Den fredag den 1. november 2013 19.37.34 UTC+1 skrev [email protected]:
is insurance companies bureaucracy to administer it and profit from it any
better?
Jim Thompson wrote:
[...]
We'd wish, but ... read up on the topic "ineptocracy" :-(The only good that will come of this is that so many Democrat
politicians will lose their ass in the 2014 mid-terms.
Obama's big mistake was adopting the Republican healthcare plan (aka
Romneycare).
Demcare doesn't fix the insurance company's measly profit, and it
doesn't reduce the overhead.
"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors,hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it." --Sowell
It most certainly does, they are allowed no more than 15% for costs otherthan actual health care, and if they exceed that percentage they will owe their clients a rebate. That is the new law.
That's exactly the point of the PPACA, they ARE getting government out ofthe health insurance business. If you pay attention, you will see that allthe PPACA is doing is regulating the industry, the private insurance companies will be doing all the actual administration work. Representatives of the insurance industry who know the business inside out wrote the law!
Den fredag den 1. november 2013 19.37.34 UTC+1 skrev [email protected]:
is insurance companies bureaucracy to administer it and profit from it any
better?
Lasse said:Den fredag den 1. november 2013 21.35.37 UTC+1 skrev Joerg:
big IT project have a tendency to get ridiculously expensive, I'm not
sure big companies are much better at it than governments, they just
don't go public with it
but to put the 635M in perspective, in 2011 that would be around 6
weeks of profit for UnitedHealth Group
with that kind of money involved I'm sure they spend a lot in
lobbying and contributions to avoid be cut out of the loop by a
single payer system
Den fredag den 1. november 2013 21.35.37 UTC+1 skrev Joerg:
big IT project have a tendency to get ridiculously expensive, I'm not sure big companies are much better at it than governments, they just don't go public
with it
but to put the 635M in perspective, in 2011 that would be around 6 weeks of profit for UnitedHealth Group
with that kind of money involved I'm sure they spend a lot in lobbying and contributions to avoid be cut out of the loop by a single payer system
You're now ahead of Slowman for extraordinary exhibition of asininity
That's the "Minimum Loss Ratio" provision. It says for every dollar
insurers spend, they get to keep 15 cents. Let's put on our thinking
caps and ask "Okay, what's the insurer's incentive? What's the
easiest way for him to make an extra 15 cents?"
If you said "Spend another dollar," you get a prize.
The ACA doesn't get the government out of health insurance! Read section
1311 -- the feds now have to approve and inspect the FORMS you use. They
control EVERYTHING.
Greegor said:They've known from the beginning that
getting young healthy people to sign
up is necessary for it to work.
Now there are reports that in fact
those people are busy repaying student
loans, hoping to buy homes and
would pay the 1% tax/fine rather
than sign up.
Jim Thompson wrote:
[...]
The only good that will come of this is that so many Democrat politicians will lose their ass in the 2014 mid-terms.
We'd wish, but ... read up on the topic "ineptocracy" :-(
Our present crop of college students and recent grads, and their attitudeof shouting down any free speech they don't want to hear, are sufficient reason to dispose of state-funded universities... and "low information" voters.
The only way taxpayer funding should be involved is _perhaps_ for scholarships... recipient qualification to be determined by examination only... no"equal opportunity" BS.
You're now ahead of Slowman for extraordinary exhibition of asininity
I can't help it if you're as illiterate as Slowman.
Jim Thompson wrote:
[...]
The only good that will come of this is that so many Democrat politicians will lose their ass in the 2014 mid-terms.
We'd wish, but ... read up on the topic "ineptocracy" :-(
Our present crop of college students and recent grads, and their attitude of shouting down any free speech they don't want to hear, are sufficient reason to dispose of state-funded universities... and "low information" voters.
Around here, Jim Thompson and krw have been shouting down any free speech they don't want to hear for years. It's odd that Jim resents the present crop of college students for exercising the same lack of restraint.
Sadly, examinations are a pretty poor way of selecting university entrants. Kids that do very well on examinations do tend to ace their university course with 95% graduation rates, but for the bulk of the people who do well enough to get into university only around half ever make it through to a degree, and the bottom 10% don't do all that much worse than the rest.
You're worse than Larkin at attempted retorts.
If only Jim Thompson were as well-read as I am. He's never caught John Woodgate trying to pass off a quote from Thomas Love Peacock as if were a primitive Celtic song, but I have ...
You only show that you don't know the difference between reading and comprehension. It is interesting that you recognize the similarity between the two of you, though.
The truth sometimes hurts, but it is still the truth.
