Skip to main content

View Diary: Is this why Roberts voted for Obamacare? (31 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Didn't stop him on atrocities like Citizens United (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    david78209, NotGeorgeWill I can't believe Roberts gives a crap about anything as nebulous as the 'reputation of the court'.

    Perhaps he looked into the abyss...and was horrified by what he saw looking back.

    •  This decision is identical to Citizens United. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      david78209, PrahaPartizan, J Orygun

      Both worship at the feet of our corporate overlords -- and bestow upon them great financial windfalls.

      I see no contrast.


      The US is the only industrialized nation where gun ownership is a right, health care is a privilege, where poverty and infant mortality are rising, and where the constitution appeases slave-holders instead of benefiting citizens.

      by Pluto on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 06:43:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        glorificus, NotGeorgeWill

        Because requiring insurance companies to dedicate 80% of their premiums to customers "worships the feet of corporate overlords".

        Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

        by MrAnon on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 09:15:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Corollary . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          And implementing the IPAB, which can restrict payments for medically ineffective treatments is "worshiping the feet of corporate overlords"; Factoring quality of care into payments to hospitals is "worshipping the feet of corporate overlords"; and wholesale repeal of the ACA, which also would have restored Medicare Advantage and subsidies to private lenders of student loans is "worshipping the feet of corporate overlords".

          Private insurers may like the mandates, but there are a lot of features of the law that they do not like.  The medical loss ratio that you highlight is a big one.

          •  Corp Overlords are working like hell to redefine (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            their Christmas bonuses and golden parachutes as "Stress-Reduction Therapy.

            That should easily cover the changes to the medical loss ratio.

            It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

            by Murphoney on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 03:17:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And yet . . . (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MrAnon, david78209

              last year, before the full enactment of the ACA, insurance policy-holders were rebated $1.3 billion.

              More than 3 million health insurance policyholders and thousands of employers will share $1.3 billion in rebates this year, thanks to President Barack Obama’s health care law, according to a nonpartisan research group.
              •  but what was the gross hike in revenue? (0+ / 0-)

                and what were the net profits? how does that compare to prior years?

                moreover --  if year-to-year equal comparisons were made of expenditures on healthcare -- using identical inclusion/exclusion-definitions for both years -- how do those gross and per-patient-average expenditures compare?

                Rebates are meaningless without context.

                It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

                by Murphoney on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 01:13:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not sure about specific numbers . . . . (0+ / 0-)

                  however, under the current law, unlike the pre-ACA world, there is a review process of rate increases in excess of 10 percent.  

                  Rebates in the context of an 80-20 rule are meaningful, but preliminary.  The context is the existence of an 80-20 rule.

                  The rule might produce some counter-productive outcomes if the insurers abandon cost controls to providers in order to increase their own profit margins.  However, in a market place with a more standard set of rules, and competition, you would have market pressures acting as a check against that kind of gaming of rules.

                  I agree that additional context is necessary, including historical data, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that the rebates are "meaningless".  These rebates exist in the context of a market with an 80-20 rule, and where the HHS has the ability to block rate increases.  Those are potentially significant changes.

                  •  I amend the comment to 'virtually meaningless'... (0+ / 0-)

                    There is the potential for significant change but, like the term "foolproof" and those damned ingenious fools, "significant change" could well be the wish about which we weren't careful when wishing.

                    I don't blame the President's effort, itself, to provide universal healthcare but merely point out that the number-crunching, context-shredding, profit-humping HMO bastards are as good at knitting loopholes as Congress is bad at writing regulations.

                    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

                    by Murphoney on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 07:16:54 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (122)
  • Community (51)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Environment (33)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Memorial Day (30)
  • Culture (30)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Elections (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Spam (21)
  • Labor (20)
  • Education (20)
  • GOP (20)
  • Civil Rights (19)
  • Economy (17)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (17)
  • Rescued (16)
  • Science (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site