I hope they're more transparent about everything, and explain everything in great detail as the healthcare plan is implemented in a couple of years. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oumg0sjRYIM
Except a quick review of health plans shows that the problem listed really isn't much of a problem. http://www.state.mn.us/mn/externalD...Ratio_Report_052104013421_LossRatioReport.pdf Interesting that their example was of a company only paying 50% MLR, vs the required 80%, yet all the big insurance companies are above 80% and the average for individual MLR is 96% and for small business (more competitive, but also over twice the amount of people covered) is 87%. Arthur
There actually another video I should have posted after the fact, but now I can't find it. It explains more in detail. As long as they explain things then I'm fine with it.
The problem is quite simple, the 80% regulation, and the way that video was presented made it appear that the insurance companies were screwing their customers if the MLR was below 80%, in fact they only mentioned two uses for the money above the MLR and that was for Admin expenses and Executive Compenstation. But that's a lie. Look at the data I presented. Look at how many companies have MLRs ABOVE 100%, which means that their premiums didn't cover their payments. Indeed, 7 of the 15 companies offering individual policies had MLRs over 100%, one of them had 70% more claims than premiums. So how did they pay their claims? Simply, from the RESERVES they build up on the years where the MLR is less than their Admin costs and payroll. Like the two companies that only had 43% MLR. Forcing them to return this money because they had a GOOD year (it's all based on statistics by the way, you will have good and bad years) will not allow them to build up cash reserves to weather the BAD years. Which means all that SHUCK AND JIVE is just covering up their plan to put the private insurance companies out of business. And you fell for it. Arthur
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1920893,00.html http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/story?id=8337500&page=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmEwhakknkk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trOdCU6aZOg&feature=related
The media and the doctors make the insurance companies out to be the bad guys, but Sarkisyan was very ill since she had friggin Luekemia and thus was NOT a good candidate for a liver transplant, from a medical point of view or a social point of view or an insurance point of view. There are FAR more people who need one then there are livers available, to give the few ones available to people who only have a 65% chance of being alive 6 months later.
