Reply #16: Arguments, arguments

[HousePainter]

My argument is not that there are no improvements over the status quo in the proposed bill but simply to point out that it is one and a half steps forward , one step back- with many hidden drawbacks- the biggest being that it will push any additional significant HCR off the table through at least the next two election cycles.


Insurance reforms : like the ability to charge high-risk patients or those in certain higher risk age groups up to 3 times the premiums of the lowest risk population.


Currently, it's up to 11 times, and not unusual in other countries.
Which countries would those be?

Consumer protection - how much of your premium can go to marketing, profits and salaries- Check with Wendell Potter (former Cigna employee) on this item- he's explained quite clearly how the Industry is already planning to game those numbers. Or talk to any actor who took "points" (a percentage of the gross after expenses) instead of salary back in the 70s and 80s to get a sense of how "creative accounting" works.

MLR goes up about 15 percentage points.
If you accept the erroneous number of a current MLR of 70%.
Still, on a captive pool of an additional mandated 30 million policies - with no strong cost controls it's a Health Insurance CEOs wet dream.

Creating health exchanges : State exchanges not a national exchange - is an explanation really necessary to point out the weakness of that framework ?

Both, but see Hawaii.
That's like saying - percentage of voters registered Democratic- see New York City-
For both of these cases let's use - Alabama or Mississippi.

A commitment to expanding health coverage - throw that in the same bin that "transparency", fierce advocacy of LGBT issues,
the end of lobbyists setting the DC agenda and real financial regulation reform are rotting in.

That's not a rebuttal. Still, 30 million Americans gain coverage.
True not a rebuttal -simply a comment on the evanescence of political commitments - 30 million gain mandated "coverage" as distinct from "health care" -exactly the problem-

Affordable health options with subsidies for working families etc. - in other words our tax dollars being used to help our less fortunate citizens get insurance - with an immediate (at least) 12-18% (see:consumer protection) siphoned off the top by the private insurers who are the only game in town- mandates with penalties if you don't buy in - with policies that will carry co-pays that make a mockery of the whole corporate give-away masquerading as progress to boot.

(emphasis added)

Problem? Currently the insurance companies are siphoning nearly 30 percent.
30 percent is an incorrect figure (fact check it)
Again -a mandated taxpayer subsidy for private insurers (with an additional 30 million bodies thrown in to sweeten the pot) and that guarantees a minimum of 12-18% "commission" on that subsidy (I use it here as a blanket term for self managed overhead)isn't the sort of deal I would brag about to the middle and working class in this country at this time.


Ensuring that reform is completely paid for - The excise tax on so called "Cadillac" plans which will quickly(within six or 7 years) be yet another tax burden on the backs of most of the middle class. Don't be lazy- do the math.

Wrong, most insurance plans will never reach that threshold. Also plans for high-risk workers are protected.

Actually according to Politifact :"An economist we spoke with said they are commonly offered by state and local governments and universities, the types of jobs that are said to have "great benefits." Estimates we've looked at suggest that, by 2019, the excise tax would affect as many as 25 percent and as few as 17 percent of all tax filers."