In article ,
says...

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:34:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 01:09:34 -0500, Jim wrote:

We don't have to wait long to see. What do you think "open season"
will look like this year?


We'll see. I think the sleazy Dems have an ace up their sleeve with
that Health Insurance Rate Authority that 'Bama tried to get included
in the Senate Bill. The parliamentarian kicked it out of the
reconciliation process - Byrd rule - so it won't get passed in the
current bill.

The insurance companies will not have much trouble justifying their
rate increases., they just have to present the underwriter's report
about the extra cost of insuring "kids" until they are 26, picking up
"preexisting conditions" and removing caps.
It is pure dollars and cents. There ain't no free lunch.


"Jim" is an idiot. The ins. companies need more regulation. It's not a free
lunch, but most people are willing to pay more for actually getting
something of value. It's not "pure dollars and cents."


The prices are determined by the actuarial studies by the underwriters
and that is pure dollars and cents.
They increased the insurance company exposure to risk and the
insurance company is going to recover that in higher premiums.
Actually when you are talking about caps and preexisting conditions it
is not really risk at all, the worst possible scenario is already true
and the insurance company is just a medical service broker, paying the
bill, tacking on administrative cost and profit and billing the other
customers accordingly. In a macro sense this is a very simple
business. When outlay goes up, income must go up.

Mumbo Jumbo really. Fact: All kids won't be covered this year
Fact: Insurance company rates are not controlled at all in this bill.
Fact: Prescriptions and pre-existing conditions will not be all covered
this year and far into the life of the bill if ever.
Fact: The Pharmas got a great big bone with the extention of generic
protections to 12 years so millions won't have access to the best
medicines and will suffer and die.
Fact: All illegal aliens will be covered as soon as congress passes a
"comprehensive" (amnesty) immigration act.
Fact: You can't add 35 million people to the medical roles and expect
them to keep up.
Fact: You can't take billions from doctors and expect better service.
Fact: You can't strip money from seniors and expect them to get better
care.
Fact: You can't save 38 billion by spending 10 trillion. Maybe they can
call it money "saved or counted" (created snerk
..... The list goes on...

Scotty

--
For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v

wrote in message
news
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:34:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 01:09:34 -0500, Jim wrote:

We don't have to wait long to see. What do you think "open season"
will look like this year?


We'll see. I think the sleazy Dems have an ace up their sleeve with
that Health Insurance Rate Authority that 'Bama tried to get included
in the Senate Bill. The parliamentarian kicked it out of the
reconciliation process - Byrd rule - so it won't get passed in the
current bill.

The insurance companies will not have much trouble justifying their
rate increases., they just have to present the underwriter's report
about the extra cost of insuring "kids" until they are 26, picking up
"preexisting conditions" and removing caps.
It is pure dollars and cents. There ain't no free lunch.


"Jim" is an idiot. The ins. companies need more regulation. It's not a
free
lunch, but most people are willing to pay more for actually getting
something of value. It's not "pure dollars and cents."


The prices are determined by the actuarial studies by the underwriters
and that is pure dollars and cents.

Not completely. The prices are enhanced/determined by a group of people with
one thing in mind... profit.

They increased the insurance company exposure to risk and the
insurance company is going to recover that in higher premiums.
Actually when you are talking about caps and preexisting conditions it
is not really risk at all, the worst possible scenario is already true
and the insurance company is just a medical service broker, paying the
bill, tacking on administrative cost and profit and billing the other
customers accordingly. In a macro sense this is a very simple
business. When outlay goes up, income must go up.

It's a simple business that has no business involved in healthcare
decisions. Profit and people's health are not really compatible.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 01:17:37 -0700, jps wrote:

The prices are determined by the actuarial studies by the underwriters
and that is pure dollars and cents.
They increased the insurance company exposure to risk and the
insurance company is going to recover that in higher premiums.
Actually when you are talking about caps and preexisting conditions it
is not really risk at all, the worst possible scenario is already true
and the insurance company is just a medical service broker, paying the
bill, tacking on administrative cost and profit and billing the other
customers accordingly. In a macro sense this is a very simple
business. When outlay goes up, income must go up.

There's a few factors in there worth considering. Among them, the
insurance companies are dividing 30 million new customers. There's
upside in greater volume. Many of those new customers will be younger
since they're more likely to forego insurance, pushing the median age
lower and lowering actuarial risk. Outlay/customer is likely to go
down.

Since a significant number of these new "young" customers will be on
their parent's policies they do not represent any actual new revenue.
unless the parent's rate goes up.

The real savings for us, that is small participants, is when they
institute the exchange. That'll allow small companies like mine to
join much larger pools.

Let's see how that works in reality.

Well, isn't that almost always the case?

--
Nom=de=Plume

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:34:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 01:09:34 -0500, Jim wrote:

We don't have to wait long to see. What do you think "open season"
will look like this year?


We'll see. I think the sleazy Dems have an ace up their sleeve with
that Health Insurance Rate Authority that 'Bama tried to get included
in the Senate Bill. The parliamentarian kicked it out of the
reconciliation process - Byrd rule - so it won't get passed in the
current bill.

The insurance companies will not have much trouble justifying their
rate increases., they just have to present the underwriter's report
about the extra cost of insuring "kids" until they are 26, picking up
"preexisting conditions" and removing caps.
It is pure dollars and cents. There ain't no free lunch.


"Jim" is an idiot. The ins. companies need more regulation. It's not a
free
lunch, but most people are willing to pay more for actually getting
something of value. It's not "pure dollars and cents."


The prices are determined by the actuarial studies by the underwriters
and that is pure dollars and cents.
They increased the insurance company exposure to risk and the
insurance company is going to recover that in higher premiums.
Actually when you are talking about caps and preexisting conditions it
is not really risk at all, the worst possible scenario is already true
and the insurance company is just a medical service broker, paying the
bill, tacking on administrative cost and profit and billing the other
customers accordingly. In a macro sense this is a very simple
business. When outlay goes up, income must go up.

Mumbo Jumbo really. Fact: All kids won't be covered this year
Fact: Insurance company rates are not controlled at all in this bill.
Fact: Prescriptions and pre-existing conditions will not be all covered
this year and far into the life of the bill if ever.
Fact: The Pharmas got a great big bone with the extention of generic
protections to 12 years so millions won't have access to the best
medicines and will suffer and die.
Fact: All illegal aliens will be covered as soon as congress passes a
"comprehensive" (amnesty) immigration act.
Fact: You can't add 35 million people to the medical roles and expect
them to keep up.
Fact: You can't take billions from doctors and expect better service.
Fact: You can't strip money from seniors and expect them to get better
care.
Fact: You can't save 38 billion by spending 10 trillion. Maybe they can
call it money "saved or counted" (created snerk
.... The list goes on...

Scotty

--
For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v


Fact: You don't know your facts.


--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:33:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Yup, if they start today, they will have a whole new batch of doctors
in 2018.

So, there's no one in the medical schools right now? I don't see any stats
that show there will be a shortage.

It takes me a couple weeks to get into my primary care doctor now.
They say if you need an appointment earlier go to the emergency room.
It is apparent there are more patients than the doctors can handle.


Come on. If it's an emergency, you go to the ER. If it's not, you can either
go to your doc or another. Perhaps you have a poor plan with limited doctors
available? In any case, your situation isn't necessarily representative.
It's one case. Do you really expect to see a doctor on a moment's notice???

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:33:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Yup, if they start today, they will have a whole new batch of doctors
in 2018.

So, there's no one in the medical schools right now? I don't see any stats
that show there will be a shortage.

It takes me a couple weeks to get into my primary care doctor now.
They say if you need an appointment earlier go to the emergency room.
It is apparent there are more patients than the doctors can handle.


What about a plumber? Is there a shortage of plumbers? How long does it take
your "regular" plumber to get there? If it's an emergency, you call
Roter-rooter, right?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:09:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 01:17:37 -0700, jps wrote:

The prices are determined by the actuarial studies by the underwriters
and that is pure dollars and cents.
They increased the insurance company exposure to risk and the
insurance company is going to recover that in higher premiums.
Actually when you are talking about caps and preexisting conditions it
is not really risk at all, the worst possible scenario is already true
and the insurance company is just a medical service broker, paying the
bill, tacking on administrative cost and profit and billing the other
customers accordingly. In a macro sense this is a very simple
business. When outlay goes up, income must go up.

There's a few factors in there worth considering. Among them, the
insurance companies are dividing 30 million new customers. There's
upside in greater volume. Many of those new customers will be younger
since they're more likely to forego insurance, pushing the median age
lower and lowering actuarial risk. Outlay/customer is likely to go
down.

Since a significant number of these new "young" customers will be on
their parent's policies they do not represent any actual new revenue.
unless the parent's rate goes up.

The real savings for us, that is small participants, is when they
institute the exchange. That'll allow small companies like mine to
join much larger pools.

Let's see how that works in reality.

Well, isn't that almost always the case?

The Wall Street Journal is not sanguine about the prospects.
http://tinyurl.com/ylfftph


It's an opinion piece. They're welcome to their opinion. Doesn't make it a
fact.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:11:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:33:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Yup, if they start today, they will have a whole new batch of doctors
in 2018.

So, there's no one in the medical schools right now? I don't see any
stats
that show there will be a shortage.

It takes me a couple weeks to get into my primary care doctor now.
They say if you need an appointment earlier go to the emergency room.
It is apparent there are more patients than the doctors can handle.


Come on. If it's an emergency, you go to the ER. If it's not, you can
either
go to your doc or another. Perhaps you have a poor plan with limited
doctors
available? In any case, your situation isn't necessarily representative.
It's one case. Do you really expect to see a doctor on a moment's
notice???

So you are saying if I have strep throat I either go to the ER or wait
2 weeks? I have a pretty open PPO plan but going to a doctor I am not
registered with is even slower than going to my primary care doctor.
"New patients" around here will be waiting months.
The specialists are backed up a couple weeks too.
The option is going to a "quack in the box" walk in clinic but a lot
of them only want cash/credit card. They don't take most insurance. I
don't think they take Medicare or Medicaid patients either


If you have strep, you'd be able to see a doctor. Don't know your situation,
but it sounds like you don't have a very "open" plan.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:12:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:33:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Yup, if they start today, they will have a whole new batch of doctors
in 2018.

So, there's no one in the medical schools right now? I don't see any
stats
that show there will be a shortage.

It takes me a couple weeks to get into my primary care doctor now.
They say if you need an appointment earlier go to the emergency room.
It is apparent there are more patients than the doctors can handle.


What about a plumber? Is there a shortage of plumbers? How long does it
take
your "regular" plumber to get there? If it's an emergency, you call
Roter-rooter, right?

You picked a bad example. Most trades are sitting home waiting for
just about any kind of work. I could get a plumber over here in a few
hours to mow my lawn if I paid him anything close to his regular
service charge. On our recent renovation I had all sorts of trades in
here on very short notice and working pretty cheap.
A guy who normally runs 30 man concrete crews was in my bathroom with
a sledge hammer busting up the floor and hauling it away.


I just asked for a plumber for a rental. It was a minor, under-sink leak. It
took two days to get them out. It was a good example.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message

The Wall Street Journal is not sanguine about the prospects.
http://tinyurl.com/ylfftph


It's an opinion piece. They're welcome to their opinion. Doesn't make it a
fact.


Look, people are different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpOUctySD68

There are the weak, naive rappers like you and Snoop Doggy Dog,
and there are men of force and conviction like me, gfretwell,
and John Boehner.
The vid makes it evident who is right.

Jim - Using audio visuals to drive my point home.