Not when those regulations require them to cover less profitable or non-profitable customers, and when those regulations require them to spend a higher % of their revenue premiums on actual health care expenditures. Those kinds of regulations simply reduce their bottom line profit potential. There's a reason that the insurers opposed those aspects of the bill, and the bill as a whole.
How can you say it is definitely not going to happen if a majority of Americans want it repealed? You think a few people in power can force something on the majority without their consent? Not in my America. I refuse to believe it is not possible.
It depends on if the new pool they are getting are healthy people who decided not to get insurance or unhealthy people who couldn't afford it. In any case we should have got a single payer system and told the insurance industry to go screw off.
I really find this funny, considering most Americans oppose a bill in which it's contents and objectives were distorted by the initial opposition from day one.
A basic understanding of the structure of the US government, including but not exclusively the power of veto and the structure of the Senate and filibuster. Oh, and of course the fact that top GOPers have admitted that they won't be trying to repeal it. You can believe whatever you want. You do have the freedom to be delusional.
I have no problem paying higher premium since it all comes back to me in the form of dividend from a couple insurance stocks. Government intervention is suppressing the stock from reaching its true potential though.
I will be curious to see how my premiums change for next year (I will find out in ~2 weeks). I expect them to increase. I suspect some of that will be due to to the new regulation and some of it will be the usual "this sucks you live in a nation with privatized health care" malarky.
I'm baffled as to why the otherwise pro-business crowd is soooo supportive of a system where the entire burden of healthcare for the nation rests solely on businesses to provide for their employees. How the hell did we get there and why do we think that's a good idea?
Historically, we got there because of the wage freezes during WWII, insurance was a benefit that employers could give that weren't technically "wages" so weren't covered under the wage freeze. I think we are past the need for employers to provide coverage and the fact that employers do cover their workers has hindered our global competitiveness by adding a cost onto employers that is not present in much of the rest of the world.
seriously...business owners should be clamoring for something to remove the status quo and that weight around their necks.
So they love the bill so much that they willing poured millions into lobbying to defeat it and into supporting candidates who are running on attacking the bill?
I keep on seeing these ads saying that government has taken over health care so you would think that there was actually a single payer system. Anyway at the minimum there should've been a public option as a competitor to private insurance for cost but I doubt the OP would support that.
I agree. Even though I am an owner in a small business and pay my own health insurance while I was in Singapore I got a physical that was paid out of my pocket. The cost about $230 US for a physical that included blood test, chest X-Ray, and even an ultrasound of my internal organs. Singapore's medical system, which while not completely public has a very strong public component, is not holding back their productivity or global competitveness at all but is considered key to their economic advancement.
Hate to break it to you but since Obama became president those holdings in your graph have for the most part mimicked the overall market and actually outperformed in aggregate. Insurance companies are pass through vehicles like any company and will simply raise the costs and reduce the benefits to everyone else for any liabilities they recieve due to the new healthcare bill. My bigger concern is the lack of clarity and conversion of full time workers to part time worker and greater use of consulting firms and contractors for companies to get around the bill. So someone will lose their full employment status and benefits for contractors or part-time employees that they don't have to cover as a tangent to creating mandatory healthcare by companies. Eventually many of these laws make it better for the full time employed but ultimately companies take this excess cost and cut labor. Some people will have more and better benefits, but more people will be out of work. I'd rather have the opposite imho.
You are a liar or your insurance hasn't hit its annual renew. No such thing as medical insurance not going up every year.
