The Great ObamaCare Debate, Part 237: Back to Court - Page 18 - Politics and Economics

Lol nice dodge. Who cares? Please tell me how that is relevant to:

1. Cel phone companies refused to make numbers portable

2. Govt stepped in and said you want to use our airwaves you have to play nice

3. Consumers now have more choices, competition is improved and service and pricing plans are better for all. Remember the days of $200 cel phone bills because you go over for the last 5 days of the month? Remember the days of being stuck on a terrible network because you didn't want to switch numbers?

Or is there some revisionist history already working on this one? You know it's going to be a little tougher to pull that card when most of your audience was alive and paying attention for the thing you are trying to revise.

It's entirely relevant. I don't know all the details of how it works, but I do know that numbers are assigned in 10,000 unit batches. This is done by regulators who give the numbers to the carriers.

http://www.nanpa.com/about_us/abt_nanp.html

So it's not as simple as the companies just doing what they wanted. They needed the FCC on board to be able to reassign numbers that were given out to them by the FCC.

I switched my number when I switched carriers once, and I kept my number when I switched carriers another time. It was a bigger hassle switching the number for me with my experience (my old carrier tried to charge me a termination penalty for 3 days early, even though the contract was paid in full, since I started my new contract on the new carrier with the same number early enough to make sure I wouldn't have days without service, whereas before, I just had two numbers for an overlap time).

I never remember the days of going over for a $200 bill because I am not a ****** who went over my minutes with a plan that charged in such a way.

I don't remember being stuck because of not being able to keep a number but because I was under contract and didn't want to pay the termination penalty.

The narrative here is very simple:

1) Government creates system/takes over existing system
2) Providers must adhere to regulations
3) Blame providers for poor service due to regulations
4) Government saves the day!

There is less competition today than before, more mergers, more companies combining. That "more choice" narrative is really working for you when there is less than before ( gee I wonder why).

01-14-2012 , 03:58 PM

#427

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

debate_count++;

01-14-2012 , 04:00 PM

#428

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,984

The bottom line is providers were never going to make numbers portable w/o being forced. And more choice is a good thing. Not everyone can switch numbers as easily as you apparently can. if you don't remember the $200 bills (at least living in deathly fear of going over if nothing else) with the crappy gotcha plans, then you didn't have a cel phone in the late 90s/early 00s.

I would be a million times more more likely to take libertarians seriously would just say "hey this one instance govt stepping in was the right thing to do, but we still need way less govt in all these other areas". Instead you try to defend every single case of the free market performing sub-optimally - as if this is an impossible occurrence - and things like the network effect, external costs, natural monopolies, etc. etc. cannot possibly exist.

01-14-2012 , 04:05 PM

#429

TomCollins

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 43,058

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Why weren't they going to do it? How are you so sure? What makes you think it was technically feasible back then without government action?

BTW- I got a cell phone in 2002 and used it exclusively since without a home line.

01-14-2012 , 04:05 PM

#430

Sholar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,357

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

There is less competition today than before, more mergers, more companies combining. That "more choice" narrative is really working for you when there is less than before ( gee I wonder why).

Not sure you're going to like where this argument leads (re: number of carriers and government interference).

01-14-2012 , 04:09 PM

#431

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,984

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

Come on. Do you really think they ever would on their own?

Do you not understand the huge financial incentive they all have to claim number portability is an impossible technical hurdle? Which they did until they were dragged into doing it by the govt? Were you not paying any attention during the whole debate when this happened?

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/200...y-local-number

Quote:

The largest wireless providers, led by Verizon Wireless, are trying to stall or defeat the FCC mandate.

The stakes are enormous, measured in billions of dollars, because wireless carriers already lose about 30 percent of their customers a year to competitors and would stand to lose more if customers didn't have to weather the inconvenience of changing their phone number if they switch.

Federal lawmakers realized that having to change a phone number was an enormous impediment to phone competition when they approved the 1996 law that furthered the deregulation of the industry that had begun in 1984.

Consumers may not realize it, but they already pay a few cents every month on their wireline phone bills to finance the administration of a system that allows them to transfer their number if they change companies. But that provision hasn't extended to wireless phones.

Representatives of the cell phone industry argue that the FCC has overstepped its authority by trying to extend so-called LNP - Local Number Portability - to wireless.

01-14-2012 , 04:13 PM

#432

ErikTheDread

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 9,124

01-14-2012 , 04:17 PM

#433

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

The reason we spend the most is because we have no rationing and no cost control on the government spending of it.

This is not true. I mean, we do have rationing and we do have cost control, but private health spending is increasing faster than Medicare. I'm not even going to address the rest of your post, that single fact should cause you to reevaluate some deeply held convictions you have about your understanding of economics.

01-14-2012 , 04:19 PM

#434

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Probably the government's fault tho

01-14-2012 , 04:34 PM

#435

TomCollins

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 43,058

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

It's possible they would on their own. It might have taken a lot longer, though.

The entire thing is caused through the distribution of how phone numbers are set up, though. Which you ignore.

I was paying attention when it happened. Sure, they have an incentive to exaggerate costs.

Now if we just can have a way to force AOL to forward your email when you upgrade to DSL.

I don't have a huge problem with the FCC changing the rules on phone numbers the FCC gives out, though. But that government regulation sure helped open up competition! Before that, we just had Alltel, Edge Wireless, First Cellular of Southern Illinois, Midwest Wireless, Nextel, Northcoast PCS, Unicel, Upoc, Western Wireless, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint. Now we have way more choices!

01-14-2012 , 04:41 PM

#436

Effen

CRAB

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 24,004

Quote:

Originally Posted by The 13th 4postle

What we had in the health-care industry before the passage of Obamacare was not a free market. Prices were distorted for a number of reasons. Frivolous lawsuits, corporate subsidies, and the inability to buy insurance across state lines to name a few.

LOL

LOL

01-14-2012 , 04:44 PM

#437

surftheiop

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 5,162

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

Did a lot of those choices come from the governments breakup of AT&T?

01-14-2012 , 04:47 PM

#438

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

ObamaCare is working as planned in Texas, and it will rebate $160 million to 690,000 Texans from health insurers by Aug. 1, unless Trick Perry and Texas regulators have their way and are able to stop the ObamaCare-mandated rebates (another estimate puts the rebate at $260M).

These rebates are all due to the ObamaCare rule known as the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR), which requires insurers to spend 80-85% on health services. Texas wants to delay, change, and reduce the rebates to protect insurers.

Jan. 13, 2012
Texas health insurance rebates are on the line

Quote:

The rebates are part of the 2010 federal healthcare law, under attack by Texas and other states and headed to the Supreme Court. It requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of premium revenue on health services and quality improvements, with a goal of getting more value from every healthcare dollar.

In effect, the law caps overhead costs for insurers at 15 percent for large groups and 20 percent for the individual market. Anything larger has to be rebated to customers in the following year.

Texas is not alone in their fight to screw consumers and protect insurers.

January 4, 2012
No loss ratio adjustments for Kan., Okla.

Quote:

The CMS' Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight has denied Kansas (PDF) and Oklahoma (PDF) their requests for medical-loss ratio adjustments, bringing to eight the number of states that will not receive exceptions to the standard that requires insurance companies to spend at least 80% of premium dollars on medical care.

Kansas had asked that the medical-loss ratio standard—a consumer protection in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—be adjusted so health plans would spend 70% of premium dollars on medical care in 2011, and then gradually move to 73% in 2012 and 76% in 2013.

Similarly, in Oklahoma, issuers made it clear that they would not leave the market, and that they already meet the 80% standard or will in the future, Larsen explained. The state had requested the medical-loss ratio be changed to a threshold of 65% in 2011, 70% in 2012 and 75% in 2013.

All other states should be following the MLR suit very shortly, because it is required by law (BarackHusseinObamaCare

). You will see various Red states crying over the mandate to make insurance cheaper for their residents, because they want to protect the bottom lines of the health insurers who contribute to their campaigns, take them to the links, and take them on cruises and cool retreats with booze and strippers to discuss policy.

ObamaCare is on like Donkey Kong and the Medical Loss Ratio is Coming Home to Roost.

This has nothing to do with the CBO estimated 2 trillion that ObamaCare will save over the next decade or 2.

01-14-2012 , 05:19 PM

#439

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Something for Floridians and The 13th 4postle:

Quote:

Like a battered fighter who keeps coming back for another round, Florida is not giving up on its quest to be granted a waiver from the medical loss ratio requirements required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Florida officials have appealed the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services' decision to deny the state's request for a waiver to allow health insurers more time to meet the MLR requirements.

[...]

In the waiver request filed with CMS in March 2011, Florida officials asked for an adjustment of the MLR standard to 68%, 72%, and 76% for 2011, 2012, and 2013, respectively.

That request was denied in mid-December 2011. At that time Larsen noted that with 20 carriers, Florida has a very competitive individual health insurance market and there was no indication that meeting the MLR requirement would create a hardship for the insurers.

January 6, 2012
FL Still Fighting MLR Waiver Denial; KS, OK Denied

Tell Trick Scott I said, "Goodbye".

01-14-2012 , 06:01 PM

#440

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Something for Wolverines and Spartans:

December 21st, 2011
Michigan Consumers to Receive $89 Million in Medical Loss Ratio Rebates

Quote:

Health insurers in Michigan were ordered to pay policyholders as much $89 million in medical loss ratio rebates following a ruling, federal health regulators announced on Monday. This ruling comes less than one month after the federal government announced that the health insurance industry could owe millions of consumers rebates thanks to health care reform’s medical loss ratio.

"Shortly after the ruling was issued, Insurance Commissioner, [Republican Gov Snyder-appointed] Kevin Clinton, sought an exemption to this payment rule with the support of [Republican] Gov. Rick Snyder."

Jan 04, 2012
Michigan Opts Not To Appeal Feds' MLR Rule

Quote:

The state was seeking an exemption from the health law's medical-loss ratio requirement that insurance companies spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care. Others, however, get a 30-day extension.

Wolverines!

01-14-2012 , 06:11 PM

#441

goofball

Beat Nate Silver

Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 20,424

has the libertarian explanation been established yet for why U.S. health care costs are so high (i.e. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html) when we have so much less government interference than say, canada or sweden?

Really it looks like we should try to model our system of healthcare after burkina faso

01-14-2012 , 06:14 PM

#442

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,984

If by "explanation" you mean baseless assertions and fuzzy logic handwaving that meets the requirements for conservatives and libertarians - as something to cling to which doesn't disrupt their worldview - then yes, there has been an explanation.

01-14-2012 , 07:24 PM

#443

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Quote:

the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care.

Quote:

Today, that bomb goes off.

Today, the Department of Health & Human Services issues the rules of what insurer expenditures will—and will not—qualify as a medical expense for purposes of meeting the requirement.

As it turns out, HHS isn’t screwing around. They actually mean to see to it that the insurance companies spend what they should taking care of their customers.

Here’s an example: For months, health insurance brokers and salespeople have been lobbying to have the commissions they earn for selling an insurer’s program to consumers be included as a ‘medical expense’ for purposes of the rules. HHS has, today, given them the official thumbs down, as well they should have. Selling me a health insurance policy is simply not the same as providing me with the medical care I am entitled to under the policy. Sales is clearly an overhead cost in any business and had HHS included this as a medical cost, it would have signaled that they are not at all serious about enforcing the concept of the medical loss ratio.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...day-halleluja/

ObamaCare provision kicking in today.

My MLR pony is too slow, and probably needs pony health care coverage.

Meh, here's a list of all the states that requested an MLR waiver and its status. You can click thru for more details on each state. Or you can google your state AND Medical Loss Ratio and it should tell you whether or not your state got an exemption or what your premium rebate might be.

CCIIO The Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight

Maine (HHS determination issued)
New Hampshire (HHS determination issued)
Nevada (HHS determination issued)
Kentucky (HHS determination issued)
Florida (HHS determination issued)
Georgia (HHS determination issued)
North Dakota (HHS determination issued)
Iowa (HHS determination issued)
Louisiana (HHS determination issued)
Guam (all issuers presumed to meet or exceed the 80 percent MLR standard)
Kansas (HHS determination issued)
Delaware (HHS determination issued)
Indiana (HHS determination issued)
Michigan (HHS determination issued)
Texas (application complete)
Oklahoma (HHS determination issued)
North Carolina (application complete, public comments due 1/20/2012)
Wisconsin (application complete, public comments due 1/20/2012)

The exemptions are generally only good until 2013, and usually only for individual coverage plans. Some states got a 70% MLR compromise exemption until 2013. Think about that. That's 10 to 15% below the MLR mandate, and that is how much fat is in the health insurance industry, most of it in the sales and marketing financial incentives to insurance brokers and claim denial specialists. They even call these bloodsuckers Claim Denial Specialists:

Quote:

Average Claim Denial Specialist salaries for job postings in Irving, TX are 3% lower than average Claim Denial Specialist salaries for job postings nationwide.

Salaries for these bloodsuckers are falling precipitously. I wonder why.

Insurers are not going to be able to deny claims for dumbass, bloodsucking reasons anymore, or they will have to rebate that sucked blood to policyholders, so they don't need to staff as many of these bloodsuckers.

The health insurance brokers and their sales agents are howling too, as they see that ObamaCare is a silver bullet and a wooden stake through their vampiric and parasitic racket.

Supreme Court - One Time.

I suppose and hope that even if the SC rules against the individual mandate, it won't invalidate the MLR rule. Something about severability. Here it is: Is the Individual Mandate Severable?

Last edited by Klinker; 01-14-2012 at 07:41 PM.

01-14-2012 , 08:06 PM

#444

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Err no, obama's largest achievement, and currently basically his entire legacy, is that health care reform bill.

If his presidency ended today, that's basically all he'd be remembered for accomplishing (outside of first black prez) 15 years from now.

You don't think Obama will be remembered for killing Bin Laden, ending Bush's dumb war, ending DADT, and having the stock market go up 50% his first 2 years in office?

01-14-2012 , 08:10 PM

#445

TomCollins

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 43,058

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klinker

You don't think Obama will be remembered for killing Bin Laden, ending Bush's dumb war, ending DADT, and having the stock market go up 50% his first 2 years in office?

Not at all. Especially the last one.

01-14-2012 , 08:23 PM

#446

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Tsao

so what is the problem? i think there's a few issues

1) competition among insurance co's

let all insurance co's compete regardless of state borders, don't force anyone to buy any insurance ever.

2) MDs have a monopoly
let others have medical practices. one big reason healthcare costs are so high is because MDs run unnecessary tests for revenue purposes. there needs to be competition otherwise costs go up and quality goes down. instead, the government has made it a law that only MDs can prescribe medications, only MDs can do blahblahblah.

guess what, when I have a runny nose and a cough I really don't need someone with 8 years of medical training to tell me to drink fluids and guzzle the nyquil.

need to get rid of MANDATORY licensing in medicine, lawyering, investigating, etc.

stop destroying wealth by creating bombs to kill people in the middle east, and then lower taxes so more people could donate to charities to help the people in need.

stop printing money increasing the costs of everything (healthcare included) while wages are slow to catch up

that's just off the top of my head guy i'll try to think of some more

lol wut. You can't be serious, but I suppose this is the Libertarian, anti-govt enforcement of just about everything position. We can't have govt around locking up "doctors" who do not have a license to practice and likely are not qualified.

Just let retired plumber JoeBob and retired auto-mechanic BillyBob open up a GYNO practice together and get their arms elbow deep up in some fine panocha.

We wouldn't want to use all that aggression and force to stop a situation like that.

I really can't believe some of the ludicrous stuff on here. This is why Libertarians are laughed at.

Have you seen a licensed doctor lately?

01-14-2012 , 08:25 PM

#447

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

Not at all. Especially the last one.

Of course he will be remembered for killing Bin Laden. It's foolish to say otherwise.

01-14-2012 , 08:26 PM

#448

TomCollins

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 43,058

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klinker

You think people are going to go to JoeBob and BillyBob the GYNO?

01-14-2012 , 09:25 PM

#449

goofball

Beat Nate Silver

Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 20,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

Not at all. Especially the last one.

lol. Wishful thinking much?

01-14-2012 , 09:45 PM

#450

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

You think people are going to go to JoeBob and BillyBob the GYNO?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1103933.html

Like every time this **** comes up it's revealed that the finest libertarian scholars in all of Alabama are unable to contemplate the possibility that people will lie.

Page 18 of 1027

First

8 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 28 38 68 118 218 518 1018

Last

...

Page 18 of 1027

First

8 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 28 38 68 118 218 518 1018

Last