Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Click here for the mobile view of the site