Insurers Expect Big Hit in Final Health Bill (WSJ)

[Starbucks Anarchist]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126289015456920057.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_6

WASHINGTON -- The health-insurance industry's top lobbyist estimated Thursday that insurers will face up to $225 billion in new taxes and fees under a final health bill.

Insurance companies are pressing lawmakers to peel back a new tax on high-value insurance plans that President Barack Obama wants to include in the final bill. They also want to delay an across-the-board tax so it doesn't kick in until the government begins distributing new subsidies to help lower earners buy insurance.

"Our fees are going to be well in excess of $200 billion, probably in the neighborhood of about $225 or so" over a decade, said Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans.

Ms. Ignagni's estimate is based on the taxes in the Senate bill, which President Obama wants to use as the backbone for final legislation. But the total hit to the industry could be a lot bigger.

(more at link)

[DJ13]

1. ..........

[dgibby]

25. Perfect!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Mari333]

2. and with no regulation the industry will pass the cost onto the consumers

as usual.

[nightrain]

4. exactly.

[ThomWV]

5. I think the tax structure already takes care of that for them - no deregulation required

[tridim]

7. Except for the fact that both bills are all about regulation.

Real regulation, with real penalties for non-compliance.

Seriously Mari, we're not falling for your bullshit no matter how many times you post it.

[Fumesucker]

12. We know, you get fined if you don't buy insurance..

[tridim]

14. The insurance companies get fined if they don't comply with the new LAWS.

If you had read the bills you would know this.

[Fumesucker]

23. And this fine on the insurance companies is enforced by the IRS?

Humor me, I have a life and not sufficient time to read a thousand pages plus of legal doublespeak..

[enlightenment]

17. Prove it.

If those real regulations and real penalties are in the bills - which you've obviously read, since you're so firm in your statement, then cite the sections where that information can be found.

All I see in the Senate bill for 'real' regulation are references to what the "Secretary shall" establish in that regard; nothing beyond one instance dealing with out and out fraud stipulates an actual 'real' penalty. The House bill contains similar language, and also references 42 U.S.C. 1320d–5 (which is hardly sufficient in the details) and Title XVIII (the SS Act) with provision for the Secretary to impose sanctions under sections A, B, C, D if necessary.

The referenced laws have penalties that deal with fraud, primarily - and yes, some of them are stiff - but they do not deal with what is being addressed in this discussion: the ability and willingness of an insurance company to pass their costs to their customers without regulation.

You frequently toss out these one-liners, but rarely back them up. I suspect you'll do the same here, with a 'why should I tell you - go read it yourself' non-response.

I did read it.

Please provide proof for your assertion of 'real' regulation and 'real' penalties.

edited for spelling

[Nikki Stone1]

16. +10,000

.

[whatchamacallit]

3. WSJ = POS n/t

[Raineyb]

6. The Wall Street Journal has as much credibility as Fox News

That is to say none whatsoever.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

8. But if I posted an anti-Obama piece from there, at least half of DU would cheer.

Someone posted an anti-Obama piece from Breitbart the other day (not to mention numerous other sketchy sites), so using the WSJ wouldn't surprise me.

[Mari333]

9. I would say this pretty much qualifies as a critique of Obama

because without a govt run public option, there is no competition, and any extra taxes on insurance companies will be just higher prices now for the people who will be forced to buy their damned policies.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

11. Then it's a subtle critique.

Certainly nothing like the blatant hit pieces from questionable sources that populate DU these days.

[JVS]

15. If you post an anti-Obama piece from WSJ it's likely to be something that blames the poor for the...

mortgage crisis or lambastes the stimulus. I know because I've seen my asshole "libertarian" friends on FB pissing and wailing for the last year. The WSJ has long followed the pattern of being Wall Street's own mirror of the major Soviet newspapers. WSJ news is Isvestia, the national newspaper that carries real news, but chooses the focus and lack of focus based on the interests of their ideology. WSJ Opinions and Editorials are Pravda, the official party paper where the positions of the party/ corporate interests are trumpeted, confirmed, and promoted.

So what your article tells us (at least the part you posted, because the rest requires a subscription and I have no intention of giving them my money) is that the new health plan does contain taxes that these corporations would like to have repealed and that they are lobbying toward that end. What the WSJ of course chooses not to discuss, or pushes into the background, is how these taxes will be drawn from the windfall of money that the insurance companies get with the health plan.

To give an example of such framing.

NYT: Starbucks Anarchist wins Superlotto!

WSJ: Local man hit with massive tax increase

[Starbucks Anarchist]

20. In my defense, the full article was available via Google, at least at first.

[a kennedy]

10. ah bingo......as others say consider the source.....

[Enrique]

13. posturing

trying to get even more.

[doc03]

18. Even the insurance companies oppose the tax on the

so called Cadillac Plans (Union plans). The insurance companies won't pay one single red cent of that $225 billion in tax the policy holders will either pay in higher premiums or reduced coverage. It's hard to believe the insurance industry is a better friend of Union workers than a Democratic President. The Democrats are in for a rude awakening come November 2nd, probably why some are just calling it quits they see the handwriting on the wall.

[shadowknows69]

19. Preemptive whining to justify gouging. Fuck them with a chainsaw.

[Romulox]

21. Well, if the health-insurance industry's top lobbyist says something, it MUST be true!

:rofl:

[mmonk]

22. The WSJ can make you dizzy.

[AnOhioan]

24. There will be a big hit alright....on the citizens of the United States.