Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

14. It's simply

Reply to eridani (Original post)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 08:21 AM

Apr 2012

absurd to post a couple of 2008 pieces, which have nothing to do with the law, to claim that the law is a "charade."

There is federal oversight.

http://cciio.cms.gov/

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/reports/rate-review03222012a.html

These MLR rules have always existed. The problem has always been enforcement.

Conclusion

The enactment and enforcement of medical loss ratio requirements, along with other important measures for holding insurers accountable, can help make premiums affordable for consumers in all 50 states.

http://www.familiesusa.org/summit-watch/medical-loss-ratios.pdf

Here's why the health care law's MLR rule is significant
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002500237

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Health Care Reform—the Charade of Regulation [View all] eridani Apr 2012 OP

If you can't charge more for age then shouldn't each child have the same premium as a 90 year old dkf Apr 2012 #1

3 times more CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #2

Yup. This is what they really want from the mandate...young people paying for older people. dkf Apr 2012 #3

Sure does. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #5

I'm really not understanding your comparison between health insurance and social security. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #12

Me too. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #13

In 1950 (10 years after SS started paying out) there were 18 workers paying in for every HiPointDem Apr 2012 #15

OK but can't they just cash in our Bonds to pay us? CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #17

People should never under any circumstances be charged according to their risk factors eridani Apr 2012 #23

I agree, but they are and always have been when buying private insurance. Unlike with HiPointDem Apr 2012 #24

Exactly--which is why private insurance must either be ended-- eridani Apr 2012 #25

Absofuckinglutely eridani Apr 2012 #7

So a family plan should be paid per person covered, not the same amount for 10 kids vs 1. dkf Apr 2012 #9

Under the proposed Washington Health Security Trust (state single payer)-- eridani Apr 2012 #22

Kids are always getting sick. dkf Apr 2012 #26

So what? $100-$150 per adult 18-65 per month, eridani Apr 2012 #27

We all know it isn't as good as it should be, but it is better than nothing Motown_Johnny Apr 2012 #4

The consequences of being on this list of very naughty boys and girls-- eridani Apr 2012 #8

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Apr 2012 #6

Can we at least stop calling it health care reform? n/t Egalitarian Thug Apr 2012 #10

I simply called it a health insurance bill once the Senate deleted the Public Option in its entirety Selatius Apr 2012 #11

You left off the rest of the sentence. Egalitarian Thug Apr 2012 #20

Yeah, really. BlueIris Apr 2012 #21

It's simply ProSense Apr 2012 #14

A whole lot of semantics zipplewrath Apr 2012 #16

It is a regulation. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #18

Yup zipplewrath Apr 2012 #19

So, in 25 words or less, please explain eridani Apr 2012 #28