Comments on: Raising Their Rates, Health Insurance Companies Put Themselves in a Box

By: masaccio

masaccio — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:55:14 +0000

I've pointed out before that several of the big the health insurance companies have weak balance sheets. I wonder how viable they are.

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:30:14 +0000

Almost as though for-profit health insurance were not only the clearly immoral thing that it is, but also not a viable business. I’m with Selise, let’s outlaw this form of business. Other countries have done it and it works very well.

By: selise

selise — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:55:02 +0000

thanks for the link, dcblogger. we don't need private insurance companies - this isn't a time where a haircut will do. let's end the financial parasitism of healthcare in the usa by taking private insurance corps out of the picture. the I in FIRE stands for Insurance.

By: azhealer

azhealer — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:22:45 +0000

what it is, in fact, is a COST-PLUS CONTRACT…

that should remind us progressives of something….. and not make us happy

from page 117:

(c) ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING.—The Secretary
11 may enter into contracts for the purpose of performing
12 administrative functions

add to that the language from Primrose…

and you have private insurers with guaranteed profits running the public plan.

disgusting and Jane should bring the full power of FDL to bear on the issue

By: Primrose

Primrose — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:01:38 +0000

I’m with you. I’ve got both bills on my desktop. With reference to Page 117 of HR 3200 I began with line 10 “(c) Administrative Contracting”. Within that section there are references to the Social Security Act which appear to me to be all about Administrative Functions of a Medicare Contractor to supply services.

When I looked at the language of HR3200 and went back to the SSA, my reading is that the contractor supplying Medicare (Public Option) Administrative Services will not be responsible for the costs.

Well of course not. A public option means that the government will be responsible for the costs. This doesn’t look like a bailout to me, including the lines here (from page 117 HR 3200).

20 Con
21 tracts under this subsection shall not involve the transfer
22 of insurance risk to such entity.

I’m not that great when it comes to understanding the convoluted language of a bill, but I don’t see anything here that amounts to an insurance company bailout.

By: Loo Hoo.

Loo Hoo. — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:41:13 +0000

I keep hearing this from commenters, but none of the headliners here have ever said it. I’m Missouri. Show me!

By: alank

alank — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:40:59 +0000

Not even short back and sides. Damn!

By: dcblogger

dcblogger — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:10:12 +0000

Business Coalition for Single Payer

By: azhealer

azhealer — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:09:21 +0000

The biggest private health insurers will RUN ANY PUBLIC OPTION…

part of the secret deal between nancy pelosi, white house, and insurers…

see page 117 of HR3200– outsources running public option but prevents insurers from having any risk… it will be Halliburton on STEROIDS!

Progressives should call NANCY PELOSI AND HARRY REID AND DEMAND THAT THE PUBLIC OPTION BE FREE OF PAYOFFS TO BIG BUSINESS!!

By: dcblogger

dcblogger — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:09:04 +0000

Any mention of corporate management stock dumping? It never ceases to amaze me that fund managers are oblivious to that.