[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]If this one won’t work, they come up with another. If that one won’t work, they’ll come up with another. They’ll keep on doing it until America is bankrupt or until it work. Nothing really surprising to me.[/quote]

Not quite. The same arguments can be made against military funding. Build a hungry war machine, and then find wars to fight, and it’s never sated. Every year, more than enough to fund all of the health care reform, and unlike health care reform, will never decrease the deficit. More than every other country in the world combined.

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]If this one won’t work, they come up with another. If that one won’t work, they’ll come up with another. They’ll keep on doing it until America is bankrupt or until it work. Nothing really surprising to me.[/quote]

Not quite. The same arguments can be made against military funding. Build a hungry war machine, and then find wars to fight, and it’s never sated. Every year, more than enough to fund all of the health care reform, and unlike health care reform, will never decrease the deficit. More than every other country in the world combined.

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]If this one won’t work, they come up with another. If that one won’t work, they’ll come up with another. They’ll keep on doing it until America is bankrupt or until it work. Nothing really surprising to me.[/quote]

Not quite. The same arguments can be made against military funding. Build a hungry war machine, and then find wars to fight, and it’s never sated. Every year, more than enough to fund all of the health care reform, and unlike health care reform, will never decrease the deficit. More than every other country in the world combined.

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]If this one won’t work, they come up with another. If that one won’t work, they’ll come up with another. They’ll keep on doing it until America is bankrupt or until it work. Nothing really surprising to me.[/quote]

Not quite. The same arguments can be made against military funding. Build a hungry war machine, and then find wars to fight, and it’s never sated. Every year, more than enough to fund all of the health care reform, and unlike health care reform, will never decrease the deficit. More than every other country in the world combined.

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.

[SK in CV]

Just to clarify, HAMP is not a mandatory program. Outside of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, participation by lenders is voluntary. There are some incentives to participate, which are designed to encourage modification rather than foreclosure. From the lenders perspective, they are insufficient to turn a bad loan into a good loan.

Previous versions haven’t worked. This one won’t either.

[SK in CV]

Just to clarify, HAMP is not a mandatory program. Outside of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, participation by lenders is voluntary. There are some incentives to participate, which are designed to encourage modification rather than foreclosure. From the lenders perspective, they are insufficient to turn a bad loan into a good loan.

Previous versions haven’t worked. This one won’t either.

[SK in CV]

Just to clarify, HAMP is not a mandatory program. Outside of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, participation by lenders is voluntary. There are some incentives to participate, which are designed to encourage modification rather than foreclosure. From the lenders perspective, they are insufficient to turn a bad loan into a good loan.

Previous versions haven’t worked. This one won’t either.

[SK in CV]

Just to clarify, HAMP is not a mandatory program. Outside of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, participation by lenders is voluntary. There are some incentives to participate, which are designed to encourage modification rather than foreclosure. From the lenders perspective, they are insufficient to turn a bad loan into a good loan.

Previous versions haven’t worked. This one won’t either.

[SK in CV]

Just to clarify, HAMP is not a mandatory program. Outside of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, participation by lenders is voluntary. There are some incentives to participate, which are designed to encourage modification rather than foreclosure. From the lenders perspective, they are insufficient to turn a bad loan into a good loan.

Previous versions haven’t worked. This one won’t either.

[SK in CV]

[quote=IForget]
I think this bill is a backdoor to socialized medicine and I’m looking forward to it. The Republicans got totally outfoxed on this bill. They used to be great at politics, but now they are all-amateur-hour-all-the-time.[/quote]

It’s a backdoor to socialized medicine only if you change the definition of socialized medicine. Which is exactly what the Republicans in congress (and elsewhere) have been trying to do since this discussion began. It will probably lead to broader coverage. It may decrease the rate of premium increases. It may be a stepping stone towards a public option to compete with for-profit insurance companies. It may even be a stepping stone towards single-payer.

None of those things are characteristics of socialized medicine.

[SK in CV]

[quote=IForget]
I think this bill is a backdoor to socialized medicine and I’m looking forward to it. The Republicans got totally outfoxed on this bill. They used to be great at politics, but now they are all-amateur-hour-all-the-time.[/quote]

It’s a backdoor to socialized medicine only if you change the definition of socialized medicine. Which is exactly what the Republicans in congress (and elsewhere) have been trying to do since this discussion began. It will probably lead to broader coverage. It may decrease the rate of premium increases. It may be a stepping stone towards a public option to compete with for-profit insurance companies. It may even be a stepping stone towards single-payer.

None of those things are characteristics of socialized medicine.

[SK in CV]

[quote=IForget]
I think this bill is a backdoor to socialized medicine and I’m looking forward to it. The Republicans got totally outfoxed on this bill. They used to be great at politics, but now they are all-amateur-hour-all-the-time.[/quote]

It’s a backdoor to socialized medicine only if you change the definition of socialized medicine. Which is exactly what the Republicans in congress (and elsewhere) have been trying to do since this discussion began. It will probably lead to broader coverage. It may decrease the rate of premium increases. It may be a stepping stone towards a public option to compete with for-profit insurance companies. It may even be a stepping stone towards single-payer.

None of those things are characteristics of socialized medicine.

[SK in CV]

[quote=IForget]
I think this bill is a backdoor to socialized medicine and I’m looking forward to it. The Republicans got totally outfoxed on this bill. They used to be great at politics, but now they are all-amateur-hour-all-the-time.[/quote]

It’s a backdoor to socialized medicine only if you change the definition of socialized medicine. Which is exactly what the Republicans in congress (and elsewhere) have been trying to do since this discussion began. It will probably lead to broader coverage. It may decrease the rate of premium increases. It may be a stepping stone towards a public option to compete with for-profit insurance companies. It may even be a stepping stone towards single-payer.

None of those things are characteristics of socialized medicine.

[SK in CV]

[quote=IForget]
I think this bill is a backdoor to socialized medicine and I’m looking forward to it. The Republicans got totally outfoxed on this bill. They used to be great at politics, but now they are all-amateur-hour-all-the-time.[/quote]

It’s a backdoor to socialized medicine only if you change the definition of socialized medicine. Which is exactly what the Republicans in congress (and elsewhere) have been trying to do since this discussion began. It will probably lead to broader coverage. It may decrease the rate of premium increases. It may be a stepping stone towards a public option to compete with for-profit insurance companies. It may even be a stepping stone towards single-payer.

None of those things are characteristics of socialized medicine.

[SK in CV]

If this is what you’ve been told, you’ve been told wrong.

The law provides that insurance sold to large group markets must have at least an 85% loss ratio, and those serving small groups and individuals must have at least an 80% medical loss ratio (MLR). The loss ratio is the percentage of premium dollar that pays for health care. If loss ratios do not meet these floors, then the shortfall must be refunded to policyholders. The remaining 15 to 20% is available for overhead and profit.

At least 15 states, already have similar regulations, or at least regulations which address MLRs.

In the late 80’s and early 90’s, when I did quite a bit of medical financing consulting, loss ratios hovered around 90% and above. Kaiser was pretty consistent in the 95% range. Over the last 20 years, those ratios have consistently fallen. Now they’re much more typically in the low 80’s and high 70’s. That extra 10 to 15% has all gone to pay exhorbitant overhead and profits, which have grown significantly faster than actual medical costs over the last 20 years.

[Author]

Posts