If the administration allows the payments to be delayed, they're shooting themselves in the foot.

If that money can't go to lobbyists to get Newt Gingrich on retainer in order to provide "access" to him, what the hell are insurance premiums good for?

Bahahahahaha


"NO WAIT OBUMMERCARE IS GUNNA KILL YER GRAMMAW! I SWEARS! THOSE REFUNDS ARE DARK SIDED!"

Grand_Moff_Joseph: As a former resident of TX, most of the insurance firms that "will be put out of business" by these refunds are exactly like the small firm noted in TFA. TX is chock full of fly by night health insurance firms who are no more reliable or ethical than "Bob's State Minimum" car insurance. If they were all to shut down over these refunds, the average TX consumer would be better off.

That's not very free market-ey

The people of Texas deserve to be swindled out of their money.

More than 20% overhead? I thought private business was always more efficient?

Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the national lobbying group for insurance companies, says that the new regulation tries to make insurers responsible for rising premiums, when really the problem lies with doctors, hospitals, and drug and device companies.

"The biggest issue is it doesn't get at the soaring cost of medical care," he says. "And instead it imposes a new arbitrary cap on health plan administrative costs. Some plans may have no choice but to exit the market altogether, and people could lose the coverage they have today."

Translation:

It's everyone elses fault but us for skyrocketing health care prices.

Texas needs a b*tchslap from the rest of the Union.

Mrtraveler01: Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the national lobbying group for insurance companies, says that the new regulation tries to make insurers responsible for rising premiums, when really the problem lies with doctors, hospitals, and drug and device companies.

"The biggest issue is it doesn't get at the soaring cost of medical care," he says. "And instead it imposes a new arbitrary cap on health plan administrative costs. Some plans may have no choice but to exit the market altogether, and people could lose the coverage they have today."

Translation:

It's everyone elses fault but us for skyrocketing health care prices.

I could be wrong, but the cap is a percentage of revenue, so if prices are rising they could raise premiums as long as they stayed below 20% overhead...

Fascism

Take, for example, Standard Life and Casualty Insurance. That company spends only 53 percent of premiums on medical care, with the rest going to overhead and profit, according to the state documents filed with the feds.

Jesus, not only should they go out of business, they should be targeted for investigation.

Given that Medicare typically returns 95%-98% of it's money to direct health care costs, I wouldn't think this would be too difficult. Granted there's value in things like customer service and fraud prevention and the like, but 20% overhead is not an overly ambitious target for a competetive industry.

Philip Francis Queeg: I thought private business was always more efficient?

Only if we deregulate, remember?

Deregulation + invisible hand of the free market = the best, cheapest and most affordable healthcare this world has ever known.

error 303: Given that Medicare typically returns 95%-98% of it's money to direct health care costs, I wouldn't think this would be too difficult. Granted there's value in things like customer service and fraud prevention and the like, but 20% overhead is not an overly ambitious target for a competetive industry.

Medicare is actually quite well run, despite what Republicans would have you believe. They moan about fraud and waste, but I've never gotten any of them to compare Medicare's supposed fraud and waste against private insurance. I mean, if you say there's X% of fraud in Medicare...how much is there in general in private insurance? If that number is higher than X, then Medicare is doing a better job.

And waste...well, waste in private insurance is basically equal to profit, so no one wants to compare that.

Testiclaw: Philip Francis Queeg: I thought private business was always more efficient?

Only if we deregulate, remember?

Deregulation + invisible hand of the free market = the best, cheapest and most affordable healthcare this world has ever known.

Deregulation? That's a joke, right? You're talking about one of the most highly regulated industries in the world, from the AMA to state licensing boards to state departments of health to the FDA to departments of business regulation to insurance commissioners to...well, I think you might get the picture.

vs.

Well duh, because of soshulizm.

Dr. Whoof: but I've never gotten any of them to compare Medicare's supposed fraud and waste against private insurance

Then you've never even casually looked. There are a multitude of studies, including those touted by the Democrats in passing ObamaCare, that show >10x fraud in Medicare over private insurance. Those studies are pretty universally aceepted -- they're cited by proponents of beefing up Medicare because they claim that they can achieve private sector-type fraud detection, thus achieving massive reductions in cost of services, thus funding whatever they want to enact. Of course, they don't actually realize those savings. Ever. Which means they either jack up the costs of the program or squeeze somewhere else (slow pay for covered services, reduced allowable amounts, reduced benefits, etc.). And they're cited by opponents of government programs because of what they actually say.

error 303: Given that Medicare typically returns 95%-98% of it's money to direct health care costs, I wouldn't think this would be too difficult. Granted there's value in things like customer service and fraud prevention and the like, but 20% overhead is not an overly ambitious target for a competetive industry.

Medicare has an overhead of about 3%, but also has no profit margin.

So a private health insurance company run as efficiently as Medicare could squeeze out a 17% profit margin - which is pretty damn good for the amount of money flowing through them.

DrBenway: Texas: not the sharpest tool in the box.

Texas: One chromosome too many

madgonad: Medicare has an overhead of about 3%, but also has no profit margin.

Medicare also doesn't spend hundreds of man-hours looking through your medical history to find a way to rescind it from you after you're diagnosed with cancer. That shiat's expensive.

DarnoKonrad: they're shooting themselves in the foot

It seems some would rather do this than admit anything beneficial about the ACA.

/and then utilize ACA benefits for medical treatment

Garet Garrett: Dr. Whoof: but I've never gotten any of them to compare Medicare's supposed fraud and waste against private insurance

Then you've never even casually looked. There are a multitude of studies, including those touted by the Democrats in passing ObamaCare, that show >10x fraud in Medicare over private insurance. Those studies are pretty universally aceepted -- they're cited by proponents of beefing up Medicare because they claim that they can achieve private sector-type fraud detection, thus achieving massive reductions in cost of services, thus funding whatever they want to enact. Of course, they don't actually realize those savings. Ever. Which means they either jack up the costs of the program or squeeze somewhere else (slow pay for covered services, reduced allowable amounts, reduced benefits, etc.). And they're cited by opponents of government programs because of what they actually say.

Good thing "Obamacare" has already started addressing the fraud. Another policy success story.

Dusk-You-n-Me: The forces that have driven down the cost of health care, however, aren't likely to get much celebration at all. The new data link the slowdown to the recession, as more Americans remain uninsured and unable to cover medical spending.

It's a win for Republicans, and they should bring it up at every opportunity! George Bush brought down health care costs, and John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are working hard to keep them low!

And if Santorum had his way, health care costs would go even lower!

Garet Garrett: Dr. Whoof: but I've never gotten any of them to compare Medicare's supposed fraud and waste against private insurance

Then you've never even casually looked. There are a multitude of studies, including those touted by the Democrats in passing ObamaCare, that show >10x fraud in Medicare over private insurance. Those studies are pretty universally aceepted -- they're cited by proponents of beefing up Medicare because they claim that they can achieve private sector-type fraud detection, thus achieving massive reductions in cost of services, thus funding whatever they want to enact. Of course, they don't actually realize those savings. Ever. Which means they either jack up the costs of the program or squeeze somewhere else (slow pay for covered services, reduced allowable amounts, reduced benefits, etc.). And they're cited by opponents of government programs because of what they actually say.

Fraud is just as prevalent in the private health insurance industry as it is with public insurance, according to a report by the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, Department of Health Policy.

You got any evidence for your side?

Mrtraveler01: Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the national lobbying group for insurance companies, says that the new regulation tries to make insurers responsible for rising premiums, when really the problem lies with doctors, hospitals, and drug and device companies.

"The biggest issue is it doesn't get at the soaring cost of medical care," he says. "And instead it imposes a new arbitrary cap on health plan administrative costs. Some plans may have no choice but to exit the market altogether, and people could lose the coverage they have today."

Translation:

It's everyone elses fault but us for skyrocketing health care prices.

The stupidest part of this is that fees paid to doctors, hospitals and drug and device companies counts as medical expenses, and therefore would fall within the 80% that must be spent on health care. If those prices are all skyrocketing but you keep your administrative costs and profit margins the same, it should become easier to meet the requirements, not harder.

This is pure deflection. The point they are using is actually an argument against their position, that they are hoping most people will be too stupid to catch on to. Unethical greedy farktards, the lot of them.

sweetmelissa31: I'm sure Texans don't want the money anyway. The insurance companies earned it.


The Texas Rangers might want to weigh in on the debate.

So, Perry thinks he still has a chance in hell of winning, huh?

Surool: So, Perry thinks he still has a chance in hell of winning, huh?

I'd would say that Perry has a lot of stupid ideas, but I don't want to insult ideas.

Guidette Frankentits: DrBenway: Texas: not the sharpest tool in the box.

Texas: One chromosome too many

Approves:

The Larch: Surool: So, Perry thinks he still has a chance in hell of winning, huh?

I'd would say that Perry has a lot of stupid ideas, but I don't want to insult ideas.

You can blame the source, but you have to admit, the ideas are pretty stupid too.

So their argument is that 2 years is not enough time for some companies to change business models so that they're providing more care and less bureaucracy (or less profit if they can't provide that), so give them 5 years and then they'll totally be fine with the change?

But those moneys are tainted by Fartburrito