Death to the insurance companies?

[thundley4]

THIS ONE WILL TAKE SOME STUDY
By Neal Boortz @ March 24, 2010 9:00 AM Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)
And maybe some of my listeners can help me here. Read this portion of the ObamaCare bill our wonderful president signed into law on Tuesday:



(A) REQUIREMENT- Beginning not later than January 1, 2011, a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage (including a grandfathered health plan) shall, with respect to each plan year, provide an annual rebate to each enrollee under such coverage, on a pro rata basis, if the ratio of the amount of premium revenue expended by the issuer on costs described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) to the total amount of premium revenue (excluding Federal and State taxes and licensing or regulatory fees and after accounting for payments or receipts for risk adjustment, risk corridors, and reinsurance under sections 1341, 1342, and 1343 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) for the plan year (except as provided in subparagraph (B)(ii)), is less than-

(i) with respect to a health insurance issuer offering coverage in the large group market, 85 percent, or such higher percentage as a State may by regulation determine;

(ii) with respect to a health insurance issuer offering coverage in the small group market or in the individual market, 80 percent, or such higher percentage as a State may by regulation determine, except that the Secretary may adjust such percentage with respect to a State if the Secretary determines that the application of such 80 percent may destabilize the individual market in such State.

Now I'm reading some blogs out there which claim that this ObamaCare provision pretty much guarantees that most private health insurance companies will go out of business within two or three years after ObamaCare becomes law. Some experts believe that this section pretty much robs private health insurance companies of the ability to set aside needed funds for administrative expenses and other contingencies. It will take someone smarter than me to figure out.

Neal Boortz

If I read this right, it limits the amount of profits an insurance company can make. If I don't file any claims, then the company must refund part of my premiums? Why don't they do this for car insurance, home insurance, and life insurance?  I didn't wreck this year, my house didn't burn down, I didn't die, so I want my premiums back.

[Alpha Mare]

My auto insurance does.  I get 33% back every 6 months. But, in nearly 40 years of driving, I've had no tickets or accidents.   :innocent:

I'm still trying to decipher this bill.

[JohnnyReb]

My auto insurance does.  I get 33% back every 6 months. But, in nearly 40 years of driving, I've had no tickets or accidents.   :innocent:

I'm still trying to decipher this bill.

There's almost 3,000 pages of that doublespeak to decipher.....we'll send flowers to you in the ward.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Neal Boortz

If I read this right, it limits the amount of profits an insurance company can make. If I don't file any claims, then the company must refund part of my premiums? Why don't they do this for car insurance, home insurance, and life insurance?  I didn't wreck this year, my house didn't burn down, I didn't die, so I want my premiums back.

I don't think you're reading it right, it means in the aggregate, not for individuals.  Their aggregate payout has to be at least 80/85% of total premiums received from all policyholders each year, NOT their payout to you vs. premiums paid by you.  Now they certainly could get under the threshold at the end of the year by a pro rata refund to policyholders of the surplus, but I'd expect the typical check to be pretty small in relation to the premiums if they did.

[thundley4]

I don't think you're reading it right, it means in the aggregate, not for individuals.  Their aggregate payout has to be at least 80/85% of total premiums received from all policyholders each year, NOT their payout to you vs. premiums paid by you.  Now they certainly could get under the threshold at the end of the year by a pro rata refund to policyholders of the surplus, but I'd expect the typical check to be pretty small in relation to the premiums if they did.

Still, it is an attack on their profits, along with other parts of the bill.  I still believe the goal is to drive the insurance companies out of business to forge the way for government health care.

[IassaFTots]

Thankfully, we have an employee benefit law conference call that will maybe/hopefully/probably not clear some of this up tomorrow.

[njpines]

I heard both Charles Krauthammer and Newt Gingrich on 2 separate shows last night stating that the health insurance companies will essentially become public utilities/funds collectors for the fed gov't and will be regulated as to how much they can charge for policies.  Both stated that this is why they decided to drop the "public option" and how it was sold to the reps yelling for a PO.

Also, both stated that the next big item in the health care mess will be to pass a VAT tax -- National Sales Tax -- to pay for all this crap.  It's going to be the outcome of the Deficit Reduction Commission that Zero set up to take the blame off the WH for coming up with this Euro-socialist idea . . .

[Ralph Wiggum]

Thankfully, we have an employee benefit law conference call that will maybe/hopefully/probably not clear some of this up tomorrow.

I'll take probably not for $1000, Alex.

[njpines]

Here's Krauthammer's remarks and some additional info:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/24/krauthammer-get-ready-for-the-vat-debate/

[DixieBelle]

God we're so screwed.

[The Village Idiot]

Also, both stated that the next big item in the health care mess will be to pass a VAT tax -- National Sales Tax -- to pay for all this crap.

The VAT tax is not a retail sales tax. The VAT tax is embedded into the cost of the product at every stage of production. Its hidden in the price to the end user. A sales tax would be added at the cash register.

Very different.

Politicians know that sheeple will not blame them for "price increases" due to VAT because they will not really know.

[thundley4]

The VAT tax is not a retail sales tax. The VAT tax is embedded into the cost of the product at every stage of production. Its hidden in the price to the end user. A sales tax would be added at the cash register.

Very different.

Politicians know that sheeple will not blame them for "price increases" due to VAT because they will not really know.

I would hope that at every step that is taxed, the company puts their own tax stamp stating how much tax was added to the price.  We have tax stamps on cigarettes, nothing to stop each company  from labeling their products this way.

[The Village Idiot]

I would like to see gas stations do that.

BTW, I bet there is a law against that. We have so many.

[Hawkgirl]

Still, it is an attack on their profits, along with other parts of the bill.  I still believe the goal is to drive the insurance companies out of business to forge the way for government health care.

Ding ding ding......