Swing Votes

Don't worry, you got your point across. ;)

Reply to
Jamie
Loading thread data ...

Is that a surprise? Insurnace companies and government have opposite incentives.

Reply to
krw

[.....|] Irony
Reply to
krw

No they don't. A ) Collect as much money as possible from the masses

B ) Keep as much of it as possible, to spend on WTF they feel like.

Thus endeth the lesson in Civics 101.

Reply to
.p.jm.

Insurance companies want to reduce costs because it increases profits. Government wants to increase cost because it increases power. You'd better retake Econ and Civics 100. You didn't learn anything (no surprise).

Reply to
krw

Wrong. The government does not want to 'increase cost' of EXISTING programs ( although they are remarkably skilled at doing so ). They want to find NEW shit to spend our money on.

Reply to
.p.jm.

Wrong, any money is power. If it's expensive enough you can't do it yourself. Like I said, retake Civics 100. You need it.

Reply to
krw

Fuck off, bitch.

Reply to
.p.jm.

Under this bill, the insurance companies' incentive is to *increase* costs. See boring citation #2, below.

To deliver on my post to Grumpy, I've been working on piecing together the several bills--the Senate bill, plus the changes made by Reid's manager's amendment, plus the further changes made to both by the reconciliation package.

It's extremely boring, technical, and slow. It's taken 50 minutes so far, and I'm on page 3 of ~3,000.

And this is a tiny example of why the process was so outrageous--these documents were drafted in secret, and only made available to Congress a maximum of 3 days before the votes, less than few hours for some of the most important parts.

That's not enough time to read them, much less understand them. So they voted on a pig in a poke.

Moreover, our 'transparent' leaders locked the documents so you can't annotate or highlight them, which makes this a LOT harder--I can't just highlight sections that changed, then paste in the new language in notes. They've made it simply an impossible task to create one accurate document, so I'll just reference single sections, and not very many. It's just so bad, so idiotic it's amazing. Stupidity codified.

Cheers, James Arthur ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

=3D=3D=3D=3D Cite #1 =3D=3D=3D=3D Talk about Orwellian, the purpose of Reid's last-minute 383-page 'manager's amendment' to the Senate health care bill is listed as:

"To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers tax credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes."

=3D=3D=3D=3D Cite #2 =3D=3D=3D=3D (English translation follows the citation) (Note Orwellian titles)

Section 2718 BRINGING DOWN THE COST OF HEALTH CARE [...] (b) ENSURING THAT CONSUMERS RECEIVE VALUE FOR THEIR PREMIUM PAYMENTS. =97 (1) REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE VALUE FOR PREMIUM PAYMENTS.=97

(A) REQUIREMENT.=97Beginning not later than January 1, 2011, a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage (including a grandfathered health plan) shall, with respect to each plan year, provide an annual rebate to each enrollee under such coverage, on a pro rata basis, if the ratio of the amount of premium revenue expended by the issuer on costs described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) to the total amount of premium revenue (excluding Federal and State taxes and licensing or regulatory fees and after accounting for payments or receipts for risk adjustment, risk corridors, and reinsurance under sections 1341, 1342, and 1343 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) for the plan year (except as provided in subparagraph (B)(ii)), is less than=97

(i) with respect to a health insurance issuer offering coverage in the large group market, 85 percent, or such higher percentage as a State may by regulation determine; or

(ii) with respect to a health insurance issuer offering coverage in the small group market or in the individual market, 80 percent, or such higher percentage as a State may by regulation determine, except that the Secretary may adjust such percentage with respect to a State if the Secretary determines that the application of such 80 percent may destabilize the individual market in such State.

---- translation --- For insurers covering large groups: 85% of every dollar received in premiums must be paid out in benefits. That leaves 15 cents to cover expenses and salaries. For insurers covering small groups, the same, except the numbers are

80% and 20 cents.

Nothing is done to reduce costs, in fact the incentive is to increase costs--insurers get 15% of any cost increases.

=3D=3D=3D=3D Cite #3 =3D=3D=3D=3D

Sec. 1501. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage. Sec. 1502. Reporting of health insurance coverage.

The Orwellian titles say it all. I leave it to the reader to run through all the calculations of each person's need, to determine their subsidy.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

You can leave anytime, dummy.

Reply to
krw

Get a room. :-\

Reply to
Steve

I'm not stopping you.

Reply to
krw

Sure, they've been morphed into utilities. Profit as a percentage of revenue is regulated, so the idea is to maximize revenue alone. Increasing costs automatically become increasing profit.

Reply to
krw

snip

WTFHIHTA?

Reply to
The King

The cost of service, that is, meaning 'benefits.' The more they pay in benefits, the more they're allowed to charge in premiums, which increases the total dollars in their pockets. Doubling (benefit) payouts doubles the amount you're allowed to keep.

By law (this one), Premium allowed =3D benefits paid + (costs + profit) benefits paid >=3D 0.85 * premium (costs + profit)

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

Aw, little puppy cannot win honestly and resorts to ad hominem. How = cute, not.

Reply to
JosephKK

Not the last chance. There will be an election this fall. And then again in two years.

Just like two and four years ago. Tne Democrats have made no secret of the fact that health care reform has been at the top of their agenda for many years. And yet they seem to get elected.

Could it be that your outrage is only shared by a minority of the population? A noisy, brick throwing minority, but still just a minority.

Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Only leftists throw bricks.

The media would have you believe that home-grown terrorists are right-wing, but it's not true.

From a local newspaper letter-to-the-editor...

"Dear Editor:

Since the media chooses to perpetuate myth born out of political agenda, I?d like to take this opportunity to shed some light on just one of their deceits. We all know the drill ? right-wingers are dangerous fanatics that just might, if you push them, tip over into violence.

Recently our media told us that John Bedell, the man killed while trying to shoot his way into the Pentagon, was a right-wing/tea-partier. Somehow, when the The New York Times ran that, they left out that this ?right-winger? was a registered Democrat prone to ranting against the Bush Administration.

Let?s consider some other infamous names from the past decade: Bruce Ivins, the anthrax mailer; John Allen Muhammed, the DC Sniper; Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter; Kimveer Gill, the 2006 Montreal shooter; Naveed Haq, the 2006 Seattle Jewish Center shooter; Sulejman Talovi, the 2007 Salt Lake City mall shooter; Steven Kazmierczak, the 2008 Northern Illinois University shooter; Nidal Hassan, the 2009 Fort Hood shooting suspect; Joe Stack, the Austin IRS attacker; Amy Bishop, the 2010 University of Alabama shooting suspect.

What did they all have in common? They all killed under an anti-Republican, anti-Christian, and/or anti-capitalist banner. Not a right-winger among ?em. Nope. All left-wingers. I?m thinking that is one heck of a coincidence.

L. Brown"

In reality, we right-wingers _will_ eventually tip over the edge. If this socialism goes too far we're going to round up all you leftist weenies and have a big weenie roast :-) ...Jim Thompson

Reply to
Jim Thompson

You have been tipped over the edge and were coming to get you.

Reply to
The King

Oh? Voluntarily coming to the weenie roast and pick-em-up truck drag-behind ?:-) ...Jim Thompson

Reply to
Jim Thompson

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.