Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

For Wall St. regulation its absurd to think Hillary won't move left on this. Simply for political calculations, its an easy win. You don't need new laws just changing existing regulations which she or her appointees can do. The biggest obstacle for the Dems isn't Hillary, its Chuck Schumer. Using existing levers she can easily work around him and keep the Elizabeth Warrens and Sandernistas happy.

Julie Mason of all people made a great observation on her POTUS show yesterday (I like Julie, but her show is not exactly chock full of policy depth -- it's more a circle jerk for insiders she knows). If the Republicans hold the Senate, the chair of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (the committee that reports out financial regulation legilsation) will be free market looney tune Mike Crapo. If the Democrats take the Senate, it will be "off with their heads" Sherrod Brown. That is a YUGE difference.

[alfablue]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

Inspite of the risk of getting raged at...

Epi Pens scenario are occurring because they lack free markets...not because of them. Price competition from $50 generics would not allow this to occur.

United Healthcare made $11B in income last year. Other insurance companies the same. And they don't actually deliver health care themselves. Now that's a pretty good business to be in. And they hate the Obamacare markets. Why? Because they bring competition and free markets. So Epi Pens is just doing what its allowed to do. Not sure if I would, but many people would take a big pile of money if its sitting on the table. Blame for and any solution rests with the system that's broken and a lack of free markets that allow them to get away with it rather than Epi Pens and UHG CEOs.

All, there are two sides to this post.

The first part suggesting the market for products like the Epi Pen isn't a free market- which is correct that there is protection form generics. And then the ACA part.

Don't lose the part that for some very important medications that help people stay alive- the market isn't free. And the opinion that it should not be a major money maker vs. a nominal one given what it does is a good argument to have. Much like- should the part of the healtcare system that just, for the lack of a better term, launders your money, make a significant profit on that?

If you come up with a method to let the aging population make more and more whoope- that's one thing.

If you come up with a method to solve some serious health issues- that's another.

Whether the ACA is effective legislation isn't related to either of those discussions.

[alfablue]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

Julie Mason of all people made a great observation on her POTUS show yesterday (I like Julie, but her show is not exactly chock full of policy depth -- it's more a circle jerk for insiders she knows). If the Republicans hold the Senate, the chair of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (the committee that reports out financial regulation legilsation) will be Mike Crapo. If the Democrats take the Senate, it will be Sherrod Brown. That is a YUGE difference.

On a side note- it's really odd to me to see his name. I went to HS with his niece, and his family still lives within a mile of my parents. As evil as I want to portray Republicans, just knowing who he is, and that he lives in a pretty modest house makes it hard.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

First, the ACA did not bring free markets to the healthcare industry. Quit distorting that term, it makes you look wholly ignorant when you're trying to impress people.

Second, health insurance rates are tightly governed by the states. It's a regulated market with large entry barriers established long ago. (I can't setup a St. Clown Health Insurance Co. and start selling my plans without a great deal of haggling with the state beforehand.) In many states, including MN, an insurance company has to submit to the state's commerce department - there's a group within insurance whose whole job it is to approve and monitor insurance companies' pricing strategies and force them to justify their planned rates. So all of these profits they earn, those profits you and so many others bemoan, aren't just legally permissible, they're almost granted to the companies by the states. And it's been that way for decades. The states have established healthcare oligopolies. The ACA only made side-by-side comparisons easier when price-shopping the various plans offered within that state exchanges.

This always reminds me of Illinois car dealers who quite sometime ago started to add a line to purchase contracts called "dealer fees". It was charged that, while it may be true that dealers do incur some expenses in a transaction, this was largely a made up way to increase profits (it was) and the fees were at the very least, exorbitant.
Dealers then (obviously acting against their own profit interests) had a bill introduced that placed a cap on fees they could legally charge in this manner at (for example) $600, even though most were charging less or none at all. But when it passed, pretty much all Dealers started charging $600 and used the very existence of the law as proof the fees weren't made up, and in fact justified and authorized by the State legislature. In other words, they sold "no more than $600" as "$600 is the necessary and proper amount" to customers based on law. Not surprisingly, in the following years neighboring states' dealer associations followed suit.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

On a side note- it's really odd to me to see his name. I went to HS with his niece, and his family still lives within a mile of my parents. As evil as I want to portray Republicans, just knowing who he is, and that he lives in a pretty modest house makes it hard.

You know who else lived in a modest house...

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

Meanwhile the lunacy is ramping up for the stretch run.

Limbaugh said the Obama administration is trying to "convince lesbians to become farmers" through financial grants "to bust up one of the last geographically conservative regions" in the U.S.

http://www.dailydot.com/irl/lesbian-...ver-your-town/

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

538 has a really good piece on polarization and the relationship between elections in a given state.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

First, the ACA did not bring free markets to the healthcare industry.

The ACA brought exchanges...which improved consumer and competitive transparency. Free markets are 'a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers'. Seems business 101 to me.

Second, health insurance rates are tightly governed by the states.

Wrong.

From wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_law): The scope of regulation extends beyond the prudential oversight of insurance companies and their capital adequacy, and include such matters as ensuring that the policy holder is protected against bad faith claims on the insurer's part, that premiums are not unduly high (or fixed), and that contracts and policies issued meet a minimum standard. A bad faith action may constitute several possibilities; the insurer denies a claim that seems valid in the contract or policy, the insurer refuses to pay out for an unreasonable amount of time, the insurer lays the burden of proof on the insured - often in the case where the claim is unprovable. Other issues of insurance law may arise when price fixing occurs between insurers, creating an unfair competitive environment for consumers. In some states there is review of increases...

But rates and premiums are set by insurance companies. And nowhere are they set by the state. Nowhere.

[joecct]

...But rates and premiums are set by insurance companies. And nowhere are they set by the state. Nowhere.

In MD, at least, the state reviews the rate increases and says Yea or Nay.

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

The ACA brought exchanges...which improved consumer and competitive transparency. Free markets are 'a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers'. Seems business 101 to me.



Wrong.

From wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_law): The scope of regulation extends beyond the prudential oversight of insurance companies and their capital adequacy, and include such matters as ensuring that the policy holder is protected against bad faith claims on the insurer's part, that premiums are not unduly high (or fixed), and that contracts and policies issued meet a minimum standard. A bad faith action may constitute several possibilities; the insurer denies a claim that seems valid in the contract or policy, the insurer refuses to pay out for an unreasonable amount of time, the insurer lays the burden of proof on the insured - often in the case where the claim is unprovable. Other issues of insurance law may arise when price fixing occurs between insurers, creating an unfair competitive environment for consumers. In some states there is review of increases...

But rates and premiums are set by insurance companies. And nowhere are they set by the state. Nowhere.

I'd further this discussion with you, but this is yet another time where you've made up your mind with only a fraction of what you think are the facts (which are not facts at all).

In MD, at least, the state reviews the rate increases and says Yea or Nay.

The same exact thing happens in MN. If the state thinks a company is charging either too high or too low of a premium, it rejects the insurance company's proposed rates. It does this out of concern of protecting the consumer from potential gouging and from an insurer folding and leaving their customers in the lurch. All of this stuff I had to memorize for my first job out of college, when I earned my state-issued insurance licenses because I worked for (drumroll, please) an insurance company.

[bronconick]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

Worst run campaign ever

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

Worst run campaign ever

That might not be Trump's fault. My understanding is the state party is responsible for those mechanics. But if I were the national campaign coordinator I would certainly have verified something that basic.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

Mylan CEO Heather Bresch told CNBC Thursday that lowering the price was not an option.

Mylan can go **** themselves.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

Mylan can go **** themselves.

Come the revolution...

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

You have to admire Trump. He buried the field on immigration and then adopted their position for the general. Pure genius.