Skip to main content

View Diary: A Reminder about that Republican HCR Plan (126 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How do caps on out-of pocket (0+ / 0-)

    expenses, a medical loss ratio, a cap on premiums as a % of income, and an obligation to cover the uninsured, regardless of preexisting conditions, translate into more money for health insurance companies.

    If that meant more money, they would've been doing it already.

    Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

    by Dauphin on Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 07:46:12 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not what the diary referred to, but... (0+ / 0-)

      Absolutely it translates to more money for everbody in the health care system.

      First and foremost -- nobody has suggested that those uninsured people be covered for free.  Far from it.  The Senate bill mandates that healthy young people buy insurance that is far more expensive than actuarial tables would suggest so that people who otherwise would be priced out of the market can be covered.

      Insurance companies are like the old regulated utilities.  When your profits are regulated on a costs+ basis, the only way to grow your profit is to grow your costs, which means increasing your volume.  

      Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

      by dinotrac on Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 07:59:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would point out (0+ / 0-)

        that is precisely what caps and the medical loss ratio aim to prevent. 80% of proceeds have to be devoted to care, and the amount of income is capped by out-of-pocket expenses and premiums as a percentage of income. Those three institutes represent an absolute cap on the amount of money in the system.

        Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

        by Dauphin on Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 08:22:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  As it is now, large insurance companies spend (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eloise

          more than 80% of proceeds for care.  According to an NPR study, it was actually 82%.

          But that is my point -- when your percentage is fixed, you increase volume.

          For example:

          11 people at $1,000 each, 80% to care = $220 to company
          as opposed to
          10 people at $1,000 each, which comes to $200.

          Or, as you go from year to year in the absence of real competition,

          Expensive treatment a at $10,000 = $2,000 as opposed to
          cheap treatment b at $1,000.

          The only way to avoid that problem is to place limits on the treatments that doctors can prescribe.

          That is absolutely something that needs to be done -- but I don't see a whole lot of people talking that up in public.

          Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

          by dinotrac on Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 08:33:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site