You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #14: I read that already. It has nothing to do with my points. In addition, [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I read that already. It has nothing to do with my points. In addition,
it makes exactly the opposite argument you make in your OP. Most of the cost of these insurances according to him comes from the fact that they are lush. So, I guess his idea is to reduce the benefits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -The claim that moving away from high-cost plans means fewer benefits is false: ProSense  Jan-07-10 06:20 PM   #0 
  - "but because they have high administrative costs" -an excellent point..something we would not have  BrklynLiberal   Jan-07-10 06:22 PM   #1 
  - In my experience higher cost plans meant lower deductibles and minimal out of pocket expenses.  Edweird   Jan-07-10 06:32 PM   #2 
  - This is not what this article says. It is not even talking about the excise tax.  Mass   Jan-07-10 06:32 PM   #3 
  - It's not about what insurance companies do  ProSense   Jan-07-10 06:51 PM   #5 
     - For the same benefits? Really? How?  Mass   Jan-07-10 06:52 PM   #6 
        - Yes.  ProSense   Jan-07-10 06:55 PM   #8 
           - And? You make no point. I know what this article shows, but it i sno prove of what you are claiming.  Mass   Jan-07-10 07:08 PM   #9 
              - It's not about lowering administrative costs, that's an inefficiency on insurance companies.  ProSense   Jan-07-10 07:18 PM   #10 
                 - Which ones? We are talking about employer plans, which cannot  Mass   Jan-07-10 07:21 PM   #12 
                    - Ezra Klein  ProSense   Jan-07-10 07:44 PM   #13 
                       - I read that already. It has nothing to do with my points. In addition,  Mass   Jan-07-10 07:47 PM   #14 
                          - Good grief. It makes the exact point.  ProSense   Jan-07-10 08:08 PM   #16 
                             - Except this is not your point. Your point is that the excise tax would reduce administrative cost.  Mass   Jan-07-10 09:14 PM   #17 
                                - That was not my point. n/t  ProSense   Jan-07-10 09:17 PM   #18 
                                   - What was your point, because in this thread, you have been highly incoherent.  Mass   Jan-08-10 06:49 AM   #19 
  - When I am employed, my employer contributes $7.40/Hr. to my Union Health & Welfare Fund  Kansas Wyatt   Jan-07-10 06:33 PM   #4 
  - Here is how it helps you.  county worker   Jan-07-10 06:52 PM   #7 
     - No, actually it hurts me even more than I am being hurt now.  Kansas Wyatt   Jan-07-10 07:18 PM   #11 
  - From the first link:  zeos3   Jan-07-10 07:57 PM   #15 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC