I'd like to know who knocked Rockefeller's Medical loss ratio from 90/95

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

down to 80/85 and I heard lately 75/80.

That is negotiating strtictly on behalf of the private for-profits. There is no way anyone can say this was pro-citizen, pro-taxpayer.

They (the insurers) have the greatest voice in the Senate, that is clear. So, who exactly gutted Rockefeller's amendment? Was it Harry Reid once again? I read on Firedoglake that he was the guy who put the annual caps back in, that now have some soothing language added. Was he the guy who arbitraily knocked back the Medical loss ratios to something that reflects the status quo?

I want an answer!!!

[IndianaGreen]

1. Perhaps Obama's health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle knows what happened.

Nancy-Ann DeParle, President Barack Obama’s health policy czar, served as a director of corporations that faced scores of federal investigations, whistleblower lawsuits and other regulatory actions, according to government records reviewed by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University.

Several of the companies were investigated for alleged kickbacks or engaging in other illegal billing schemes, while others were accused of serious violations of federal quality standards, including one company that failed to warn patients of deadly problems with an implanted heart defibrillator. Several of the cases ended with substantial fines paid to the federal government, even though the companies admitted no wrongdoing.

Since leaving her government job running Medicare for the Clinton administration, DeParle built a lucrative private-sector career. Records show she earned more than $6.6 million since early 2001, according to a tally by the Investigative Reporting Workshop.

Much of that corporate career was built at companies that have frequently had to defend themselves against federal investigations. After leaving government, DeParle accepted director positions at half a dozen companies suspected of violating the very laws and regulations she had enforced for Medicare. Those companies got into further trouble on her watch as a director.

Now she’s back in government as a leading voice in deciding the shape of health care reform. Named by Obama in March as director of the White House Office of Health Reform, making $158,000 a year, DeParle is the point person in pushing for the administration's plans for changing health care and the ways Americans pay for it — changes in which her former companies have a great deal at stake.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31566399/ns/health-health_care/

[pnwmom]

2. The annual caps are out, according to Al Franken. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Because the CBO claimed that at 90%, it would become a federal program.

So Reid et al modified the MLR to please the CBO.

[napi21]

5. I never thought of that, but it makes sense. I'm no corpratist, but

no public company should have their rofits restricted to only 10%.

[Hello_Kitty]

7. No one should be forced to purchase from it either. eom

[napi21]

8. I undrstand there will be several non-profit co's too. Use one of those.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. There's really no such thing.

Blue Cross, for example, is "non-profit" but they differ very little from their for-profit counterparts.

[napi21]

10. Not true! Some BCBS plans are non profit, and some aren't.

A non-orofit doesn't have stock holders to have to keep happy, and that makes a big diff!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. OK, got my answer - it was in the Manager's Amendment

http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/12/19/whats-in-the-managers-amendment/
• The medical loss ratio, which was floated to be at 90%, had to be dropped down because of a nakedly political act by the CBO, which said that a 90% MLR would have amounted to nationalizing the insurance industry. So the MLR is now 85/80%, but that apparently does not include the money insurers get through risk adjustment, which means that in practice it’s actually higher.
*******************************************************

So who has input into the Manager's Amendment?

[SpartanDem]

6. It was 75/80 in the original it's 85/80 in the amendment

[diane in sf]

11. Kaiser works ok on 90/10

[FrenchieCat]

12. Its 80/85......and it is presently at 65% per status quol

It dropped 5/10% from the original,
but is still 15/20% from what we currently have.
80/85 is better certainly than 65....when one does the math, anyways.