The Goat Pen

Makes you wonder! Health care inflation has increased only 4% the past 2 years (previous years it was anywhere from 12 to 18%). Why are the insurance companies increasing charges more at this time when their costs have gone up less than ever before?

One of the issues with PPACA is that it requires insurance companies to expend 85% of the money it takes in on patient care. Specifically,

• Require health plans to report the proportion of premium dollars spent on clinical services, quality,
and other costs and provide rebates to consumers for the amount of the premium spent on clinical
services and quality that is less than 85% for plans in the large group market and 80% for plans in the
individual and small group markets. (Requirement to report medical loss ratio effective plan year 2010;
requirement to provide rebates effective January 1, 2011)
• Establish a process for reviewing increases in health plan premiums and require plans to justify
increases. Require states to report on trends in premium increases and recommend whether certain
plan should be excluded from the Exchange based on unjustified premium increases. Provide grants to
states to support efforts to review and approve premium increases. (Effective beginning plan year 2010)

the assumption here is that its the insurance company that is forcing me to pay more for my company supplied insurance

that may not be correct, although I think it is.

Good point. The company you work for picks the plan, the co-pays, the deductible, and the coverage. At least with BCBS, anyway.

eCat wrote:the assumption here is that its the insurance company that is forcing me to pay more for my company supplied insurance

that may not be correct, although I think it is.

You're right. It could be the corporation. It could be a legitimate cost or it could be an attempt to influence people before the election.

10 or so years ago, BCBS of North Carolina, a non-profit, petitioned the state to go public. They could no longer expense the vast sums coming in. (In a non-profit, you take money out of the system through fees and salaries). They needed to go public to take the billions of dollars they had accumulated and dispense it through profit-sharing. (I admit this isn't my area of expertise, BKLN probably understands it better). The state at the time turned them down reasoning that it should go back to the public in decreased costs. I don't remember what happened after that.

Amazing. It didn't occur to them to rebate the difference tithe subscriber?

It took me a while. I think you meant to the? That is what the state said, but of course, Blue Cross Blue Shield is in the business of making money. Most jurisdictions have major monopolies of insurance providers in that area with one or two insurance companies controlling over 80% of the market.

Insurance companies + Oil companies = Cancer.

I'd say the GOP is a bit more organized regarding stopping voters than AA realizes

"RNC Chairman Reince Priebus characterized Johnson as a "nonfactor," but there's ample evidence the Republican establishment isn't sincere in its dismissal. In Iowa, the Romney campaign "ran what was effectively a surveillance operation" to monitor Johnson's efforts to collect ballot signatures, while in Pennsylvania, GOP officials "hired a private detective to investigate his ballot drive."

The detective flashed an FBI badge -- he's a retired agent -- and asked to see the petitions collected by Johnson canvassers.

And in Michigan, the Johnson campaign filed the necessary paperwork three minutes late, and Republicans used this to block the former governor from the state ballot.

At a certain level, I can understand the concern among GOP officials. The party wants President Obama's critics to have one alternative -- Mitt Romney -- and fear giving voters more options would weaken the opposition to the incumbent. Given how many conservatives have never been altogether thrilled with Mitt Romney, Johnson starts to look like a threat."

Yeah, I read about that yesterday. The story won't get traction because Ron Paul is not the Libetarian candidate. Johnson does not have the power to shame the GOP like the Paulites do.

The GOP are excellent at politics. I've always been impressed by them in that way.

I think generally where Romney has a lead in a particular state, Johnson will do well , and where Romney is behind, Johnson supporters will be brow beat into voting for Romney

I read the story about the woman hunting down terrorists in chat rooms.

ego drives so much of this, just like someone going on a reality tv show or willing to be interviewed by a reporter - these guys feel compelled to talk to someone and to prove they are the real deal. She gives them that opportunity.

eCat wrote:I'd say the GOP is a bit more organized regarding stopping voters than AA realizes

"RNC Chairman Reince Priebus characterized Johnson as a "nonfactor," but there's ample evidence the Republican establishment isn't sincere in its dismissal. In Iowa, the Romney campaign "ran what was effectively a surveillance operation" to monitor Johnson's efforts to collect ballot signatures, while in Pennsylvania, GOP officials "hired a private detective to investigate his ballot drive."

The detective flashed an FBI badge -- he's a retired agent -- and asked to see the petitions collected by Johnson canvassers.

And in Michigan, the Johnson campaign filed the necessary paperwork three minutes late, and Republicans used this to block the former governor from the state ballot.

At a certain level, I can understand the concern among GOP officials. The party wants President Obama's critics to have one alternative -- Mitt Romney -- and fear giving voters more options would weaken the opposition to the incumbent. Given how many conservatives have never been altogether thrilled with Mitt Romney, Johnson starts to look like a threat."

I have no doubt that they are threatened. The Right doesn't want another Perot and the Left doesn't want another Nader. But most of that (checking to see if the petitions were legit, etc) just looks like paranoia about vote integrity (wouldn't mind the retired FBI guy facing some charges, though). The 3 seconds late thing is a bit pedantic, but there is some precedence to such things. How in god's name were they so bumbling that they were late to file?

eCat wrote:I read the story about the woman hunting down terrorists in chat rooms.

ego drives so much of this, just like someone going on a reality tv show or willing to be interviewed by a reporter - these guys feel compelled to talk to someone and to prove they are the real deal. She gives them that opportunity.

Good point. At first I thought you were talking about the Montana chick (who looks a little past 38, in my book, fwiw). I didn't see her deal as ego as much as it was a modified version of a fervent RPGer with a mild psych disorder.

AlabamAlum wrote:

eCat wrote:I'd say the GOP is a bit more organized regarding stopping voters than AA realizes

"RNC Chairman Reince Priebus characterized Johnson as a "nonfactor," but there's ample evidence the Republican establishment isn't sincere in its dismissal. In Iowa, the Romney campaign "ran what was effectively a surveillance operation" to monitor Johnson's efforts to collect ballot signatures, while in Pennsylvania, GOP officials "hired a private detective to investigate his ballot drive."

The detective flashed an FBI badge -- he's a retired agent -- and asked to see the petitions collected by Johnson canvassers.

And in Michigan, the Johnson campaign filed the necessary paperwork three minutes late, and Republicans used this to block the former governor from the state ballot.

At a certain level, I can understand the concern among GOP officials. The party wants President Obama's critics to have one alternative -- Mitt Romney -- and fear giving voters more options would weaken the opposition to the incumbent. Given how many conservatives have never been altogether thrilled with Mitt Romney, Johnson starts to look like a threat."

I have no doubt that they are threatened. The Right doesn't want another Perot and the Left doesn't want another Nader. But most of that (checking to see if the petitions were legit, etc) just looks like paranoia about vote integrity (wouldn't mind the retired FBI guy facing some charges, though). The 3 seconds late thing is a bit pedantic, but there is some precedence to such things. How in god's name were they so bumbling that they were late to file?

in the world of blogging and internet hyperbole, that 3 minutes was probably more like 3 hours but the point is solid - clearly there is demand for Johnson to be on the ballot, (not to mention the debates) but the GOP is fighting any opportunity to allow it. The democrats are probably just as adamant except the see Johnson pulling votes from Romney

Bklyn wrote:

eCat wrote:I read the story about the woman hunting down terrorists in chat rooms.

ego drives so much of this, just like someone going on a reality tv show or willing to be interviewed by a reporter - these guys feel compelled to talk to someone and to prove they are the real deal. She gives them that opportunity.

Good point. At first I thought you were talking about the Montana chick (who looks a little past 38, in my book, fwiw). I didn't see her deal as ego as much as it was a modified version of a fervent RPGer with a mild psych disorder.

I'd hate to be married to her.

There is no excuse for a serious campaign to file late. When I won my city council seat, the incumbent filed late. I did not challenge, but one of the others did and he was removed. Somehow, that turn of events allowed me to win the seat (don't ask me why anyone thought I' was the right choice). Anyway, I won the honor of getting paid $1600 a year to listen to old ladies bitch about a pothole in front of their church or how long it took the fire department to get Fluffy out of a tree.

The reason he was late filing, btw, was that he was fishing. Most in the area thought that was a good enough reason and I've often wondered if they voted against the guy who got the other guy removed from the ballot. That's politics in Podunk, Alabama, for you.

speaking of local politics,

we have a school levy to vote for in November and I wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper questioning why I am paying school fees for basic classes like English, Math and Science when the cost of public schools should be tied to the community.

I won't be popular by either side if it gets printed tomorrow.

You weren't popular anyway.

oh yea, I forgot