ObamaCares saves billions for customers

FredHayek wrote: Both the auto industry and home sales are still below what they were in 2006, pre-Pelosi.

And Apple can afford to move manufacturing back to the states because real wages have fallen under Bernanke. You may have a job paying you $10 an hour, but your prices for gasoline and food have doubled.

That's the best you've got?.... Gas is up to $3.19? Home sales are improving, but thanks to the Bush recession, and their deregulation that created the sub-prime and zero-interest debacle, we aren't recovering as fast as you'd like?

And Apple isn't going to build enough models here to suit you, but they're going to start by building a plant, hiring a few THOUSAND people, and start manufacturing here again....

rofllol

Yep... Sux to be you... You're pathetic.

If it's saving everyone money, why did my monthly payments go up?

Nobody that matters wrote: If it's saving everyone money, why did my monthly payments go up?

Gee, I suppose you'd have to talk to the vulture bankers who are more interested in lining their personal pockets at the expense of their loan-holders. I hear there are some guys like RMoney who might be able to help you out with the concept.

LadyJazzer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Both the auto industry and home sales are still below what they were in 2006, pre-Pelosi.

And Apple can afford to move manufacturing back to the states because real wages have fallen under Bernanke. You may have a job paying you $10 an hour, but your prices for gasoline and food have doubled.

That's the best you've got?.... Gas is up to $3.19? Home sales are improving, but thanks to the Bush recession, and their deregulation that created the sub-prime and zero-interest debacle, we aren't recovering as fast as you'd like?

And Apple isn't going to build enough models here to suit you, but they're going to start by building a plant, hiring a few THOUSAND people, and start manufacturing here again....

rofllol

Yep... Sux to be you... You're pathetic.

LJ Translation Service: We have taken one step forward, after taking 2 steps back and don't forget to blame Bush.
And Obama can't be blamed for doing anything wrong since he was on The View that morning.

Yea, the vulture bankers!

Why don't those greedy bastards loan out money for free?

Obama Approval Rating Reaches Three-Year High In Poll

A month after the election, President Barack Obama's approval ratings are at a level he hasn't seen for years, with contentious negotiations over the upcoming "fiscal cliff" so far not dampening his support.

Obama has an approval rating of 53 percent among registered voters, according to a poll released Thursday by Quinnipiac University -- the strongest approval level the university has measured since the summer of 2009.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/0 ... f=politics

Now, wait a minute... He won the election by about 52%... But 53% of registered voters approve of the job he's doing... Gee, that would mean that at LEAST 1% of all registered voters in America...that DIDN'T vote for him...approve of the job he's doing.... ????

Gee, that would mean that the GOTP has nothing to sell that the majority of the registered voters are interested in buying....

"[A]ny reading of the headlines over the past week indicates that Republicans are fighting to protect the rich and cut benefits for seniors.

It may be possible to have worse political positioning than that, but I’m not sure how." -- Bobby Jindal

Why, yes, Mr. Jindal... That would seem to be the case.... Which is why I want the 'Baggers to Jus' keep doin' what yer doin'....

Trot out Rubio and Ryan(?) Let them use the word "middle-class" in their speeches 40-50 times at a whack... Maybe if you hear the word "middle-class" 40-50 times, it will make the "low intelligence" voters not notice that they haven't changed their losing positions on ANYTHING... They just wrapped their GOTP-approved drivel in some focus-group-tested words.

Nobody that matters wrote: If it's saving everyone money, why did my monthly payments go up?

BearMtnHIB wrote: Yea, the vulture bankers!

Why don't those greedy bastards loan out money for free?

Gee, I don't know... Since it's NTM's payments that have gone up, you'd have to ask him why his bankers or his insurance company suddenly feel he's enough of a credit-risk that they have to raise his payments? Since he's not subject to any of the provisions of ObamaCare yet, and it's well known that many health providers are raising their rates in advance...(for the same reason that morons like "Papa John" are trying to raise prices...to try to prove some irrelevant political point), I can only surmise that he's being subjected to some vulture CEO wanting to screw him to make a point.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Health care reform rules aimed at pressuring health insurance companies to become more efficient saved consumers nearly $1.5 billion last year, according to a study released by the Commonwealth Fund on Wednesday.

The health care law enacted by President Barack Obama requires that health insurance companies selling plans to individual consumers spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they collect on medical care. Health insurance companies selling plans to groups of at least 50 people, such as employers offering benefits to workers, must spend 85 percent of premiums on medical care. Companies that fail to meet these standards under the so-called medical loss ratio rule must refund the difference to their customers.

Health insurance companies responded to this requirement by cutting overhead, delivering rebates and, in some cases, reducing profits, according to the study, which was authored by Michael McCue of Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond and Mark Hall of Wake Forest University of Winston-Salem, N.C. The study was issued by the Commonwealth Fund, a research institution.



Health insurance companies issued $1.1 billion in rebates and cut administrative costs and profit by $350 million because of the rules, according to the study. The researchers used reports filed by health insurers to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, a group of state regulators, to calculate their findings.

People who buy health insurance on their own, rather than get coverage at work, saw the biggest benefits, the researchers concluded. These consumers got $394 million in rebates, and the companies providing insurance in the individual market reduced overhead by $209 million, according to the report. Health insurance companies saw profits disappear for individual products when compared to 2010. Profit margins fell from 0.15 percent to -1.2 percent, the study found, with profits falling by $351 million.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/0 ... 47380.html

Are you suggesting that the government forcibly reducing company profits to reduce prices is a good thing? If so, what other industries should we do this in to make a better world? What if the % we choose is not viable for the business in the long run, what in the law will adjust for this so that businesses are not eliminated or concentrated to the biggest player as a result (both bad for consumers)?

Also, are you suggesting that negative profits are a good thing?

____________________________________________________________________

Before the Affordable Apple Act, I buy 5 apples for $.50 and sell them for $1.00 in a bag, I make $.50. Say my goal is to make $30,000, so I need to sell 60,000 bags and that is good because my business is in an 80,000 person town and 3/4 people on average by a bag of apples from me every year. This is no magic, I have been competing with other suppliers for years and this is where we stabilized.

Now with the AAA the following changes.

1. People must buy 1 bag of apples each year - everyone. Mandate
2. I must put at least 5 apples in each bag. Minimum coverage
3. I must pay 85% of my price for the apples themselves. You said it

Now after the AAA (aka ObamaFood) has gone into effect, I still need to make $30,000 to keep my house, feed my kids and/or keep my shareholders happy (see where I am going). What do I do? As usual, some math.

$30,000/80,000 people is $.375 per person I need to make in profit. This is less than before, cool on the surface. But since I must pay 85% of the price I charge for my apples, in order to make .375 per person (the amount I need to make or go out of business) I will need to sell people more apples, specifically $2.50 worth or I am breaking the law or going out of business. So my only solution is to put more apples in the bag.

So by law, in order for my apple business to survive I need to sell you over 21 apples per bag at $2.50 in stead of 5 @ $1.00. Your apples are cheaper, but you had to buy more than you needed in order for me to survive.

The other solution was to drive the costs down from my suppliers, but they already hit the lowest price they can still profit at.

In the long run, you will be paying far more for your health coverage, there is no other way under the current law. Based on my math, there will be much more demand for medical professionals or for them to become more productive (skype visits). The doctors are the apple farmers and in order for the primary retailers (the insurance companies) to meet their $ profit needs, they will need to be able to sell more doctor products at lower mandated margins or they will start selling oranges (derivative securities) or something else less regulated. Is there any chance quality will suffer by going big box with health care by law?

The law forces the insurance companies to do one of two things to survive.

1. Screw you by selling you more stuff you don't need.
2. Screw you by picking another industry where they just push paper and money around to get more of yours that is easier than the one you just ruined. (leaving you no options or only very big player options, bigger than today)

Perhaps if we do a good job and force #2 on them, we will get the universal care we were shooting for, but for some reason completely gave up on.

Of course health insurance companies have never played in a free market system. They were given a special exemption from antitrust violations back in the 30's, thus there is considerable precedent for regulating their profits. They may have more difficulty in paying their upper management salaries in the range of $20 million per year, but I am sure they can adjust. And now they are guaranteed revenues through ObamaCares.

This was not imposed upon them, they negotiated this in return for getting millions of additional customers.

The company I work for is moving from a 75% FTE - 25% temps model to a 75% temps - 25% FTE to be completed by 2014

To be honest I should add that it is not the entire company more like selected lower skilled employees is some departments.