Aetna increased enrollment by 7% and took a hit.

The Republicans' plan included barring insurers from dropping sick patients or refusing coverage in the first place. That's the industry's key to making a buck though. Then they bitch about how Obama's plan is raising costs by barring insurers from dropping sick patients or refusing coverage.

It's lying, hypocritical bullshit from the right. Pure bull pucky, political opportunism, and massive failure to lead.

Most of the subscriber loss was due to layoffs, dummy. The article even says that, and notes that the claim about cancelling policies for sick people is an unsubstantiated claim from an industry critic. Dummy.

Maybe the CEO's need to take a little less profit.

This is what they all made last year.

* Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
* Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
* Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
* Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
* Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
* U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
* Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212



The Health Care Companies are all about Greed. Nothing more. Nothing less and the way they treat some subscribers is shameful, sinful, and should be criminal.

Killswitch thinks that paying a CEO some 0.01% of revenues is really making a difference in the cost of his insurance.

Here's the truth about why America has preposterous health care costs compared to the rest of the world:

1) Our huge insurance industry increases cost so it can pull a profit.

2) Our pharmaceutical industry is huge and has to pull a profit.

3) We pay our doctors and other providers far more than other countries, so costs must be higher to pay them.

4) We pay our hospitals and clinics more than other countries since they need a ton of money to cover losses they take from treating the masses of uninsured Americans they care for (many still take losses in a regular basis).

5) The masses of uninsured ofen use the emergency room as primary care, which is an insanely expensive way to go.

This is all unsubstantiated claptrap. Try explaining to people what percentage of their healthcare dollars actually go to these various places.

http://www.healthbeatblog.org/images/2008/01/22/image001.gif

"The costs to the health system of treating uninsured patients have not been systematically documented. A recent analysis concluded that the uninsured received approximately $34.5 billion in uncompen-sated care in 2001."

And say it's doubled since then. That's $60B out of more than $2T, or less than 3%.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/In%20the%20Literature/2003/Jun/The%20Costs%20and%20Consequences%20of%20Being%20Uninsured/davis_consequences_itl_663%20pdf.pdf

 

[Ham Murabi]

Call me crazy, but I like the fact my health insurer has money in the bank.
I also like the idea that good doctors make more money than bad doctors.
A company CEO ranks in $24M cause his company is doing so well it has billions in the bank - that's cool. It takes a lot of talent and expertise to manage something that big and turn a profit.

 

[Killswitch]

Oh look. Economic morons on parade.

Killswitch thinks that paying a CEO some 0.01% of revenues is really making a difference in the cost of his insurance.

All costs of doing business have a direct irrefutable consequence and correlation to the cost of a companies goods or services. Asshole.

Or didn't they teach you that in Internets economics 101?

In this day and age, CEO's being paid 25 million a year or 500,000 dollars per week for playing golf is an insult to hard working men and women who need their services at an affordable price.

 

[Killswitch]

Call me crazy, but I like the fact my health insurer has money in the bank.
I also like the idea that good doctors make more money than bad doctors.
A company CEO ranks in $24M cause his company is doing so well it has billions in the bank - that's cool. It takes a lot of talent and expertise to manage something that big and turn a profit.

Yeah. Taking advantage of the masses is really hard.

We have billions in the bank but "whoa is me! We need to raise prices because we don't have enough and making 500 grand a week sucks."

The CEO's should be ashamed of themselves.

Most make in one week what it takes the average consumer 20 years to earn.

But they go to church every week so all is well.

 

[unregistered]

 

[firespin]

All costs of doing business have a direct irrefutable consequence and correlation to the cost of a companies goods or services. Asshole.

Or didn't they teach you that in Internets economics 101?

In this day and age, CEO's being paid 25 million a year or 500,000 dollars per week for playing golf is an insult to hard working men and women who need their services at an affordable price.

Didn't they teach you materiality in econ class?

Aetna has about 18 million subscribers, so their CEO compensation costs each one about a buck fifty. The number is proportionately less for the other CEOs, most of whom cost each subscriber less than a dollar per year.

Seriously, dude, there are lots of easy targets in this debate. Why chase after one that affects premiums by twelve cents a month in the worst case.