Where do the commissions paid to agents fit into the regs. If 80-85% of premiums must go to claims then agents will suffer additional commission reductions. The carriers WILL NOT pay us 5% when they only have a gross margin of 15-20%
It seems to me that the only carriers that have a chance of making it under this scheme are the huge ones. They will be able to pay a small (smaller?) commission and stay right around 80% loss ratio. The smaller carriers will, one by one, go TU and we will have only about 3-5 carriers remaining. If they move their main offices to Chicago and agree to hire only union labor, along with a bit of payola, they will get some relaxed rules eventually. Otherwise, the gov’t will simply nationalize and take them over.
An advantage to large HMO’s is they can call almost all their expenses “medical” as they operate in a different manner.
If the the 15% and 20% caps on operating expenses can not be realized by private insurers, then perhaps we should look at the logical savings that would be attained thru a Universal Health Care system.
Someone please tell me what special skills an executive like Aetna’s Ron Williams can bring forth for his annual compensation of $35 million, that a professional government senior executive GSA-17 earning $131 500 can not?
Also, would a single payer health care facility such as Medicare still require the fleet or corporate jets owned or leased by our large health insurers?
Unless this monster is overhauled totally or repealed it’s over for small and medium health carriers and even the large ones that are left will struggle to survive. And no, we will not receive commissions in the very near future. Except for consulting fees we agents will be out of the health insurance game. Followed by workers compensation. It’s over folks, the nearly 30 year rising tide of prosperity and opportunity for the middle class is over with this one single legislative enactment.
Is there anyone out there who may have worked for a carrier on the Health and Life side that can tell me what an average expense ratio is for a health insurance carrier?
You all are not paying attention; these limits were set by STATE COMMISSIONERS. They had leeway to work out the details by including or excluding items in the calculation. They opted not to include a lot. This is NOT a federal plot; I would say it looks like some state insurance commissioners are getting some redress for bad health insuror behavior in the past.
for you states rightists, not the STATE INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS, not a federal bureaucrat.
As a suggestion, maybe if they reduced the huge bonuses paid to most of the top layer of management, they would be able to meet the percentages….
Maybe we should require the government to spend 80%+ of the tax dollars we pay on services that the actual taxpayers need rather than salaries and benefits for bureaucrats!
Oh that’s right. Those that pay the taxes aren’t entitled to any services!!!
The more that the sometimes obscene costs for medical care are exposed, the better off we will be in the long run. Next time you are in the hospital, check the bill that is sent to the insurance company. You will be amazed! Providers have been passing on outrageous charges the the medical insurance companies for years. It has to stop.
Hey, Chuck…love the idea about the 80%…why don’t we start a movement…”80% or bust”…and we get to say what is included in the 80%? How about a reduction in the 20% depending on how much lobbyist money, travel money, or gift money the Congress recieves?
Hey Cassandra, obviously you are not very educated in the expense ratio’s of insurance carriers, or you would know that salaries and bonuses of corporate executives make us less than 1/2 of 1% of the overall expenses. So if you think cutting the salaries and bonuses of people who put it on the line every day is going to help you’re wrong. Move to a socialist country because it sounds like that’s what you really want.
Remember… the states are obligated to enforce this “federal” law. Not all states are doing this because they choose to. They are doing it because they have to.
You really can’t argue that the states are the party to blame. If the states don’t cooperate they lose some federal funding.
This administration and congress is extremely dangerous. Please vote them out in Nov and 2012.
Read below to support what I said in my previous post. This is federally mandated; states don’t have a choice.
“Under the law passed in March, large group health plans must allocate at least 85 cents per premium dollar to medical care, not administrative costs or profit. Plans for individuals or small groups must spend 80 cents per dollar.”
I agree with you on this point Cassandra. The gov’t needs to be overhauled as well. It just doesn’t seem right that our government officials make millions while a majority of the people they “serve” are struggling financially.
I think capping private industry profits is completely illegal and immoral, but we as the people, should be able to cap the salaries of our elected officials – especially if they aren’t doing a good job.
However, I would be okay if the gov’t officials they reduced their salaries/benefits and instead gave it to the troops. They are the ones that really deserve it.
Yes, the percentage is federally mandated, but the INTERPRETATION of what is allowed to be considered within those percentages was left up to the state commissioners. Clearly, there was some large bit of slack involved.
We all know the devil is within the details, so it looks like the state commissioners controlled what was in the details.
Before screaming an end to life as we know it, why don’t we wait for the aforesaid details to be revealed?
Agree, Disappointed…grinds my bons to see returning soldiers shortchanged on medical benefits.
While we are all on a cost savings and deficit kick, how come no one mentions the bloated high ranks of the military that are not, in fact, serving anywhere but have become bureaucrats? Let’s also look at defense spending as well….even Gates wants to reduce the wasteful spending in that department. I believe that defense is also a huge chunk of the budget (like 30%, I think) so we should be able to get good savings there while providing our troops with the very best in equipemnt and care.
The devil is in the details. If insurers can only allocate 15% – 20% of premium dollars to overhead, there does not seem to be anything that stops the insurance companies from preparing an itemized bill that includes health premium, service fees, and other fees. This seems to be the way that each industry deals with federally or state mandated limits. They could charge compliance fees, servicing fees (could help cover commissions), etc and these would not constitue “premium dollars”.
We should not take away from our high ranking officers and enlisted men. They have put in their time. They absolutely deserve the pay they get – and truly, it isn’t that much compared to if they were working in the private sector or as an elected gov’t official.
These men and women have served this country and have bled for this country, for you and me, for decades.
Don’t you dare try to take from these people. If you don’t like it… leave. You dissappoint me Cass.
Cass, the state regulators are reacting to a FEDERAL law, so the state have a much more limited role than before. This is FEDERAL healthcare imposed on states. In my opinion this is usurping the power that was delegated to the states by the Constitution. Expect a court battle.
The only good news is that the State Ins commissioners have some input but that doesn’t mean the the Sec of HHS will accept their input and forge on with her own interpretations. Again, the Fed trumping the states.
So much for trying to deflect the insidious nature of this ill conceived plan.
Someone please help me with this. What happens if the cost of health services rises at a faster pace than the payment for those sevices. Is the lag between the rise in cost and the collection of premium to cover those cost included in the 85% or does the insurance company eat those costs until they can be recouped a year later by premium increases. Are insures suppose to “float” this loan to policyholders and also try to calculate their profit. This is an example of how complicated this bill will make complaince. And, the dollars devoted to compliance with the new and changing regs, shouldn’t they be excluded as a new expense. We have taken a system that worked and rather than try to fix some of the problems, have detonated this Ocare bomb and are told that we should wait to see what happens. My god, where has the common sense gone. If this wasn’t done on purpose, this is pure incompetence. If it was done on purspose, this is nefarious, devious and shocking. This is not a win/win solutiion, rather it is a lose/lose propositon.
Seems to me that the cost of complying with state regulators and their thousands of employees can now be removed from the cost of health care since it is now basically a federal program. So sorry state employees…change you can believe in.
No matter how you describe it, flotsam or jetsam, this law is shipwreck that has been foisted on us by the philospher-king aka POTUS (or maybe the psycholgist-king since we are hard wired in tough times and are scared and that is why we don’t get how good he has been to us).
I read through the document briefly and came to the conclusion that the NAIC addressed only years in which the expense ratio was less than legally allowed, ignoring the possibliity that the premiums may not cover expenses.
I expect this will be a rating issue in the near future and pressure to keep rates from rising will underprice the product, leading to availability issues and solvency issues.
first of all, they don’t fall underneath this plan because they are already covered by UNCLE SAM and so are the dependents. problem would be is when they get out and don’t have a job, along with their family.
here’s the other issue, what about those have been laid off or unemployed? who is paying to get them health coverage? many of them are just barely making enough to cover rent and utilities.
i like the idea of getting the government on page to reduce their own salaries and of course reduce the cost of all those meetings. why do they have to have such a huge travel budget? many make enough from personal appearances and speeches. here’s another thing, i know we love thinking that giving foreign aid to countries in need, but do we even forecast that in a budget or just bring it out of thin air? how many times have you heard that the foreign aid given as a loan is then later forgiven to that country? you wonder why gov’t can’t forgive us from our taxpaying dollars owed, especially with the so-called money it will supposedly make from the tarp money and the bailout money.
So, you are worried about costs increasing quicker than premiums can? WHAT don’t you understand the way our system works now? Why do you all forget that since 2000 the cost of healthcare insurance has riusen 59%??? Why do you all forget that the cost of healthcare has risen probably more? The system is BROKEN NOW and was before this bill.
As for the high miltary brass, don’t you read that Gates wants to start reducing the ranks by at least 10% a year? He doesn’t want the expense of them as well as the fact that all these military bureaucrats are actually impeding defense and war efforts. If I recall, GAtes was also Bush’s Defense Secretary, so why doesn’t anybody listen to him? He also had sharp words to say about procurement and political pork barrels getting in the way of actual military need.
iN ANY EVENT, EVERYONE IS SO WORRIED ABOUT COSTS OF THIS NEW HEALTHCARE BILL, JUST THINK OF WHERE YOU WOULD still BE IF IT EVEN DIDN’T EXIST. The system was broken before, and anyone that ries to argue that it wasn’t, is dreaming.
By the bye, thanks to the poster who came up with the salary of the Aetna CEO. How does one man get to be worth 35 million in salary? How does that happen? Doesn’t that outrage you all just a little bit? Do we need to figure that tiny amount into the 85%?
And as for expense, the stat is that Medicare is delivered with an admin cost of about 3% or so, depending on year, so I think 15% is REAL generous. Of course, all you naysayers will dispute that ratio…but the fact remains. Think of what we would save with a single payor system…
I have no idea where anyone came up with 3% as admin. If that were the case then Medicare would be spending their marvelous system to the Post Office and Amtrak. I would like to see an apples to apples comparison that would include the cost of the buiidings and annual operational costs used by the bureaucrats as well as the cost of “premium” collection over the years. Once that is added in, the “savings” will evaporate and what we will see is the Post Office, in spades.
I am also amused that someone thinks a government bureaucrat who has no business experience can run a company. Don’t we already have one runnning the country, and my what a nice job he is doing.
As for premiums, the heavy hand of government will limit the ability of the insurer to react to smoothing the ups and downs due to a lag in rates. Generally, insurers maintain reserves to help softer the blow but I would imagine that they too will be subject to gov regulations.
As for CEO pay, the shareholders are the arbiter of their value, so I see no problem allowing them free reign.
Cassandra, based on the postings I’ve seen on IJ, it is clear to me that people who are condemning the health care reform (as well as everything else an administration that they do not support does) are more worried about the plan working and strengthening the political standing of the party they oppose, then they are fretting over its failure.
As far as capping government cost – I like to see ligislation passed that limits congressment salary to the average income of the constituency they represent. If that were the law, only people committed to gov’t service and the improvement of their districts would run for office. You would see all these corporate shill/tea party candidates retreating to other get rich, and peddle influence schemes.
Stats have been widely ublished in various print media. REGARDLESS of what part buildings play or other physical plants, etc., the facts remian.
As for reserves, CA already had to intervene on the Blues that already have 2x plus what projected actuarial reserves needed were and wanted to raise rates 19% “in anticipation of what the new health bill would bring.” Talk about screaming before you are hurt; what a transparent excuse.
As for CEO slaries, a lot of these plands are organized as nfps…so what’s the deal here? And, as you might well know, shareholders have little control over the actual Boards of directors…shareholders have tried to limit CEO compensation with little power and ultimately little effect.
If you are all about saving money and making our healthcare system financially viable, then you have to admit a single PAYOY (not PLAYER)makes a lot of sense.
As for Post Office and AMtrak, this is a specious argument and you should know it. The reason why Amtrak and USPS are not under Medicare is same reason our illustrious congressment are not. As well as the fact that Medicare vs. healthcare for govt workers are two different things.
I am afraid that both of you have wishes that are a father to your facts. And, since we aren’t dealing facts, let’s add ideology to the discussion.
You never address the underlying problem, provider costs. You would rather have the insurance “boogeyman” to pillary as an example of corporate excess. You realy do need a new playbook.
You champion government efficiency but have not one example of where that occurs in real life. (my ref to Amtrak and the P.O were to this point, not their health insurance)
By the way, per patient admin costs are really higher than private sector costs even when you don’t take out such “admin” costs as “premium taxes” etc. etc ($509 Medicare, $453 Private Insurers.
Do you really think that anyone would buy a government admin of 3%, a figure often quoted by left leaning media types who are simply trying to perpetuate the myth via fuzzy math. If it were 3%, we would have government efficiency experts exiting their cushy job to ply their trade as consultants in every industry possible. Please tell me where you see that exodus occurring.
No board has much control over salaries is so over the top that it needs no comment other than to draw the opposite parallel that we should vest all control in the government to solve every issue. Talk about beating a dead horse.
Progressives seldom give up the dream. Today’s Example #1- the the comments of the newly departed chief of the Council of Economic Adviser, Christina Romer, who now believes we DIDN’T SPEND ENOUGH on the stimulus. The point being, that crediblility for spending, taxing and healthcare, have all been lost by the reality of what has gone on in DC and flies in the face of each and every on of your arguments.
Tom, you seem to think that every societal effort should become a profit making one. The USPS as well as Amtrak have other purposes than to merely “make profits.” That these entities do not commit the unpardonable sin of “making profits” are due in part to the social role they fill….a role best done by government, because we certainly can’t depend on private industry to do it (just like we can’t depend on it to provide people with chronic illness with affordable healthcare insurance). To compare these entities to private industry is comparing apples to kumquats, and I know you know this in your heart.
What would you have us become….a Ferengi society?
It’s not all about the Benjamins, Tom.
And as for specious arguments, your playbook is just as ho hum and BORING.
Had the GOP and the Tea party been even halfway as serious about healthcare cost containment as in winning this election, then maybe something substantive would have been accomplished. But alas, true to form they were not and did not.
Cass, you continue to ignore the E in the room, provider costs. You can’t keep beating the same old drum about afforable healthcare when all you speak to is insurance premiums. You needle is stuck in the same track. I suggest you kick the turntable and listen to the rest of the song.
While we are at it, do you think the young and the middle class should be given subsidies for “insurance” premiums or made to pay their way? Should the elderly be asked to subsidize these subsidies (you will recall the the 500B saving in Medicare was going to be used to do that don’t you). I would imagine you would be happy since this is income redistribution through healthcare. You might object to the old to the young scenario but doesn’t is seem “fair”, after all our older citizens have amassed some wealth and should share with those who are just starting out.
Please enlighten me on why Amtrak and the PO shouldn’t make a profit, or at the very least break even, and pay back the debt is owes for “losing money” for decades. You seem to think that losing money is a public service. Well those days are about to end since it has dawned on most people that we can’t pay for every societal service (ala transportation and MAIL DELIVRRY) that progressive have dreamed up. The dream seems to encompass the ongoing existence of every antiquated system-should we bring back toll takers, better yet, elevator operators, all at taxpayer costs. (And, while we are at it, please explain why UPS and FedEx manage to outperform the P.O.) And how is it that people in this country have receive healthcare for the past 200 years without the benefit of Ocare.
I am not a Trekkie but a non fictional guy who does care about people, especially those people, my grandkids, we are leaving behind to pay for all debt we have racked up. I fear their lives will be far more harsh and filled with more “societal” pain than they should have to bear. I think you join me in that hope. So, I invite you to recognize that we can’t solve every social ill with money alone. That is the essence of the T party and not the characterture that you attempt to convey.
The reason Fed EX makes a profit is probably because it does not deliver daily and also, and prominently in the news yesterday, is the fact that they are misclassifying workers as “independent contractors” when clearly, they are not, thus saving approx 30% over wages and screwing the various govt units out of SS payments, Medicare, unemployment taxes and not providing OT, healthcare benefits, or any other benefit. What do you do if you are 87 yearsold, do not have a computer, do not have a car and have to receive and pay bills? Is FedEx going to offer that service? How about AmTrak? What about the people that are not near or cannot afford airfare? We see how after consolidating, the air carriers usually reduce unprofitable routes thereby eliminating service. There are some things that govt must do and can do better than private industry. Neither the USPS or Amtrak should be expected to draw profits since they perform a greater good for various segments of our society.
Since you do not want to pay for postal service for old ladies and cheap transportation for those that need it, what are you willing to pay for? For corprate CEO’s outrageous salaries, or is that OK, because it is the “free hand” controlling this? Corporate tax breaks for some of the wealthiest corps on this planet? Tax write offs for country club dues and proivate jets? Not for profits that are now perverting our electoral system? Just what are you willing to pony up for, because I sure see a LOT of ways of increasing taxes to end the deficit and make things a little more equitable for the midle class.
Restraint of job creation you say? OH, that is done by the SMALL businessman…who is getting frozen out of credit by the big boys that got our bailout dollars. Will you pony up for easier financing for them….or is that just another bailout for you? OH, yes, tax relief for the big boys that continue to export our jobs….COOL.
Tom, I understand your position, but you have to look further and get off your ideological schtick; it is time to be practical.
Over 65 control a ton of the wealth of this country. However, the stat says that 40% depend on SS alonde for income. We need a better way to apportion these dollars with need being the driver. As I said prior, the max SS payment is merely pin money to some of these elders. They will need to realize that we do not have the same kind of economy as when SS was started and globalization is hurting in many ways this newer generation of workers. Yes, if there is no need, by all means, let’s begin to shift for equity. What is wrong with that if it accomplishes some practical good?
It REALLY is not all about private sector and profits….
While I am not without a social conscience, I started this thread with the concern the we, as agents, are being legislated out of business. The discuusion has evolved/devolved into conservative v. liberal.
Cass, I have read every comment you have contributed to this discussion and there is virtually nothing that you stated that I could ever agree with. Call it philosophical differences or whatever you choose. At the end of the day, if the liberal/progressive (joke) viewpoint persists in the manner of the current Congress then we, as a country, are screwed.
Obama & his bunch did nothing in the way of “healthcare reform”. They peed on our heads & called it rain. When Congress tells us that it doesn’t matter what’s in the bill…that we’ll figure it out AFTER it passes…then the inmates are truly running the assylum!
So while we will never agree, except to disagree, the government is putting 1000’s of people out of work by taking agents out of the mix.
Be careful what you wish for Cassandra, YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT.
You are puting words in my mouth, Tom, that I never said.
Global competition is part of our problem. We are transitioning now but are not doing it with reason or forethought.
I do not expect nor want a return to old fashioned pensions; that will not happen and I never said it…you were putting words in my mouth. It just goes to show, that given an excuse, corporations will do what is most profitable for them, which includes getting rid of employee health insurance.
You still haven’t answered; if you cashier the postal service what happens to my 87 year old mother who doesn’t have a computer to pay bills, get magazines, get books by mail? Or does everyone becomje forced to be computer literate? This is one cost I will GLADLY pay with my taxes.
Here is what I do not want to pay: large salaries for CEOS, especially for not for profits which, of curse, are ultimately subsidized by the consumer or the taxpayer; large tax subsidies to agri business, big oil, big financial institutions; bloated pensions and unrealistic pension rules for governmental entities; bloated military brass and bloated bureaucracy at all levels of government. If you do not want socialism for the little guy, then stop socialism for corporations; think of how much money we would save.
If you chose to criticize, then at least get what you are criticizing correct; you seem to have conservative auditory disease and hear only what you wish to and what fits into your little ideological niche for “progressives.”
I wish no one the insecurity of losing ones job, but, Mike, there are other forces at work here in the longer term that are not really being recognized in some of these blogs.
What guarantee do you have that your companies will not be taken over by a foreign carrier who elects to have a different sales force? What guarantee do we have that your companies will not merge and use a totally different delivery system?
Things change; ask the guys in the manufacturing sector in steel, autos, textiles, shoes, leather, etc., who have lost their jobs. Ask the customer service reps whose jobs have been outsourced. Ask the people who are let go because one behemoth purchases another and gets its “savings” through terminating workers to make its stock look good and to eliminate competition. This is the Brave new (globalized) world that we face; sooner or later things are going to change for all of us, especially if we continue to not invest in our OWN selves and if we continue to allow this total outsourcing with no consequence.
I envision that many companies will drop healthcare as a benefit in the future and allow the exchanges to insure the people. I am not sure of the ultimate outcome, so you are right, the consequences may be unintended….but they surely would have occurred sooner or later just like the larger corporations dropped defined benefit pensions once they knew that there was a 401K vehicle.
I guess I am confused. It seems to me that on the one hand, the conservatives are ideologically willing to let corporations go about their business largely unfettered, but on the otherhand as an individual, decry the inevitable evolution as we move toward globalization, where, let’s face it, workers will work for a lot less than we will here. Most corporations will do whatever they have to do to remain profitable and maybe that is how it should be, but you can see the human wreckage left behind in many unemployment statistics, many broken pension payments and healthcare for retirees, and many jobs lost as well as declining wages, economic polarization, and a host of other things. Things look different when they hit our own pockets as you assume yours will be hit due to the healthcare bill. I think you are right, but only because the corps will move with healthcare as they have always really wanted to; now they have an excuse to unload that huge expense…just as they found one to unload all the old style company paid pensions after ERISA. This is your free market in action…Do you think they would have been so generous if they could not write off the expenses?
Eventaully, this would have happened anyway since our system of private/govt paying for services does nothing to control costs in any kind of way, and the costs would have broken the backs of those that pay the premiums sooner or later.
I can only hope that this imperfect bill does at least what I want it to do; provide security to my fellow citizens against financial ruin caused by medical bills, provide health services as needed to my fellow citizens. The other parts should have opened up a real debate and forged a real consensus as to how we deal with the issues at hand, but instead, ends in rancor and name calling and way too much uncivil conduct. We need all practical solutions on the table, regardless of what end of the pole they come from, for surely, the system before this bill was breaking more and more each day…for ALL parties to it.
OMG, Cass, you are in such a dark place that you have lost all light. Protectionism, wealth redistribution, including old to young, and anti-capitalist rants, all coupled with inaccurate info that have twisted your reality.
Globilization-are you afraid to compete with the world? Do you not think that we sell anything to the world or that the Toyota’s and BMW haven’t investing in American workers. Get some balance, you’re starting to sound like a reationary anarchist. America can compete and I am confident that it will weather this storm and remain the world’s economic engine.
As for Fed Ex and Independent Contractors, Fed Ex has one nearly every IC case. By the way ICs do pay all the same taxes as we do, include 15% for SS instead of the 7.5% you pay, with you employer paying the other 7.5%. They are ICs so they have the freedom to make their own choices in healthcare, long tern disability, work hours etc etc.
My point about the P.O is that the governmnet runs it at a huge loss meaning they are woefully inefficient and we can expect the same inefficiencies in a gov run healthcare system. WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD INEFFICIENT GOVERNMENT; NOR CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE THEIR EXISTENCE. They either need to reform or allow competition to drive them into changing from a negative to a positive.
You want pensions to make a comeback, well government pensions and UAW pension have become unsustainable and are sucking up so much of the state and Fed budgets that there will be little left for all your other spending wishes.
You want government to run every aspect of our live, from postcards to transportation but you NEVER once consider the COST. I know you want what you want because you want it and the COSTS be dammed but the reality is that no society can exist where it is everything to everyone. There isn’t enough money in the entire world to meet that goal. Believe it or not, there is a limit to what taxpayers can pay and that means we have to carefully select what we want government to do. If you don’t believe me, look to the Castro boys admission that they can no longer sustain the communist model. Whatever you call it, statism, socialism, communism, progressivism, all have one thing in common, they defeat themselves when they run into the spending wall. We have hit that wall. I invite you to begin to decide what affordable priorities you wish to establish, we can then have an honest debate about what needs to be cut and how much can be spent, all within a balanced budget. No more pushing the cost off to the next generation or 10.
My hearing is excellent, and your comments resonate in both ears but you being on the left, I can’t mistake the high frequency of your progressive commentary.
I do have a soft spot for the P.O. as my father was a Postman and died on the job delivery mail in the blizzard of 78. My point has been that the P.O. needs to become more efficient and stop the bleeding. And, they need to adapt to today’s world. Snail mail is almost as obsolete as the Pony Express. That may mean shedding 10s of thousands of jobs etc, but so be it. They lost 6 BILLION dollars last year and that is more than the year before. This is money that could be used better elsewhere, say to subsidize truly poor people’s healthcare?
As for how to get old people their mail, maybe we should convert residential mail to P.O. Box mail, where people could come to pick up their mail, once a week, twice a week etc. Please don’t tell me that we have to arrange for their transportation to the P.O. location, that would be beyond the pale as I would expect that you could manage to help out your elderly mother with that task.
Amtrak is a whole other case. There are any number of different means of transportation and we don’t need to support them, at all.
True, corporations will do what makes economic sense, so I don’t blame them for that. If only the government could adopt that philosphy for those services which are not fundamentally assigned to it by the Constitution. The core risk management goal of all corps is economic “survival”. If they don’t survive, then neither do the jobs they create.
As for my hearing, I do hear you loud and clear. The socialist din is almost deafening.
Cass, I only have one comment concerning your reply to Mike and that mirrors the syncopated version of the physician’s Hipocratic oath as summarized in the latin phrase “Primum non nocere”.
The path cuts both ways, Tom. You appear willing to gut social programs but unwilling to cut cookies for the corporations…the large ones. Not too balanced a view in my book. You never even mention all the savings (por increased tax revenue) that we can achieve by looking in that direction. And, incidentally, I would be much more supportive of efforts to aid small business…I cinsider them one of the “little guys” deserving of my “progressive” care and angst.
As for Mike, most of us all run a tenuous line with our jobs. We are in a tranitioning economy and not recognizing it nor handling this transition very well. I think more could be done to ease the human suffering caused by job loss coupled with inability to be as mobile as we were in the past (due to home sales issues, etc.). I think we need to look a lot harder at the human cost of this and plan a lot better. This is what I see government (federal) as doing…we need a PLAN or else we will all be learning /chinese in 15 years.
Wow Cassandra…what an absurd generalization. I tell you what, you let me know how that GOVERNMENT PLAN works out for you. In the meantime, I’ll just sit here with a blue face from holding my breath.
This discussion(?) with you is over. I’m completely exhausted. I will not convince you that you’re wrong & you cannot convince me that you’re right. Have a nice life.
Cass, you are dead wrong, I don’t think Corporations, or big unions, should enjoy tax breaks or subsidies (welfare) and that would include Agri business. However, Congress is addicted to handing them out and Dems are as guilty as the Repubs.
As for your compassion concerning small business, I would hope that you would join me in demanding that Gov GET OUT OF THE WAY rather than offer “help”. After all, the scariest statement ever uttered to a small businessman is “I am from the govermnent and I am here to help”.
If I might pick up where Mike left off, I think you have confused the transition a bit. The transition is from a manufacturing society to a service society, so health insurance related jobs are not going anywhere except to the dust bin of history should Ocare reach is designed goal of replacing traditional insurance with a single payer system. If you really believe in the private sector holding onto jobs, then you would join the majority on this blog that has it right, this law doesn’t need tweaking, it needs repealing.
No, Tom, it is moving to a GLOBAL economy, a fact that you all looking only at 11/2/2010 are not factoring in.
And service is quite inclusive, including cleaning toilets as well as anayzing stocks.
thank you for the nod to repealing socialism for the big corps; sometimes I wonder why no one brings any of that up in these rants against healthcare, or socialism, or too much tax money, or too much control. So, if we are cutting, cut first on those that can afford. AND< as long as we are looking at govt spending, how about looking at bloated ware costs? If any of you actually beliieve that Iraq war kept us safe from terrorist bombers on our soil, then I truly feel for you. These wars cost a trillion a year; time to cut the cord. Before you cut a resource that the little guy needs, look to the big guy first....that's all i am saying and I truly fail to see what is wrong with that.
Cass, I was with you on corporate welfaure and then your veered widly off the tracks.
I am afraid that your comments indicate a severe case of historical myopia, especially when it comes to foreign affairs and the need for a strong military.
And, like most liberals, there is an unmistakable tone to your reply that indicates a selfish bent toward objecting to spending money on the military since it lessens the amount that could be spent directly on US. It seems that compassion for political, social, and economic plight of other stops at the border.
We have drifted far afield on this thread, see you on the next thread.
Where do the commissions paid to agents fit into the regs. If 80-85% of premiums must go to claims then agents will suffer additional commission reductions. The carriers WILL NOT pay us 5% when they only have a gross margin of 15-20%
It seems to me that the only carriers that have a chance of making it under this scheme are the huge ones. They will be able to pay a small (smaller?) commission and stay right around 80% loss ratio. The smaller carriers will, one by one, go TU and we will have only about 3-5 carriers remaining. If they move their main offices to Chicago and agree to hire only union labor, along with a bit of payola, they will get some relaxed rules eventually. Otherwise, the gov’t will simply nationalize and take them over.
An advantage to large HMO’s is they can call almost all their expenses “medical” as they operate in a different manner.
If the the 15% and 20% caps on operating expenses can not be realized by private insurers, then perhaps we should look at the logical savings that would be attained thru a Universal Health Care system.
Someone please tell me what special skills an executive like Aetna’s Ron Williams can bring forth for his annual compensation of $35 million, that a professional government senior executive GSA-17 earning $131 500 can not?
Also, would a single payer health care facility such as Medicare still require the fleet or corporate jets owned or leased by our large health insurers?
Unless this monster is overhauled totally or repealed it’s over for small and medium health carriers and even the large ones that are left will struggle to survive. And no, we will not receive commissions in the very near future. Except for consulting fees we agents will be out of the health insurance game. Followed by workers compensation. It’s over folks, the nearly 30 year rising tide of prosperity and opportunity for the middle class is over with this one single legislative enactment.
Run the carriers out of business!
Is there anyone out there who may have worked for a carrier on the Health and Life side that can tell me what an average expense ratio is for a health insurance carrier?
You all are not paying attention; these limits were set by STATE COMMISSIONERS. They had leeway to work out the details by including or excluding items in the calculation. They opted not to include a lot. This is NOT a federal plot; I would say it looks like some state insurance commissioners are getting some redress for bad health insuror behavior in the past.
for you states rightists, not the STATE INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS, not a federal bureaucrat.
As a suggestion, maybe if they reduced the huge bonuses paid to most of the top layer of management, they would be able to meet the percentages….
Bingo…Cassandra wins the “what’s the goal of this?” trivia contest.
Maybe we should require the government to spend 80%+ of the tax dollars we pay on services that the actual taxpayers need rather than salaries and benefits for bureaucrats!
Oh that’s right. Those that pay the taxes aren’t entitled to any services!!!
Lovin’ this hope and change…
The more that the sometimes obscene costs for medical care are exposed, the better off we will be in the long run. Next time you are in the hospital, check the bill that is sent to the insurance company. You will be amazed! Providers have been passing on outrageous charges the the medical insurance companies for years. It has to stop.
Hey, Chuck…love the idea about the 80%…why don’t we start a movement…”80% or bust”…and we get to say what is included in the 80%? How about a reduction in the 20% depending on how much lobbyist money, travel money, or gift money the Congress recieves?
Hey Cassandra, obviously you are not very educated in the expense ratio’s of insurance carriers, or you would know that salaries and bonuses of corporate executives make us less than 1/2 of 1% of the overall expenses. So if you think cutting the salaries and bonuses of people who put it on the line every day is going to help you’re wrong. Move to a socialist country because it sounds like that’s what you really want.
Remember… the states are obligated to enforce this “federal” law. Not all states are doing this because they choose to. They are doing it because they have to.
You really can’t argue that the states are the party to blame. If the states don’t cooperate they lose some federal funding.
This administration and congress is extremely dangerous. Please vote them out in Nov and 2012.
Read below to support what I said in my previous post. This is federally mandated; states don’t have a choice.
“Under the law passed in March, large group health plans must allocate at least 85 cents per premium dollar to medical care, not administrative costs or profit. Plans for individuals or small groups must spend 80 cents per dollar.”
I agree with you on this point Cassandra. The gov’t needs to be overhauled as well. It just doesn’t seem right that our government officials make millions while a majority of the people they “serve” are struggling financially.
I think capping private industry profits is completely illegal and immoral, but we as the people, should be able to cap the salaries of our elected officials – especially if they aren’t doing a good job.
However, I would be okay if the gov’t officials they reduced their salaries/benefits and instead gave it to the troops. They are the ones that really deserve it.
Yes, the percentage is federally mandated, but the INTERPRETATION of what is allowed to be considered within those percentages was left up to the state commissioners. Clearly, there was some large bit of slack involved.
We all know the devil is within the details, so it looks like the state commissioners controlled what was in the details.
Before screaming an end to life as we know it, why don’t we wait for the aforesaid details to be revealed?
Agree, Disappointed…grinds my bons to see returning soldiers shortchanged on medical benefits.
While we are all on a cost savings and deficit kick, how come no one mentions the bloated high ranks of the military that are not, in fact, serving anywhere but have become bureaucrats? Let’s also look at defense spending as well….even Gates wants to reduce the wasteful spending in that department. I believe that defense is also a huge chunk of the budget (like 30%, I think) so we should be able to get good savings there while providing our troops with the very best in equipemnt and care.
So you are saying that the states are solely responsible for this federally mandated legislation because they have control over a few minor details?
Do you even know what those details are, truly? If so please list them out for us since you know and we don’t. Please cite sources if you can.
The devil is in the details. If insurers can only allocate 15% – 20% of premium dollars to overhead, there does not seem to be anything that stops the insurance companies from preparing an itemized bill that includes health premium, service fees, and other fees. This seems to be the way that each industry deals with federally or state mandated limits. They could charge compliance fees, servicing fees (could help cover commissions), etc and these would not constitue “premium dollars”.
We should not take away from our high ranking officers and enlisted men. They have put in their time. They absolutely deserve the pay they get – and truly, it isn’t that much compared to if they were working in the private sector or as an elected gov’t official.
These men and women have served this country and have bled for this country, for you and me, for decades.
Don’t you dare try to take from these people. If you don’t like it… leave. You dissappoint me Cass.
Cass, the state regulators are reacting to a FEDERAL law, so the state have a much more limited role than before. This is FEDERAL healthcare imposed on states. In my opinion this is usurping the power that was delegated to the states by the Constitution. Expect a court battle.
The only good news is that the State Ins commissioners have some input but that doesn’t mean the the Sec of HHS will accept their input and forge on with her own interpretations. Again, the Fed trumping the states.
So much for trying to deflect the insidious nature of this ill conceived plan.
Someone please help me with this. What happens if the cost of health services rises at a faster pace than the payment for those sevices. Is the lag between the rise in cost and the collection of premium to cover those cost included in the 85% or does the insurance company eat those costs until they can be recouped a year later by premium increases. Are insures suppose to “float” this loan to policyholders and also try to calculate their profit. This is an example of how complicated this bill will make complaince. And, the dollars devoted to compliance with the new and changing regs, shouldn’t they be excluded as a new expense. We have taken a system that worked and rather than try to fix some of the problems, have detonated this Ocare bomb and are told that we should wait to see what happens. My god, where has the common sense gone. If this wasn’t done on purpose, this is pure incompetence. If it was done on purspose, this is nefarious, devious and shocking. This is not a win/win solutiion, rather it is a lose/lose propositon.
Here is the paper on the NCCI recommended rules http://www.naic.org/documents/committees_b_mlr_reg_101014.pdf
That should say NAIC not NCCI
Seems to me that the cost of complying with state regulators and their thousands of employees can now be removed from the cost of health care since it is now basically a federal program. So sorry state employees…change you can believe in.
No matter how you describe it, flotsam or jetsam, this law is shipwreck that has been foisted on us by the philospher-king aka POTUS (or maybe the psycholgist-king since we are hard wired in tough times and are scared and that is why we don’t get how good he has been to us).
Thanks for the link.
I read through the document briefly and came to the conclusion that the NAIC addressed only years in which the expense ratio was less than legally allowed, ignoring the possibliity that the premiums may not cover expenses.
I expect this will be a rating issue in the near future and pressure to keep rates from rising will underprice the product, leading to availability issues and solvency issues.
first of all, they don’t fall underneath this plan because they are already covered by UNCLE SAM and so are the dependents. problem would be is when they get out and don’t have a job, along with their family.
here’s the other issue, what about those have been laid off or unemployed? who is paying to get them health coverage? many of them are just barely making enough to cover rent and utilities.
i like the idea of getting the government on page to reduce their own salaries and of course reduce the cost of all those meetings. why do they have to have such a huge travel budget? many make enough from personal appearances and speeches. here’s another thing, i know we love thinking that giving foreign aid to countries in need, but do we even forecast that in a budget or just bring it out of thin air? how many times have you heard that the foreign aid given as a loan is then later forgiven to that country? you wonder why gov’t can’t forgive us from our taxpaying dollars owed, especially with the so-called money it will supposedly make from the tarp money and the bailout money.
So, you are worried about costs increasing quicker than premiums can? WHAT don’t you understand the way our system works now? Why do you all forget that since 2000 the cost of healthcare insurance has riusen 59%??? Why do you all forget that the cost of healthcare has risen probably more? The system is BROKEN NOW and was before this bill.
As for the high miltary brass, don’t you read that Gates wants to start reducing the ranks by at least 10% a year? He doesn’t want the expense of them as well as the fact that all these military bureaucrats are actually impeding defense and war efforts. If I recall, GAtes was also Bush’s Defense Secretary, so why doesn’t anybody listen to him? He also had sharp words to say about procurement and political pork barrels getting in the way of actual military need.
iN ANY EVENT, EVERYONE IS SO WORRIED ABOUT COSTS OF THIS NEW HEALTHCARE BILL, JUST THINK OF WHERE YOU WOULD still BE IF IT EVEN DIDN’T EXIST. The system was broken before, and anyone that ries to argue that it wasn’t, is dreaming.
By the bye, thanks to the poster who came up with the salary of the Aetna CEO. How does one man get to be worth 35 million in salary? How does that happen? Doesn’t that outrage you all just a little bit? Do we need to figure that tiny amount into the 85%?
And as for expense, the stat is that Medicare is delivered with an admin cost of about 3% or so, depending on year, so I think 15% is REAL generous. Of course, all you naysayers will dispute that ratio…but the fact remains. Think of what we would save with a single payor system…
I have no idea where anyone came up with 3% as admin. If that were the case then Medicare would be spending their marvelous system to the Post Office and Amtrak. I would like to see an apples to apples comparison that would include the cost of the buiidings and annual operational costs used by the bureaucrats as well as the cost of “premium” collection over the years. Once that is added in, the “savings” will evaporate and what we will see is the Post Office, in spades.
I am also amused that someone thinks a government bureaucrat who has no business experience can run a company. Don’t we already have one runnning the country, and my what a nice job he is doing.
As for premiums, the heavy hand of government will limit the ability of the insurer to react to smoothing the ups and downs due to a lag in rates. Generally, insurers maintain reserves to help softer the blow but I would imagine that they too will be subject to gov regulations.
As for CEO pay, the shareholders are the arbiter of their value, so I see no problem allowing them free reign.
Cassandra, based on the postings I’ve seen on IJ, it is clear to me that people who are condemning the health care reform (as well as everything else an administration that they do not support does) are more worried about the plan working and strengthening the political standing of the party they oppose, then they are fretting over its failure.
As far as capping government cost – I like to see ligislation passed that limits congressment salary to the average income of the constituency they represent. If that were the law, only people committed to gov’t service and the improvement of their districts would run for office. You would see all these corporate shill/tea party candidates retreating to other get rich, and peddle influence schemes.
Stats have been widely ublished in various print media. REGARDLESS of what part buildings play or other physical plants, etc., the facts remian.
As for reserves, CA already had to intervene on the Blues that already have 2x plus what projected actuarial reserves needed were and wanted to raise rates 19% “in anticipation of what the new health bill would bring.” Talk about screaming before you are hurt; what a transparent excuse.
As for CEO slaries, a lot of these plands are organized as nfps…so what’s the deal here? And, as you might well know, shareholders have little control over the actual Boards of directors…shareholders have tried to limit CEO compensation with little power and ultimately little effect.
If you are all about saving money and making our healthcare system financially viable, then you have to admit a single PAYOY (not PLAYER)makes a lot of sense.
As for Post Office and AMtrak, this is a specious argument and you should know it. The reason why Amtrak and USPS are not under Medicare is same reason our illustrious congressment are not. As well as the fact that Medicare vs. healthcare for govt workers are two different things.
I am afraid that both of you have wishes that are a father to your facts. And, since we aren’t dealing facts, let’s add ideology to the discussion.
You never address the underlying problem, provider costs. You would rather have the insurance “boogeyman” to pillary as an example of corporate excess. You realy do need a new playbook.
You champion government efficiency but have not one example of where that occurs in real life. (my ref to Amtrak and the P.O were to this point, not their health insurance)
By the way, per patient admin costs are really higher than private sector costs even when you don’t take out such “admin” costs as “premium taxes” etc. etc ($509 Medicare, $453 Private Insurers.
Do you really think that anyone would buy a government admin of 3%, a figure often quoted by left leaning media types who are simply trying to perpetuate the myth via fuzzy math. If it were 3%, we would have government efficiency experts exiting their cushy job to ply their trade as consultants in every industry possible. Please tell me where you see that exodus occurring.
No board has much control over salaries is so over the top that it needs no comment other than to draw the opposite parallel that we should vest all control in the government to solve every issue. Talk about beating a dead horse.
Progressives seldom give up the dream. Today’s Example #1- the the comments of the newly departed chief of the Council of Economic Adviser, Christina Romer, who now believes we DIDN’T SPEND ENOUGH on the stimulus. The point being, that crediblility for spending, taxing and healthcare, have all been lost by the reality of what has gone on in DC and flies in the face of each and every on of your arguments.
Tom, you seem to think that every societal effort should become a profit making one. The USPS as well as Amtrak have other purposes than to merely “make profits.” That these entities do not commit the unpardonable sin of “making profits” are due in part to the social role they fill….a role best done by government, because we certainly can’t depend on private industry to do it (just like we can’t depend on it to provide people with chronic illness with affordable healthcare insurance). To compare these entities to private industry is comparing apples to kumquats, and I know you know this in your heart.
What would you have us become….a Ferengi society?
It’s not all about the Benjamins, Tom.
And as for specious arguments, your playbook is just as ho hum and BORING.
Had the GOP and the Tea party been even halfway as serious about healthcare cost containment as in winning this election, then maybe something substantive would have been accomplished. But alas, true to form they were not and did not.
Cass, you continue to ignore the E in the room, provider costs. You can’t keep beating the same old drum about afforable healthcare when all you speak to is insurance premiums. You needle is stuck in the same track. I suggest you kick the turntable and listen to the rest of the song.
While we are at it, do you think the young and the middle class should be given subsidies for “insurance” premiums or made to pay their way? Should the elderly be asked to subsidize these subsidies (you will recall the the 500B saving in Medicare was going to be used to do that don’t you). I would imagine you would be happy since this is income redistribution through healthcare. You might object to the old to the young scenario but doesn’t is seem “fair”, after all our older citizens have amassed some wealth and should share with those who are just starting out.
Please enlighten me on why Amtrak and the PO shouldn’t make a profit, or at the very least break even, and pay back the debt is owes for “losing money” for decades. You seem to think that losing money is a public service. Well those days are about to end since it has dawned on most people that we can’t pay for every societal service (ala transportation and MAIL DELIVRRY) that progressive have dreamed up. The dream seems to encompass the ongoing existence of every antiquated system-should we bring back toll takers, better yet, elevator operators, all at taxpayer costs. (And, while we are at it, please explain why UPS and FedEx manage to outperform the P.O.) And how is it that people in this country have receive healthcare for the past 200 years without the benefit of Ocare.
I am not a Trekkie but a non fictional guy who does care about people, especially those people, my grandkids, we are leaving behind to pay for all debt we have racked up. I fear their lives will be far more harsh and filled with more “societal” pain than they should have to bear. I think you join me in that hope. So, I invite you to recognize that we can’t solve every social ill with money alone. That is the essence of the T party and not the characterture that you attempt to convey.
Tom,
The reason Fed EX makes a profit is probably because it does not deliver daily and also, and prominently in the news yesterday, is the fact that they are misclassifying workers as “independent contractors” when clearly, they are not, thus saving approx 30% over wages and screwing the various govt units out of SS payments, Medicare, unemployment taxes and not providing OT, healthcare benefits, or any other benefit. What do you do if you are 87 yearsold, do not have a computer, do not have a car and have to receive and pay bills? Is FedEx going to offer that service? How about AmTrak? What about the people that are not near or cannot afford airfare? We see how after consolidating, the air carriers usually reduce unprofitable routes thereby eliminating service. There are some things that govt must do and can do better than private industry. Neither the USPS or Amtrak should be expected to draw profits since they perform a greater good for various segments of our society.
Since you do not want to pay for postal service for old ladies and cheap transportation for those that need it, what are you willing to pay for? For corprate CEO’s outrageous salaries, or is that OK, because it is the “free hand” controlling this? Corporate tax breaks for some of the wealthiest corps on this planet? Tax write offs for country club dues and proivate jets? Not for profits that are now perverting our electoral system? Just what are you willing to pony up for, because I sure see a LOT of ways of increasing taxes to end the deficit and make things a little more equitable for the midle class.
Restraint of job creation you say? OH, that is done by the SMALL businessman…who is getting frozen out of credit by the big boys that got our bailout dollars. Will you pony up for easier financing for them….or is that just another bailout for you? OH, yes, tax relief for the big boys that continue to export our jobs….COOL.
Tom, I understand your position, but you have to look further and get off your ideological schtick; it is time to be practical.
Over 65 control a ton of the wealth of this country. However, the stat says that 40% depend on SS alonde for income. We need a better way to apportion these dollars with need being the driver. As I said prior, the max SS payment is merely pin money to some of these elders. They will need to realize that we do not have the same kind of economy as when SS was started and globalization is hurting in many ways this newer generation of workers. Yes, if there is no need, by all means, let’s begin to shift for equity. What is wrong with that if it accomplishes some practical good?
It REALLY is not all about private sector and profits….
While I am not without a social conscience, I started this thread with the concern the we, as agents, are being legislated out of business. The discuusion has evolved/devolved into conservative v. liberal.
Cass, I have read every comment you have contributed to this discussion and there is virtually nothing that you stated that I could ever agree with. Call it philosophical differences or whatever you choose. At the end of the day, if the liberal/progressive (joke) viewpoint persists in the manner of the current Congress then we, as a country, are screwed.
Obama & his bunch did nothing in the way of “healthcare reform”. They peed on our heads & called it rain. When Congress tells us that it doesn’t matter what’s in the bill…that we’ll figure it out AFTER it passes…then the inmates are truly running the assylum!
So while we will never agree, except to disagree, the government is putting 1000’s of people out of work by taking agents out of the mix.
Be careful what you wish for Cassandra, YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT.
You are puting words in my mouth, Tom, that I never said.
Global competition is part of our problem. We are transitioning now but are not doing it with reason or forethought.
I do not expect nor want a return to old fashioned pensions; that will not happen and I never said it…you were putting words in my mouth. It just goes to show, that given an excuse, corporations will do what is most profitable for them, which includes getting rid of employee health insurance.
You still haven’t answered; if you cashier the postal service what happens to my 87 year old mother who doesn’t have a computer to pay bills, get magazines, get books by mail? Or does everyone becomje forced to be computer literate? This is one cost I will GLADLY pay with my taxes.
Here is what I do not want to pay: large salaries for CEOS, especially for not for profits which, of curse, are ultimately subsidized by the consumer or the taxpayer; large tax subsidies to agri business, big oil, big financial institutions; bloated pensions and unrealistic pension rules for governmental entities; bloated military brass and bloated bureaucracy at all levels of government. If you do not want socialism for the little guy, then stop socialism for corporations; think of how much money we would save.
If you chose to criticize, then at least get what you are criticizing correct; you seem to have conservative auditory disease and hear only what you wish to and what fits into your little ideological niche for “progressives.”
I wish no one the insecurity of losing ones job, but, Mike, there are other forces at work here in the longer term that are not really being recognized in some of these blogs.
What guarantee do you have that your companies will not be taken over by a foreign carrier who elects to have a different sales force? What guarantee do we have that your companies will not merge and use a totally different delivery system?
Things change; ask the guys in the manufacturing sector in steel, autos, textiles, shoes, leather, etc., who have lost their jobs. Ask the customer service reps whose jobs have been outsourced. Ask the people who are let go because one behemoth purchases another and gets its “savings” through terminating workers to make its stock look good and to eliminate competition. This is the Brave new (globalized) world that we face; sooner or later things are going to change for all of us, especially if we continue to not invest in our OWN selves and if we continue to allow this total outsourcing with no consequence.
I envision that many companies will drop healthcare as a benefit in the future and allow the exchanges to insure the people. I am not sure of the ultimate outcome, so you are right, the consequences may be unintended….but they surely would have occurred sooner or later just like the larger corporations dropped defined benefit pensions once they knew that there was a 401K vehicle.
I guess I am confused. It seems to me that on the one hand, the conservatives are ideologically willing to let corporations go about their business largely unfettered, but on the otherhand as an individual, decry the inevitable evolution as we move toward globalization, where, let’s face it, workers will work for a lot less than we will here. Most corporations will do whatever they have to do to remain profitable and maybe that is how it should be, but you can see the human wreckage left behind in many unemployment statistics, many broken pension payments and healthcare for retirees, and many jobs lost as well as declining wages, economic polarization, and a host of other things. Things look different when they hit our own pockets as you assume yours will be hit due to the healthcare bill. I think you are right, but only because the corps will move with healthcare as they have always really wanted to; now they have an excuse to unload that huge expense…just as they found one to unload all the old style company paid pensions after ERISA. This is your free market in action…Do you think they would have been so generous if they could not write off the expenses?
Eventaully, this would have happened anyway since our system of private/govt paying for services does nothing to control costs in any kind of way, and the costs would have broken the backs of those that pay the premiums sooner or later.
I can only hope that this imperfect bill does at least what I want it to do; provide security to my fellow citizens against financial ruin caused by medical bills, provide health services as needed to my fellow citizens. The other parts should have opened up a real debate and forged a real consensus as to how we deal with the issues at hand, but instead, ends in rancor and name calling and way too much uncivil conduct. We need all practical solutions on the table, regardless of what end of the pole they come from, for surely, the system before this bill was breaking more and more each day…for ALL parties to it.
OMG, Cass, you are in such a dark place that you have lost all light. Protectionism, wealth redistribution, including old to young, and anti-capitalist rants, all coupled with inaccurate info that have twisted your reality.
Globilization-are you afraid to compete with the world? Do you not think that we sell anything to the world or that the Toyota’s and BMW haven’t investing in American workers. Get some balance, you’re starting to sound like a reationary anarchist. America can compete and I am confident that it will weather this storm and remain the world’s economic engine.
As for Fed Ex and Independent Contractors, Fed Ex has one nearly every IC case. By the way ICs do pay all the same taxes as we do, include 15% for SS instead of the 7.5% you pay, with you employer paying the other 7.5%. They are ICs so they have the freedom to make their own choices in healthcare, long tern disability, work hours etc etc.
My point about the P.O is that the governmnet runs it at a huge loss meaning they are woefully inefficient and we can expect the same inefficiencies in a gov run healthcare system. WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD INEFFICIENT GOVERNMENT; NOR CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE THEIR EXISTENCE. They either need to reform or allow competition to drive them into changing from a negative to a positive.
You want pensions to make a comeback, well government pensions and UAW pension have become unsustainable and are sucking up so much of the state and Fed budgets that there will be little left for all your other spending wishes.
You want government to run every aspect of our live, from postcards to transportation but you NEVER once consider the COST. I know you want what you want because you want it and the COSTS be dammed but the reality is that no society can exist where it is everything to everyone. There isn’t enough money in the entire world to meet that goal. Believe it or not, there is a limit to what taxpayers can pay and that means we have to carefully select what we want government to do. If you don’t believe me, look to the Castro boys admission that they can no longer sustain the communist model. Whatever you call it, statism, socialism, communism, progressivism, all have one thing in common, they defeat themselves when they run into the spending wall. We have hit that wall. I invite you to begin to decide what affordable priorities you wish to establish, we can then have an honest debate about what needs to be cut and how much can be spent, all within a balanced budget. No more pushing the cost off to the next generation or 10.
My hearing is excellent, and your comments resonate in both ears but you being on the left, I can’t mistake the high frequency of your progressive commentary.
I do have a soft spot for the P.O. as my father was a Postman and died on the job delivery mail in the blizzard of 78. My point has been that the P.O. needs to become more efficient and stop the bleeding. And, they need to adapt to today’s world. Snail mail is almost as obsolete as the Pony Express. That may mean shedding 10s of thousands of jobs etc, but so be it. They lost 6 BILLION dollars last year and that is more than the year before. This is money that could be used better elsewhere, say to subsidize truly poor people’s healthcare?
As for how to get old people their mail, maybe we should convert residential mail to P.O. Box mail, where people could come to pick up their mail, once a week, twice a week etc. Please don’t tell me that we have to arrange for their transportation to the P.O. location, that would be beyond the pale as I would expect that you could manage to help out your elderly mother with that task.
Amtrak is a whole other case. There are any number of different means of transportation and we don’t need to support them, at all.
True, corporations will do what makes economic sense, so I don’t blame them for that. If only the government could adopt that philosphy for those services which are not fundamentally assigned to it by the Constitution. The core risk management goal of all corps is economic “survival”. If they don’t survive, then neither do the jobs they create.
As for my hearing, I do hear you loud and clear. The socialist din is almost deafening.
Cass, I only have one comment concerning your reply to Mike and that mirrors the syncopated version of the physician’s Hipocratic oath as summarized in the latin phrase “Primum non nocere”.
The path cuts both ways, Tom. You appear willing to gut social programs but unwilling to cut cookies for the corporations…the large ones. Not too balanced a view in my book. You never even mention all the savings (por increased tax revenue) that we can achieve by looking in that direction. And, incidentally, I would be much more supportive of efforts to aid small business…I cinsider them one of the “little guys” deserving of my “progressive” care and angst.
As for Mike, most of us all run a tenuous line with our jobs. We are in a tranitioning economy and not recognizing it nor handling this transition very well. I think more could be done to ease the human suffering caused by job loss coupled with inability to be as mobile as we were in the past (due to home sales issues, etc.). I think we need to look a lot harder at the human cost of this and plan a lot better. This is what I see government (federal) as doing…we need a PLAN or else we will all be learning /chinese in 15 years.
Wow Cassandra…what an absurd generalization. I tell you what, you let me know how that GOVERNMENT PLAN works out for you. In the meantime, I’ll just sit here with a blue face from holding my breath.
This discussion(?) with you is over. I’m completely exhausted. I will not convince you that you’re wrong & you cannot convince me that you’re right. Have a nice life.
Cass, you are dead wrong, I don’t think Corporations, or big unions, should enjoy tax breaks or subsidies (welfare) and that would include Agri business. However, Congress is addicted to handing them out and Dems are as guilty as the Repubs.
As for your compassion concerning small business, I would hope that you would join me in demanding that Gov GET OUT OF THE WAY rather than offer “help”. After all, the scariest statement ever uttered to a small businessman is “I am from the govermnent and I am here to help”.
If I might pick up where Mike left off, I think you have confused the transition a bit. The transition is from a manufacturing society to a service society, so health insurance related jobs are not going anywhere except to the dust bin of history should Ocare reach is designed goal of replacing traditional insurance with a single payer system. If you really believe in the private sector holding onto jobs, then you would join the majority on this blog that has it right, this law doesn’t need tweaking, it needs repealing.
No, Tom, it is moving to a GLOBAL economy, a fact that you all looking only at 11/2/2010 are not factoring in.
And service is quite inclusive, including cleaning toilets as well as anayzing stocks.
thank you for the nod to repealing socialism for the big corps; sometimes I wonder why no one brings any of that up in these rants against healthcare, or socialism, or too much tax money, or too much control. So, if we are cutting, cut first on those that can afford. AND< as long as we are looking at govt spending, how about looking at bloated ware costs? If any of you actually beliieve that Iraq war kept us safe from terrorist bombers on our soil, then I truly feel for you. These wars cost a trillion a year; time to cut the cord. Before you cut a resource that the little guy needs, look to the big guy first....that's all i am saying and I truly fail to see what is wrong with that.
Cass, I was with you on corporate welfaure and then your veered widly off the tracks.
I am afraid that your comments indicate a severe case of historical myopia, especially when it comes to foreign affairs and the need for a strong military.
And, like most liberals, there is an unmistakable tone to your reply that indicates a selfish bent toward objecting to spending money on the military since it lessens the amount that could be spent directly on US. It seems that compassion for political, social, and economic plight of other stops at the border.
We have drifted far afield on this thread, see you on the next thread.