I doubt big insurance will reduce premiums whatsoever based on the huge influx of mandated capital

[grahamhgreen]

they will receive under the crappy senate bill.

More likely, they will buy another senator and a couple of jets.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Is this your "feeling"?

or do you have something more to offer to support the negative naysaying?

[Go2Peace]

3. It is a "forum" right?

At least DU *used* to be for discussing opinions. I know that goes against trying to use a forum for "messaging", but last I looked DU was still primarily meant to be a forum.

I don't know if what the OP says will end up being the case, though I have no trust that Insurance companies will do things right if we leave any loopholes. But I suppose my feelings are also just an opinion. But that's ok right? I can do that can't I?

[grahamhgreen]

4. It's in their corporate charters - they are supposed to make as much profit as possible, therefore

it is in their financial best interest to continue to jack up rates as much as possible.

Simply mandating that people give them cash is an unlikely incentive for them to spend that money on peoples health care.

[JoePhilly]

5. No one is "simply mandating" that ...

The mandate aspects also include provisions for those who can't afford current premiums, with subsidies.

The far right and the far left ignore mentioning these.

[grahamhgreen]

6. The subsidies for the poor also comes from the taxpayers, and goes to big insurance.

I don't mind giving my tax money to Medicaid, however.

[Donnachaidh]

10. when all the bluster is over -- who PROFITS from the mandates? INSURANCE COMPANIES

Spin it all you want -- but they get their pound of flesh right off the top.

[JoePhilly]

11. You think the Insurance companies will get LESS profits after we ...

cut off our noise to spite our face??

In addition, there are provisions in the bill which require the insurance companies to demonstrate that they've increased the percentage of money brought in via premiums that goes to actual health care from 60% to 85%

[brentspeak]

12. They'll certainly get less of our tax dollars without the bill

$1 trillion less.

[JoePhilly]

13. If that was true, they'd be supporting it ... all they care about is profits.

Right now, they find the best way to get more profits is to cut out the sick, and raise everyone else's premiums.

SO while you whine about them making profits via tax dollars (which is kind of silly actually), you would kill the bill, and simple skip the middle man and hand the money DIRECTLY to the insurance company ... that is, until you get sick and they kick you off or your premiums get so high you can't pay them.

[brentspeak]

16. It's "silly" to point out that the insurance co's will make profits via our tax dollars?

What else do you consider "silly" and "whining"? The trillions of tax dollars going to the big banks that wrecked the system? You're not related to Phil Gramm, are you? Is the American public a bunch of "whiners" for not being sufficiently sheep-like to your truly bizarro liking?

[JoePhilly]

17. Spare me ...

Its interesting that you left the health care discussion and ran to the bank bailouts all of a sudden.

ok...

1) If you want to give your money DIRECTLY to the insurance companies, even as they cover less and less, and you pay more and more in co-pays and out of pocket ... then you should DEFINITELY be against this bill.

2) Regarding the bank bailouts and Phil Gramm (who you bring up out of nowhere), Phil did not call the American people whiners AFTER the bailout, he called them that BEFORE the bailouts. Phil would have been happy to let the banks fail, after all, UBS had already paid him MILLIONS to screw up our financial system.

3) I'm going to guess that you don't have a 401k. I do. And I've been building it up for 20 years, and this time a year ago, it was devastated. One year later, it is largely recovered. If the financial system collapsed, it would have taken my 401k, and everyone else's with it.

[Hansel]

14. It's also in their interest not to destroy the company in the process.

It is not necessarily in their financial best interest to continue to jack up rates as much as possible. In the short term it is easy money and they wonder why the old fools who used to run these companies didn't take advantage of the fast money they get by jacking up rates and outsourcing, or increasing risk. In the long term they will destroy their company and suddenly those old folks will look a whole lot smarter.

[Skink]

2. Once we open medicare to all as a competing plan they'll have to do something

meanwhile they won't be able to get away with dropping people or refusing coverage.

[Vinca]

7. Your post is exactly right. Insurance companies do not exist

to deliver health care. They are in existence to make money for their shareholders (and a semi full of cash for the top management). Unless there is a board, similar to the one that regulates utilities, that tells them how much they can charge, what their deductibles can be, etc., etc. . . . the kind of regulation Wall Street should also have . . . the problem may actually get worse after this bill is passed. I agree some people will be helped, but it is primarily those who will now be eligible for Medicaid or those who have the resources to buy a very expensive policy previously denied because of a pre-existing condition. Regular people with pre-existing conditions will most likely be paying a fine because a triple premium will be out of our reach.

[denimgirly]

8. Valid Concern -- I find the "subsidies keep cost down" argument very silly.

For some reason people think that insurance companies premiums will be made affordable through the massive amounts of subsidies that will offset the cost. Sure, on the surface it would appear there is cost control HOWEVER when you think about it you realize that those savings are actually just a larger redistribution of taxpayer money to the insurance industry, not savings. That is not efficient at all...that is worse.

Companies are legal bound to make as much profit for their shareholders as possible and so even with mandated new customers they will STILL continue to do what they do and find ways to deny coverage to maximize profits....or since there are new rules in denying then just increase premiums. If i recall there is supposedly going ot be a board that monitors the rate of price increases and if the charge rises too much then it willbe overruled. I can see a lot of abuse and loop holes in this.

I've said before, this bill has some good things but is still a terrible bill. But seeing as how America always takes the longest, hardest, ugliest path before traversing back on course to the predicted best, and simpilest solution this is no surprise. Yes, Insurance companies will make a fortune from this new passage but in 10-25 years America will revist and be a bit closer to the obvious and only solution: Single Payer. My guess is in 50 years U.S. will adopt Single Payer because the people will probably by then have enough being screwn by the government and corporations.

[Romulox]

9. Prices are set by supply + demand. With a massive new gov't mandated "demand", prices MUST rise. n

[Dr.Phool]

15. Supply and demand. We have a supply of cash and they demand it!