What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

brookyone said:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/10/05/966121/obamacare-birth-control-abortion/

For those with inherent difficulty connecting these dots.
Click to expand...

Birth control at the "exclusive cost of the supplier", which BTW will raise the price of everything else they sell, reminds me of the NCAA's mandate of full face shields or cages on hockey helmets. We're going to see EVEN MORE problems, more "accidental pregnancies", all because some broad can't keep her legs shut as she now feels infallible.
 
joecct said:
Has a central control made anything better?
Click to expand...

I would say the banking system being rescued during the Great Depression might be a good historical example. I'll now sit back and read the requisite head explosions from some of our righty friends. ;)
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Rover said:
I would say the banking system being rescued during the Great Depression might be a good historical example. I'll now sit back and read the requisite head explosions from some of our righty friends. ;)
Click to expand...

Someone forgot about the crash of 1937. So unless you think the government is trying to start World War III in order to get a better economy, I'd stop taking history out of context.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Rover said:
Looks like Obamacare is reducing premiums after all:

http://wonkwire.rollcall.com/2013/06/07/obamacare-reduced-individual-insurance-market-premiums/

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

A more accurate story would be that Obama'care' has introduced more annual volatility into health insurance premiums, so that in years in which claims are lower than anticipated, some policyholders will receive refund checks, while in the year following the year in which claims are higher than anticipated, premiums will spike more than they otherwise would have.

We discussed this issue at length before: a sensible law would have used something like a five-year rolling average (or even a three-year rolling average) of claims-to-premium ratios to smooth out annual volatility (or a ratio of five-year rolling average of claims over a five-year rolling average of premiums, if you prefer).

You can't in all seriousness ask us to look at one year's data and somehow try to convince us that it's a "trend." Even in your most rabid cheerleader costume, you generally have more sense than that!
 
Last edited:
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

FreshFish said:
A more accurate story would be that Obama'care' has introduced more annual volatility into health insurance premiums, so that in years in which claims are lower than anticipated, some policyholders will receive refund checks, while in the year following the year in which claims are higher than anticipated, premiums will spike more than they otherwise would have.

We discussed this issue at length before: a sensible law would have used something like a five-year rolling average (or even a three-year rolling average) of claims-to-premium ratios to smooth out annual volatility (or a ratio of five-year rolling average of claims over a five-year rolling average of premiums, if you prefer).

You can't in all seriousness ask us to look at one year's data and somehow try to convince us that it's a "trend." Even in your most rabid cheerleader costume, you generally have more sense than that!
Click to expand...

Refund checks? That doesn't sound right. Wouldn't they hang onto the money as a rainy day for when claims go high?
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

FlagDUDE08 said:
Refund checks? That doesn't sound right. Wouldn't they hang onto the money as a rainy day for when claims go high?
Click to expand...


That is now against the law.

Leaving out the qualifiers, the law mandates that if claims are less than 80% of premiums in any one year, then refunds need to be sent out so that claims are at least 80% of premiums for that year. On a rolling-average basis, that is actually fairly reasonable, as market competition already drives premiums to that level anyway. Before the law, companies were always shopping their group health insurance when it came up for renewal for exactly that reason.

However, if claims exceed 100% of premiums in any one year, then companies now have no choice but to eat the loss, which is really stupid: revenue is capped but expenses are not capped. They have no recourse at all. Another reason why a rolling-average calculation makes sense.

Some of these ideas are so basic, you have to wonder just who actually wrote the law and what could they possibly have been thinking. It really does look like a college sophomore did a few internet searches and cut and pasted stuff together without any consistency or context! :rolleyes:
 
FreshFish said:
A more accurate story would be that Obama'care' has introduced more annual volatility into health insurance premiums, so that in years in which claims are lower than anticipated, some policyholders will receive refund checks, while in the year following the year in which claims are higher than anticipated, premiums will spike more than they otherwise would have.

We discussed this issue at length before: a sensible law would have used something like a five-year rolling average (or even a three-year rolling average) of claims-to-premium ratios to smooth out annual volatility (or a ratio of five-year rolling average of claims over a five-year rolling average of premiums, if you prefer).

You can't in all seriousness ask us to look at one year's data and somehow try to convince us that it's a "trend." Even in your most rabid cheerleader costume, you generally have more sense than that!
Click to expand...

Not saying its a trend but we've all seen the hyperbole about how premiums were going up 10000% compounded daily and the like, so its nice to inject some reality into the discussion.

As I've said repeatedly, I can live with any adjustment that would strengthen the law (for example, if you wanted to enact tort reform and get rid of medical devices tax). That's problematic when one party refuses to acknowledge its existence except to hold three dozen meaningless repeal votes on it. :rolleyes:
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Rover said:
Not saying its a trend but we've all seen the hyperbole about how premiums were going up 10000% compounded daily and the like, so its nice to inject some reality into the discussion.

As I've said repeatedly, I can live with any adjustment that would strengthen the law (for example, if you wanted to enact tort reform and get rid of medical devices tax). That's problematic when one party refuses to acknowledge its existence except to hold three dozen meaningless repeal votes on it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Except the OTHER party steamrolled the passage. When you get 0 votes of the opposition, perhaps it is time to rethink things. However, the Dems were heady with power (just as the GOP was) and decided that if they had the keys, the car was going where they wanted to go, and never mind the gang in the back.

Now, perhaps in reflection, the direction taken was not the best, but it is tough to admit you made a mistake.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

joecct said:
Except the OTHER party steamrolled the passage. When you get 0 votes of the opposition, perhaps it is time to rethink things.
Click to expand...

Tell you what, I'll be ok repealing Obamacare when Wisconsin, Kansas, Florida, et al repeal everything they passed on party line votes in the last 4 years.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

FlagDUDE08 said:
The death panels have begun. http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/...ng-girl-someone-lives-and-someone-dies-video/
Click to expand...

FlagDUDE08 said:
It took a judge to overrule a death panel, at least for the time being. http://communities.washingtontimes....ican-judge-saves-sarah-murnaghan-death-panel/
Click to expand...
http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/plainlanguage.asp

You don't know much about long standing policies and procedures of transplant centers and organ distribution. Policies and procedures aimed at absolute maximization of transplant long term success potential. Not wasting organs. Every patient in need of an organ transplant is faced with the harsh reality they may or may not be deemed a viable candidate per a decision made by the transplant staff based on those long standing policies and the required transplant workup results. They face the very real threat they die waiting even when deemed a strong candidate and put on a waiting list.

You're appalled by the imaginary death panel and an alleged arbitrary decision, who lives, who dies. It isn't arbitrary, without sound medical reasoning and knowledge or absent the input of transplant staff, including the opinion carrying the greatest weight, the transplant surgeons themselves. Yet comfortable with a judges decision in this case. You realize someone else will die waiting for a lung. Perhaps a lung this unfortunate young lady ultimately receives. This lung. Maybe a fifteen year old girl dies waiting instead. Another young person looking for a chance to live. There aren't enough organs. Be assured someone else will die waiting. If this young lady receives an adult lung that becomes available, another person will die waiting. A death panel comprised of one Republican judge is an acceptable alternative right?
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

FreshFish said:
That is now against the law.

Leaving out the qualifiers, the law mandates that if claims are less than 80% of premiums in any one year, then refunds need to be sent out so that claims are at least 80% of premiums for that year. On a rolling-average basis, that is actually fairly reasonable, as market competition already drives premiums to that level anyway. Before the law, companies were always shopping their group health insurance when it came up for renewal for exactly that reason.

However, if claims exceed 100% of premiums in any one year, then companies now have no choice but to eat the loss, which is really stupid: revenue is capped but expenses are not capped. They have no recourse at all. Another reason why a rolling-average calculation makes sense.

Some of these ideas are so basic, you have to wonder just who actually wrote the law and what could they possibly have been thinking. It really does look like a college sophomore did a few internet searches and cut and pasted stuff together without any consistency or context! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You know what I'd do, then? Double the price of all the premiums. Maybe even more. Then, I'd put out commercial advertisements that on average, my clients received a boatload of money from us every year just for going with us, or some spin along those lines.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

brookyone said:
http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/plainlanguage.asp

You don't know much about long standing policies and procedures of transplant centers and organ distribution. Policies and procedures aimed at absolute maximization of transplant long term success potential. Not wasting organs. Every patient in need of an organ transplant is faced with the harsh reality they may or may not be deemed a viable candidate per a decision made by the transplant staff based on those long standing policies and the required transplant workup results. They face the very real threat they die waiting even when deemed a strong candidate and put on a waiting list.

You're appalled by the imaginary death panel and an alleged arbitrary decision, who lives, who dies. It isn't arbitrary, without sound medical reasoning and knowledge or absent the input of transplant staff, including the opinion carrying the greatest weight, the transplant surgeons themselves. Yet comfortable with a judges decision in this case. You realize someone else will die waiting for a lung. Perhaps a lung this unfortunate young lady ultimately receives. This lung. Maybe a fifteen year old girl dies waiting instead. Another young person looking for a chance to live. There aren't enough organs. Be assured someone else will die waiting. If this young lady receives an adult lung that becomes available, another person will die waiting. A death panel comprised of one Republican judge is an acceptable alternative right?
Click to expand...

Coming from someone who thinks it's OK to kill human life just because it hasn't popped itself outside of the uterus and the woman couldn't keep her legs closed, I'm not surprised.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

FlagDUDE08 said:
Coming from someone who thinks it's OK to kill human life just because it hasn't popped itself outside of the uterus and the woman couldn't keep her legs closed, I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...
You're not surprised by what exactly? Your like a broken record...coming from someone this, coming from someone that. Quick change to abortion. How did that happen. 100% of your posts regarding anything healthcare comes from someone who doesn't know jack of what he speaks. Waiting for your expert, informed commentary on the organ transplant and patients waiting topics. :rolleyes:

We should have a Republican judge outlawing and forbidding all abortions I suppose. Your bull**** stinks up the joint.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top