ThomWV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-22-10 02:35 PM
Original message |
As in states where gay marriage has become legal, many people will be surprised 2 weeks from now |
|
Edited on Mon Mar-22-10 02:48 PM by ThomWV
It is going to simply amaze a lot of people that their health care situation hasn't changed a bit despite this socialist takeover. The sun will rise, birds will sing, and the lucky will scurry off to their jobs. This will not bode well for Republicans who will be trying to use this as the sole ('cause there ain't nuttin' else) plank of a platform on which to run for re-election. There is this however; rate increases that would have come anyway will now be blamed exclusively on HCR - bet on it. I'd also be willing to bet we are in for an absolute surge of rate increases between now and the election just because it will be an easy way for insurance companies to not only increase their profits to even more obscene levels, but it will also give ammunition to Republicans seeking election or re-election.
|
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-22-10 02:38 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I just posted this from Ezra Klein about rate increases; it seems |
|
insurance companies won't be able to just raise rates indiscriminately and remain legal. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x240336
|
ThomWV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-22-10 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Good catch on that one - note however it doesn't go into effect until after the next election |
|
And one wonders how much they will be allowed to load up the costs to remain inside the 80 or 85% window. Personally I think their allowable costs should be limited to those for which they might be legally reinbursed under a Federal Government cost-reinbursement contract. That would mean that things like campaign donations or lobbying costs would not be allowable and could not count, even hidden as an overhead expense, toward the portion of premium to be spent on care.
Just sayin' ....
|
damntexdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-22-10 02:49 PM
Response to Original message |
3. No, that's wrong: the bill explicitly states that birds can no longer sing. |
|
Rush Limbaugh told me so! Or was in Glen Beck?
|
Phentex
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-22-10 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. That only applies to the birds still in their eggs... |
|
THEY are being forced to NOT SING! It's outrageous.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 06:36 AM
Response to Original message |