Some real change, loving this...

**R13** · December 4th, 2010, 11:26 PM

Today, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a new rule called the ?medical loss ratio? rule that will require health insurance companies to spend 80 to 85 percent of your health care insurance premiums on making you healthier instead of overhead costs like advertising or executive compensation. Like many other provisions in the Affordable Care Act, the medical loss ratio rule brings a whole new level of transparency to the health insurance marketplace and holds the insurers accountable.

White House White Board: Your Health Care Dollars | The White House

This was a week or so ago and I never got around to posting it.

**Shooter** · December 5th, 2010, 01:32 PM

YAY, higher premiums!

**1inStripes** · December 5th, 2010, 03:00 PM

It is a great concept, but as Shooter says I am afraid one of two things happens. A) Higher premiums. B) Lost jobs.

**Rocky** · December 5th, 2010, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by R13

Today, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a new rule called the ?medical loss ratio? rule that will require health insurance companies to spend 80 to 85 percent of your health care insurance premiums on making you healthier instead of overhead costs like advertising or executive compensation. Like many other provisions in the Affordable Care Act, the medical loss ratio rule brings a whole new level of transparency to the health insurance marketplace and holds the insurers accountable.

White House White Board: Your Health Care Dollars | The White House

This was a week or so ago and I never got around to posting it.

you ever had your own insurance? if you have then you can see how this will end up being bad. Like the others have said they will just raise premiums so they can still cover the bullshit costs.

**Biggin** · December 5th, 2010, 05:00 PM

this type of bill wont help unless the gov't is willing to make insurance companies sacrafice profit margins. the companies will just bump up rates and premiums and continue to pay their CFO's $1,000,000,000,000 a year.

**Shooter** · December 5th, 2010, 08:39 PM

They would be better off to regulate health care cost, instead of health insurance cost.

**CoeburnCane** · December 5th, 2010, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by Shooter

They would be better off to regulate health care cost, instead of health insurance cost.

If there were a viable public option, this wouldn't be an issue.

**Rocky** · December 6th, 2010, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Biggin

this type of bill wont help unless the gov't is willing to make insurance companies sacrafice profit margins. the companies will just bump up rates and premiums and continue to pay their CFO's $1,000,000,000,000 a year.

dont get me wrong this bill is GREAT in theory, but it just wont be allowed to happen the way they want it to.

**R13** · December 7th, 2010, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by Biggin

this type of bill wont help unless the gov't is willing to make insurance companies sacrafice profit margins.

Bingo and from what I've been reading, that's what's going to happen since they will have more oversight with the new subsidies going to be offered when the bill takes full effect.

**Biggin** · December 7th, 2010, 07:40 PM

thats a very slippery slope, hell it may be solid ice.

Making a company split profit margins up and be involved in capping profits is very close to having government-ran healthcare. Which I have no problems with, but since we are leaving health care in the hands of private companies, we as a capitalist country cannot force a company to shed profits.