Originally posted by sh76I would say that Sebellius is informing the lobbying group of health insurers that premium rate increases will be scrutinized. As you surely know, in those States where the rates are regulated, the insurers must provide a justification for rate increases. It seems the Federal government is informing insurers that they will intervene ("not stand idly by"😉 by whatever legal means necessary to dispute false claims that premium increases are necessary due to the provisions of the health reform bill.
"We will not stand idly by as insurers blame..." right after the thing about excluding companies from the plan is my idea of an order, yes.
Sorry, but I see nothing improper in this.
Originally posted by MelanerpesShe was being nice; people from Kansas are generally very polite.
perhaps Sebelius should have been more succinct:
"Some insurance companies want to disobey our laws and enact unjustified rate increases. They want to use the national healthcare law as their "justification". We're not buying it. Stop whining and obey the law."
Originally posted by no1marauderShe was targeting letters to enrollees, not official explanations made to regulatory commissions.
I would say that Sebellius is informing the lobbying group of health insurers that premium rate increases will be scrutinized. As you surely know, in those States where the rates are regulated, the insurers must provide a justification for rate increases. It seems the Federal government is informing insurers that they will intervene ("not stand idly by"😉 ...[text shortened]... provisions of the health reform bill.
Sorry, but I see nothing improper in this.
In New York, for example, premiums are higher than in some neighboring states because of NY laws that disallow rejection for pre-existing conditions, etc. It seems to me that the insurance companies are saying "By adding extra requirements on us, we will be forced to raise your premiums."
Now, I agree with Mel that blaming current rate increases on a bill that largely hasn't come into effect yet is a little silly. But their underlying position has some truth to it and whether the specifics of their letters to their customers regarding the reasons for their price increases are accurate, is, IMHO, none of the federal government's business.
1 edit
If insurance companies are forced to cover more medical conditions and more people with pre-existing conditions, or if the government forces industry to complete 9 zillion forms and expect more and more work to justify increasing rates I would expect each factor will cause rates to increase. I see no reason to discourage insurance companies from telling their customers that we will not be able to provide the same services at the same rates because of the government.
Originally posted by no1marauderhow about people from Cincinnati?
She was being nice; people from Kansas are generally very polite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius
Sebelius was born Kathleen Gilligan and reared in a Roman Catholic family in Cincinnati, Ohio. She attended the Summit Country Day School in Cincinnati and graduated from Trinity Washington University in Washington, D.C. with a B.A. in political science. She later earned a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of Kansas. She moved to Kansas in 1974, where she served for eight years as a representative in the Kansas Legislature and eight years as Insurance Commissioner before being elected governor.
Originally posted by quackquacki see a reason, but not one i like.
If insurance companies are forced to cover more medical conditions and more people with pre-existing conditions, or if the government forces industry to complete 9 zillion forms and expect more and more work to justify increasing rates I would expect each factor will cause rates to increase. I see no reason to discourage insurance companies from telling ...[text shortened]... at we will not be able to provide the same services at the same rates because of the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_of_China#The_Second_Five-Year_Plan.2C_1958-1962
However, the Great Leap Forward, which diverted millions of agricultural workers into industry, and the great sparrow campaign, which led to an infestation of locusts, caused a huge decrease in food production. Simultaneously, rural officials, under huge pressure to meet their quotas, vastly overstated how much grain was available. As a result, most of it was allocated to urban areas or even exported, while twenty million peasants starved to death.[3]
Originally posted by sh76The whole premise of the health care reform act is that the interactions between insurance companies and their customers is very much the federal government's business.
She was targeting letters to enrollees, not official explanations made to regulatory commissions.
In New York, for example, premiums are higher than in some neighboring states because of NY laws that disallow rejection for pre-existing conditions, etc. It seems to me that the insurance companies are saying "By adding extra requirements on us, we will be forc ...[text shortened]... for their price increases are accurate, is, IMHO, none of the federal government's business.
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackThey will get over 40 million more customers for an industry that already receives obscene profits due to lack of competition. I imagine any rate increases under these circumstances are going to be viewed with great skepticism by government regulators.
If insurance companies are forced to cover more medical conditions and more people with pre-existing conditions, or if the government forces industry to complete 9 zillion forms and expect more and more work to justify increasing rates I would expect each factor will cause rates to increase. I see no reason to discourage insurance companies from telling ...[text shortened]... at we will not be able to provide the same services at the same rates because of the government.
EDIT: THURSDAY, Feb. 25 (HealthDay News) -- Competition in the health insurance industry is vanishing, according to an American Medical Association report that looked at data from 43 states and 313 metropolitan markets.
In 24 of the states, the two largest insurers had a combined market share of 70 percent or more. Last year, 18 of 42 states had that type of market situation.
Among the other findings:
•In 54 percent of metropolitan markets, at least one insurer had a market share of 50 percent or more -- up from 40 percent of metropolitan markets the year before.
•In 92 percent of metropolitan markets, at least one insurer had a share of 30 percent or more -- up from 89 percent of metropolitan markets the year before.
•Ninety-nine percent of metropolitan markets are highly concentrated, according to federal merger guidelines, compared with 94 percent the year before.
The report, Competition in Health Insurance: A Comprehensive Study of U.S. Markets, was released this week.
"The near total collapse of competitive and dynamic health insurance markets has not helped patients," AMA President Dr. J. James Rohack said in a new release. "As demonstrated by proposed rate hikes in California and other states, health insurers have not shown greater efficiency and lower health care costs. Instead, patient premiums, deductibles and co-payments have soared without an increase in benefits in these increasingly consolidated markets."
Rohack added that a lack of competition in the health insurance industry "is clearly not in the best economic interest of patients," and the AMA wants the U.S. Department of Justice and state agencies "to more aggressively enforce antitrust laws that prohibit harmful mergers."
The AMA also wants the Department of Justice to consider the following measures: a retrospective study of health insurance mergers; research to identify the causes and consequences of health insurance market power; and creation of a system for predicting the effects that health insurance company mergers will have on patients and health care providers.
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/managing-your-healthcare/insurance/articles/2010/02/25/health-insurance-competition-vanishing-study.html
Originally posted by badmoonI would get rid of them too. I wouldn't let the government run one either. I'd force the medical field to provide care at a rate that a person can actually afford.
If I had my way I'd put every lousy health insurance company out of business in the USA.
Gov't run is better than letting these maggots control out lives.
You need insurance to pay for your medical bills. Your insurance company will get you a reduced charge for your service, then pay most, if not all of it for you. It is a vicious circle that needs to end.
Insurance companies that make money off of the medical field simply dirive up costs. Do away with malpractice insurance. If the doctor loses a case, make the doctor pay the bill out of the doctor's pocket. Malpractice insurance simply makes it so that the doctor doesn't need to care.
Do away with all medical insurance and you will see that medicine can be affordable, because if it isn't doctors will not make money at all.
Originally posted by EladarDo away with all medical insurance and you will see that medicine can be affordable, because if it isn't doctors will not make money at all.
I would get rid of them too. I wouldn't let the government run one either. I'd force the medical field to provide care at a rate that a person can actually afford.
You need insurance to pay for your medical bills. Your insurance company will get you a reduced charge for your service, then pay most, if not all of it for you. It is a vicious circle tha ...[text shortened]... ee that medicine can be affordable, because if it isn't doctors will not make money at all.
Seems that there are many businesses that offer products that at least some people can't afford -- and yet they still manage to make a profit. How could that be?
Originally posted by sh76Its like raising taxes sh76. There is no stealing. Its all perfectly legal. 😛
Is this fraud though?
The rates are being increased. The consumers know that.
The insurance companies blame the increases on Obama.
Obama says "No; the rate increases are your fault."
Even if Obama is right, is that "fraud" or merely a perhaps false political claim?
1 edit
Originally posted by badmoonThat is why Obamacare was created. Just sit back and watch the system blow up knowing that in the wake of its destruction you will have a single payer system in the wings waiting. Its like Freddie and Fannie. They are designed to fail.
If I had my way I'd put every lousy health insurance company out of business in the USA.
Gov't run is better than letting these maggots control out lives.