« prev   random   next »

5
0

Head of Medicare reads Pat.net

By CBOEtrader following x   2018 May 2, 3:34am 992 views   12 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/30/cms-verma-says-its-time-health-care-caught-up-to-other-industries.html

"The head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said consumers need greater transparency about health-care prices up front."
1   MisterLefty   ignore (0)   2018 May 2, 3:38am   ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Head of Medicare reads Pat.net


She is a big fan of the Cock Craver(tm) series.
2   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2018 May 2, 6:52am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I'l give Trump credit here. She's his appointment, and this is a much needed change. Hopefully, they can get it done.
3   mell   ignore (2)   2018 May 2, 7:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

In the SF bay area routine Dr apptmts can now run up to $400. Sure you can go with an HMO like Kaiser but that limits your options quite a bit. If MDs would just post their prices upfront and insurances would post their reimbursement amount a ppo plan participant could make informed decisions.
4   BlueSardine   ignore (2)   2018 May 2, 7:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I don't know how any president gets credit for the hordes of appointees made in their term. They don't personally vet them. No time. They have to rely on hearsay evidence from others that were appointed on hearsay evidence.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
I'l give Trump credit here
5   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2018 May 2, 8:06am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

BlueSardine says
They don't personally vet them. No time.

No leader of a large organization personally vets everybody under them. They still get credit when their appointees appoint people who agree with their agenda enough to implement it. Trump said he would do this in the campaign, and someone in power that his administration appointed looks to be working on doing just that. That's good in my book, and I'm not going out of my way trying to give Trump credit. I think he's generally a bigoted jerk with no morals and the wrong experience for the job who is primarily working for himself rather than the country. But, credit where credit is due, right?
6   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 May 2, 8:27am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

“the short-term plans will undermine the health exchanges by siphoning off younger, healthier consumers who will no longer face a penalty if they enroll in non-compliant plans in 2019.
Verma would not say whether the administration will roll out the short-term plans in time for open enrollment on the health exchanges this fall.
Also, she categorically rejects critics' arguments that the administration's actions undermined the Obamacare marketplaces as they were beginning to stabilize in the last year.
"We want to move as quickly as possible, but we have to go through that process of considering (the comments) we've received," Verma explained. "The bottom line is that insurance premiums have skyrocketed and there's a number of people that just can't afford to pay."

Since Obamacare tied insurance profits to the amount spent on healthcare, I suspect that healthcare spending spiked tremendously with lax and loose medical policies designed to overspend on needless care and useless care, as well as care that’s not going to help anything. Because that 20% of revenues they’re allowed to keep as profits becomes a larger number as revenues go up!
Really, it was a shitty way to organize it, and achieved the exact opposite of the stated intent: to keep insurers from overcharging.
7   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2018 May 2, 9:19am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I'll believe she reads Patnet when she includes "Immense Hirsute Lesbian", M134, and cannibal anarchy in her publicity statements.
8   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 May 2, 10:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says

Since Obamacare tied insurance profits to the amount spent on healthcare, I suspect that healthcare spending spiked tremendously with lax and loose medical policies designed to overspend on needless care and useless care, as well as care that’s not going to help anything. Because that 20% of revenues they’re allowed to keep as profits becomes a larger number as revenues go up!
Really, it was a shitty way to organize it, and achieved the exact opposite of the stated intent: to keep insurers from overcharging.


So that's why insurers spent so much money fighting the 80/20 rule Their profits were going to go up. Amazing what you learn on patnet. I am really impressed at all the detailed research presented giving an in depth look at the economics of this issue. Bravo.
9   HEYYOU   ignore (17)   2018 May 2, 10:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

When anyone in the govt. reads patnet,we know America is finished!
10   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 May 2, 10:42am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says

"The head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said consumers need greater transparency about health-care prices up front."


Won't hurt anything, but won't help either. There isn't any difference in costs in the states where consumers have transparency already. Good talking point to distract from the real issues though.

Yet more comprehensive research making a compelling fact based case why something is true.
11   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 May 2, 10:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
Won't hurt anything, but won't help either.


We shall see. It could help a lot depending on what type of nonsense insurance system underlies it.

For ex why would a Medicaid recipient care about price when everything is covered 100%?
12   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 May 2, 10:56am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
Quigley says

Since Obamacare tied insurance profits to the amount spent on healthcare, I suspect that healthcare spending spiked tremendously with lax and loose medical policies designed to overspend on needless care and useless care, as well as care that’s not going to help anything. Because that 20% of revenues they’re allowed to keep as profits becomes a larger number as revenues go up!
Really, it was a shitty way to organize it, and achieved the exact opposite of the stated intent: to keep insurers from overcharging.


So that's why insurers spent so much money fighting the 80/20 rule Their profits were going to go up. Amazing what you learn on patnet. I am really impressed at all the detailed research presented giving an in depth look at the economics of this issue. Bravo.


I'd love to know the truth about ACA insurers profits from that system.

For starters, there's a reason most insurers are leaving the exchange. There's a reason why only 1 carrier is left in a large % of counties nationwide. In Texas, Blue Cross is the only carrier in almost every county outside of Houston, Austin, and Dallas.

What's blue cross's inside deal to stick around? They claim to be losing money every year.

Something doesn't add up.

This much is clear: the system is terribly wasteful w the taxpayer holding the bag. Ex: I can sell a $2500/month blue cross policy to a 55 year old couple in rural Texas. Their payment each month is zero because the subsidy covers everything. My commission on that plan would be around $1000 for the year without the client ever paying a dime.

A private insurance plan would be maybe 1/3 that price. Someone (besides brokers like myself) is making a ton of money off the taxpayer...but admittedly I am not completely sure who ends up w the big money




The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions