The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Chuck to Chuck]

Additionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.

That smells of loopholes all over the place.

- It's not a premium, it's a Renewal Fee.
- It's not a premium, it's an Online Statement Review charge.
- It's not a premium, it's a Change of Coverage fee.

Unless it's tied to gross revenue, not really a good idea in practice.

Premium revenue currently accounts for the vast majority of total revenue for insurance companies.

According to WellPoint's income statement for 2008, the company's total revenue that year was $61,579.2 million. Of that, 93.2 percent came from premium revenues, and 6.3 percent came from fees for merely administering the claims of employers who self-insure (that is, these firms set aside their own funds for their employees' health benefits and bear full risk for them).

I would imagine that there's at least one person as smart as Chuck in Congress who might suggest writing the legislation to combat the loopholes you mentioned.

And if not, I'd imagine that somebody might catch on if Wellpoint's percentage of total revenue from premiums dropped from 93% to 70% once the reforms go into effect.

What happens if the payouts go down in a given year due to random chance?  Do they have to pay out extra?  Lower premiums next year?  Do they measure on a 3 year rolling average?

Loophole heaven.

You're basing this judgment on... a single sentence from an Associated Press story about what was said in a news conference.

At least you're not boldly jumping to broad conclusions based on slim evidence like usual.

Forget it Tank, it's Chucktown. Where there's always an "angle" that no one else can see.

A) Plenty of people see it.  You are just ignoring it.
B) Do you really have that much confidence in the effectiveness of the Federal Government legislating control of corporate P&L statements?  No one is that naive.

[Gil Gunderson]

I'm just ecstatic that y'all might enjoy the pleasantries of dealing with the FEHBP or OPM when dealing with health care.

More prosaically, I'm just curious as to what kind of pressure the GOP is putting on Snowe and Collins.  It must have been pretty threatening; this seems to be something they'd jump at.

Fucking Maine.

[R-V]

Additionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.

That smells of loopholes all over the place.

- It's not a premium, it's a Renewal Fee.
- It's not a premium, it's an Online Statement Review charge.
- It's not a premium, it's a Change of Coverage fee.

Unless it's tied to gross revenue, not really a good idea in practice.

Premium revenue currently accounts for the vast majority of total revenue for insurance companies.

According to WellPoint's income statement for 2008, the company's total revenue that year was $61,579.2 million. Of that, 93.2 percent came from premium revenues, and 6.3 percent came from fees for merely administering the claims of employers who self-insure (that is, these firms set aside their own funds for their employees' health benefits and bear full risk for them).

I would imagine that there's at least one person as smart as Chuck in Congress who might suggest writing the legislation to combat the loopholes you mentioned.

And if not, I'd imagine that somebody might catch on if Wellpoint's percentage of total revenue from premiums dropped from 93% to 70% once the reforms go into effect.

What happens if the payouts go down in a given year due to random chance?  Do they have to pay out extra?  Lower premiums next year?  Do they measure on a 3 year rolling average?

Loophole heaven.

You're basing this judgment on... a single sentence from an Associated Press story about what was said in a news conference.

At least you're not boldly jumping to broad conclusions based on slim evidence like usual.

Forget it Tank, it's Chucktown. Where there's always an "angle" that no one else can see.

A) Plenty of people see it.  You are just ignoring it.
B) Do you really have that much confidence in the effectiveness of the Federal Government legislating control of corporate P&L statements?  No one is that naive.

Minimum medical loss ratios aren't something new - several states already have them in place.

Fifteen states set a minimum medical loss ratio standard in the small employer or individual markets. If an insurance company does not meet the minimum medical loss ratio standard, some states require the company's premiums be adjusted accordingly the next year. Other states require insurance companies that fail to meet the standard to refund excess premiums to enrollees.

At the state level, I haven't found anything that suggests the minimums have been particularly sensitive to fraud by the insurance companies.

[Chuck to Chuck]

At the state level, I haven't found anything that suggests the minimums have been particularly sensitive to fraud by the insurance companies.

That's because the loopholes suggested aren't fraud.  See if you can find how fee schedules changed the year or two after minimums were implemented.  Also, it would be interesting to see where the hurdle rate was relative to historical payouts.  If Congress sets the hurdle at 90% payouts and the last three years have seen an average of 92%, then it's a meaningless hurdle.

I don't know the data.

I do know legislating expense ratios is a bad idea due to compliance and to unintended consequences.

[R-V]

See if you can find how fee schedules changed the year or two after minimums were implemented.  Also, it would be interesting to see where the hurdle rate was relative to historical payouts.

I'm not your research assistant, pal.

I don't know the data.

Yet you seem certain you are right about this.

[Chuck to Chuck]

See if you can find how fee schedules changed the year or two after minimums were implemented.  Also, it would be interesting to see where the hurdle rate was relative to historical payouts.

I'm not your research assistant, pal.

You have been so far.

I don't know the data.

Yet you seem certain you are right about this.

I am.  It's not a new legislative tack.

[Waco Kid]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/12/laz-parking-chicago-meter-electronic.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ChicagoBreakingNews+%28Chicago+Breaking+News%29

Daley's parking meter deal, the gift that keeps on giving.

[R-V]

Michael Steele is awesome.

[Slaky]

Michael Steele is awesome.

I'm 93% certain that Michael Steele is a supertan white guy.

[CubFaninHydePark]

Michael Steele is awesome.

Is this the RNC interns, or casting for next season's Tool Academy?

[R-V]

Joe Lieberman is a penis.

It's starting to seem like it may just be better for Dems to try to make a deal with Olympia Snowe, kick Joe Lieberman out of the party and be done with it. The leadership in the senate thought that Lieberman was on board with the latest compromise. But in an appearance on Face the Nation and later in a sit-down with Sen. Reid, Lieberman said he'd join the Republican filibuster if the Medicare buy-in remained in the bill.

What's most telling about Lieberman isn't his positions, which are not that much different from Sen. Nelson's and perhaps Sen. Lincoln's. It's more that he seems to keep upping the ante just when the rest of the caucus thinks they've got a deal.

If it happened once, a misunderstanding might be a credible explanation. But it's happened too many times. Sen. Nelson has driven Dems to distraction on this bill. But his demands have been fairly consistent over time. Lieberman just doesn't seem to be negotiating in good faith. He keeps pulling his caucus to some new compromise, waiting a few days and then saying he can't agree to that either.

It's coming to a breaking point.

[Chuck to Chuck]

President Obama is mad at bankers:

Obama, who has complained about "fat cat bankers" taking big bonuses, will use the meeting to press the firms to expand their lending to small businesses and to stop trying to thwart legislation to overhaul the financial regulatory system.

Well, Mr. President.  How about asking your hoops buddy running for your old seat?

(Crain's) — Illinois Treasurer and U.S. Senate hopeful Alexi Giannoulias said Tuesday that a "minimal" amount of the $70 million he and his siblings received in 2007 and 2008 dividends from Broadway Bank, the troubled Chicago lender the family owns, actually went to them individually.

Responding to concerns that the family paid itself big dividends from the real estate lender just as housing markets were imploding, Mr. Giannoulias said that most of that money went to pay taxes and to settle the estate of his father, bank founder Alexis Giannoulias, who died in 2006.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Joe Lieberman is a penis.

It's starting to seem like it may just be better for Dems to try to make a deal with Olympia Snowe, kick Joe Lieberman out of the party and be done with it. The leadership in the senate thought that Lieberman was on board with the latest compromise. But in an appearance on Face the Nation and later in a sit-down with Sen. Reid, Lieberman said he'd join the Republican filibuster if the Medicare buy-in remained in the bill.

What's most telling about Lieberman isn't his positions, which are not that much different from Sen. Nelson's and perhaps Sen. Lincoln's. It's more that he seems to keep upping the ante just when the rest of the caucus thinks they've got a deal.

If it happened once, a misunderstanding might be a credible explanation. But it's happened too many times. Sen. Nelson has driven Dems to distraction on this bill. But his demands have been fairly consistent over time. Lieberman just doesn't seem to be negotiating in good faith. He keeps pulling his caucus to some new compromise, waiting a few days and then saying he can't agree to that either.

It's coming to a breaking point.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/81-of-dems-want-lieberman_n_390797.html

More than 80 percent of Democrats say they believe Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn) should be stripped of his powerful chairmanship in the Senate if he ends up supporting a Republican filibuster of health care reform, according to a new poll.

...

Eighty-one percent of Democrats said they would like to see the senator's chairmanship -- which he was allowed to keep despite campaigning for Sen. John McCain in 2008 -- taken away should he sustain a filibuster. Only 10 percent of Democrats said there should be no punishment. Even fewer (nine percent) said they had yet to make up their minds...

...

Lieberman, on Sunday, informed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he would, in fact, be filibustering health care reform in its current incarnation. But leadership aides have remained mum about what kind of punishment such a vote would provoke.

It is entirely possible that a heated internal drama will play out within the Democratic caucus should the Connecticut independent prove to be the one-vote obstacle to getting legislation passed. The polling numbers certainly show where the heart of the party lies.

That there's even any question about this says everything that needs saying about systemic Democratic political incompetence.

He's not a Democrat. He campaigned against the Dems' Presidentical candidate last year. He's acting to obstruct their top policy priority this year because... well, mostly just because, apparently.

I don't care if his filibuster threat is 100% Droopy bluster and no follow through. I don't see what the Democrats have to gain from continuing to be magnanimous to this eminently self-regarding numbnuts.

Time to speed him on his way to his 2012 irrelevancy. Maybe give him a chance to get a head start on drafting his RNC speech.

[CBStew]

One of my favorite character actors is Austin Pendleton.  He plays a wimpy, whiney nebbish.  Next time you hear Joe Lieberman speaking close your eyes and you will hear Austin Pendleton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Pendleton

[flannj]

One of my favorite character actors is Austin Pendleton.  He plays a wimpy, whiney nebbish.  Next time you hear Joe Lieberman speaking close your eyes and you will hear Austin Pendleton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Pendleton

I always thought Joe Lieberman sounds like the Dad on Alf.
Max Wright