3
   

Taxpayer bailouot for insurance companies in 2014?

 
 
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2013 07:17 pm
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/obamacare-will-provide-bailouts-insurance-companies-next-year/

Quote:

.....“Right now, it’s the only way Obamacare will survive. It ought to be stopped before it happens. Congress must say no to any bailouts because it’s not a natural disaster. It’s a man-made one,” he added....

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/obamacare-will-provide-bailouts-insurance-companies-next-year/#wdD4xZDkVxpodEMu.99
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2013 07:47 pm
@gungasnake,
Absolutely.

Obamacare fans don't know about this feature of the law or don't care to acknowledge it but a guarantee of Insurer profit is baked into the law.

Why else would the whorish Health Insurance industry have embraced the bill?

Its called the "Risk Corridor" (how politicians love to decieve and deflect with language), but it amounts to the government promising to bail out heath insurer for any loss resulting from Obamacare.

It's not really reinsurance, because that would imply that the reinsurer (the government) was actually taking a risk. They're not. They know the insurers will lose money in (at least) the first few years of this legislative abomination, and they have promised them they will make good on such losses.

It is why the government can play fast and loose with the terms of the law and tell insurers they have to do things they, otherwise, would never do.

It is also why Obamacare has so many taxes/penalties. Of course whether or not these taxes/penalties can accomodate insurer losses, is immaterial. If there isn't enough money in the Obamacare kitty, the government will borrow from the Chinese to make it so.

Insurers may bitch about the administrative chaos that has ensued from Obama fiats, but the bottom line is that their profit will not be affected.

So all you Progressives who hate corporations in general and insurers in particular, let it be known that your Progressive hero Obama has cut a deal with the insurers that will allow them to profit no matter how f*cked up the law may be.

The health insurers should not, in the least, be sanguine about their deal with the Devil. It is entirely possible (and even probable) that this Administration will leave them twisting in the wind. If this is the case, I'll shed no tears. When capitalists welcome crony status with the government, they deserve all the f*cking they get.

Attention Liberals!

Have you who adore the OccupyWallStreet crowd yet figured out that your equally beloved savior Obama has embraced crony capitalism to the fullest extent possible, and has financed his political successes through contributions of the 1%?

What fools these Liberal be.

roger
 
  2  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2013 08:52 pm
I knew we'd have to pass it to find out what was in there.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  5  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2013 09:49 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Absolutely.

Obamacare fans don't know about this feature of the law or don't care to acknowledge it but a guarantee of Insurer profit is baked into the law.

Why else would the whorish Health Insurance industry have embraced the bill?

Why indeed.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
They know the insurers will lose money in (at least) the first few years of this legislative abomination, and they have promised them they will make good on such losses.

Not quite. The problem is that nobody knows what rates should be charged under the ACA regime. Insurance actuaries are operating in a fog right now, since their numbers are based on the pre-ACA marketplace. Consequently, the government has had to step in to take some of the risk off the hands of the insurance companies, who would otherwise be operating in an actuarial black hole.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
It is why the government can play fast and loose with the terms of the law and tell insurers they have to do things they, otherwise, would never do.

Insurers don't have to do what the government tells them to do. They can always get out of the health insurance business.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Insurers may bitch about the administrative chaos that has ensued from Obama fiats, but the bottom line is that their profit will not be affected.

It's true that the insurance companies will benefit enormously from Obamacare in the long run. That's because well-managed insurance companies always make money in the long run. After all, that's how insurance works. But it's wrong to say that their profits won't be affected. The risk corridors run both ways: if the insurers post losses, the government will make up some of the difference, but if the insurers post bigger-than-expected profits, they will be required to kick some of that back to the feds.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
So all you Progressives who hate corporations in general and insurers in particular, let it be known that your Progressive hero Obama has cut a deal with the insurers that will allow them to profit no matter how f*cked up the law may be.

Considering that Obamacare was first proposed by conservatives, why should anyone be surprised that it will end up being a big give-away to the private sector? And given that Marco Rubio is the guy right now who is sponsoring a bill to eliminate the risk corridors, does that mean that Rubio is our new progressive hero?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2013 10:51 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Absolutely.

Obamacare fans don't know about this feature of the law or don't care to acknowledge it but a guarantee of Insurer profit is baked into the law.

Why else would the whorish Health Insurance industry have embraced the bill?

Why indeed.

The Risk Corridor is the enticement but the primary reason was a panicked attempt to forestall a single payer (government) system that would at best shrink them far beyond their current size. They decided to dance with the Devil.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
They know the insurers will lose money in (at least) the first few years of this legislative abomination, and they have promised them they will make good on such losses.


Not quite. The problem is that nobody knows what rates should be charged under the ACA regime. Insurance actuaries are operating in a fog right now, since their numbers are based on the pre-ACA marketplace. Consequently, the government has had to step in to take some of the risk off the hands of the insurance companies, who would otherwise be operating in an actuarial black hole.

The entire plan is predicated upon forcing the healthy to enter a pool with the sick. Unless that plan doesn't work, the actuaries should have a pretty good idea of what the rates should be. The only uncertainty the Risk Corrider is intended to mitigate is the caveronous uncertainty of the law's foundational premise, and how all of the political tinkering will degrade it.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
It is why the government can play fast and loose with the terms of the law and tell insurers they have to do things they, otherwise, would never do.


Insurers don't have to do what the government tells them to do. They can always get out of the health insurance business.

And you're OK with that level of extortion?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Insurers may bitch about the administrative chaos that has ensued from Obama fiats, but the bottom line is that their profit will not be affected.


It's true that the insurance companies will benefit enormously from Obamacare in the long run. That's because well-managed insurance companies always make money in the long run. After all, that's how insurance works. But it's wrong to say that their profits won't be affected. The risk corridors run both ways: if the insurers post losses, the government will make up some of the difference, but if the insurers post bigger-than-expected profits, they will be required to kick some of that back to the feds.

The insurers didn't join the dance to make greater than expected profits, they joined to be able to keep making profit. Obviously if they have to turn back some unexpected profit, that can be considered an "affect," but their fear of losing great gobs of money greatly outweighs any insignificant hope of making great gobs.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
So all you Progressives who hate corporations in general and insurers in particular, let it be known that your Progressive hero Obama has cut a deal with the insurers that will allow them to profit no matter how f*cked up the law may be.


Considering that Obamacare was first proposed by conservatives, why should anyone be surprised that it will end up being a big give-away to the private sector? And given that Marco Rubio is the guy right now who is sponsoring a bill to eliminate the risk corridors, does that mean that Rubio is our new progressive hero?


The idea that Obamacare is a conservative idea is absurd, but that won't stop Progressives from bringing it up in every discussion of the law. I doubt you are prepared to assert that every idea dreamed up by conservative politicians or Think Tanks is a good one and so I don't know why you expect me to. Unless of course it's because you think that every idea dreamed up by a progressive polictician or Think Tank must be a great one. If that's the case, then salvish adherence to political labels is yet one more way in which we differ.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2013 06:28 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
The idea that Obamacare is a conservative idea is absurd, but that won't stop Progressives from bringing it up in every discussion of the law.....


Sounds like a last resort... The biggest political screw-up in recorded history on the edge of implosion and the last resort of the super losers who designed it is to blame it on the other side which tried to prevent it.
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2013 07:24 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The entire plan is predicated upon forcing the healthy to enter a pool with the sick. Unless that plan doesn't work, the actuaries should have a pretty good idea of what the rates should be. The only uncertainty the Risk Corrider is intended to mitigate is the caveronous uncertainty of the law's foundational premise, and how all of the political tinkering will degrade it.

We evidently disagree about the source of the uncertainty but not about its existence. The source, however, is immaterial to the actuaries who actually have to deal with the risk, so I don't see that as a significant difference.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
And you're OK with that level of extortion?

Why would I consider it "extortion?" If I decide to open a saloon, I would have to deal with significant government regulation, and if I were not comfortable with that level of regulation, my option would be to refrain from opening that saloon. No "extortion" is involved. The same is true of insurance companies. If they don't like how the government regulates the market, they can always leave the market.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The insurers didn't join the dance to make greater than expected profits, they joined to be able to keep making profit.

I fail to see the distinction.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The idea that Obamacare is a conservative idea is absurd, but that won't stop Progressives from bringing it up in every discussion of the law.

And that won't stop conservatives from sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "la la la la I can't hear you!" every time progressives bring up the fact that Obamacare was originally a conservative idea. But just in case you still have your eyes open, here are some ultra-liberal sources which confirm that Obamacare was, at its core, a conservative idea:

How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate - Forbes.com

Heritage Rewrites History: The think tank proposed the individual mandate years before Clinton took office - WSJ.com

And here's a helpful timeline:

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010: Republican Origins of Democratic Health Care Provision

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I doubt you are prepared to assert that every idea dreamed up by conservative politicians or Think Tanks is a good one and so I don't know why you expect me to.

Because I'm not a conservative, whereas you are. Of course, if you want to criticize Obamacare despite its conservative origins, you're perfectly free to do so. What you can't do (or, at least, can't do honestly), is criticize Obamacare and ignore its conservative origins.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2013 07:26 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
The idea that Obamacare is a conservative idea is absurd, but that won't stop Progressives from bringing it up in every discussion of the law.....


Sounds like a last resort... The biggest political screw-up in recorded history on the edge of implosion and the last resort of the super losers who designed it is to blame it on the other side which tried to prevent it.



ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.

ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.

ROMNEY: OK.

Source
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2013 08:53 am
@gungasnake,
I find it funny the way RWers throw **** at the wall hoping it sticks.

Here's what they were bitching about a month ago.
Quote:
(RNN) - Insurance companies may face reduced profits once the new Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, goes into effect.

Facing potential losses are the largest U.S. medical insurer, UnitedHealth and others such as Aetna, WellPoint, Cigna and Humana. These companies are concerned about profit limits and new taxes to cover some of the cost of expanding healthcare coverage to as many as 30 million uninsured people starting in 2014, according to MSN.




The reality is far from the dire claims made by freepers

Quote:
If actual claims exceed projections by more than 3 percent under Obamacare, the government will compensate the industry for those losses.


Quote:
Way back in 2010, one of the first things the health-care law required was that insurers spend the vast majority — 80 percent — of subscriber premiums on actual medical costs, as opposed to profits and administrative activities.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2013 09:19 am
I don't know why anyone would thumb down Finn's posts in this thread. While I disagree with him, I don't think he's being disagreeable. If you thumb-downers disagree with his position, your task is to refute it, not ignore it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Everyone needs to feel the pain - Discussion by H2O MAN
Need a Hardship Exemption! HELP! - Question by Haxxtastic
Osama Care - Discussion by poorman
Obamacare impact on big business premiums? - Question by thomaspassmore
Who believes in karma? - Discussion by McGentrix
Affordable Care Act Question - Question by footballman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Taxpayer bailouot for insurance companies in 2014?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2021 at 04:30:32