On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 01:51:15 -0400, wrote:

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.

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.

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.

My hope is that they start looking at the business of health insurance
and establish a fair margin for their role. Same for the sheisters on
Wall Street. Some of those jerks need to be strung up by their balls
until they realize what pigs they are. Astounding how isolated and
enttiled they've become. What, leaching off poor suckers isn't good
business?

Neither provide more than transactional support. They don't make
anything and they don't add value. They skim.

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

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

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.