Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, May 21, 2014

The Obama administration has adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money. The move was buried in hundreds of pages of new regulations issued late last week. It comes as part of an intensive administration effort to hold down premium increases for next year. "We are confident this three-year program will not create a shortfall," Health and Human Services spokeswoman Erin Shields Britt said. "However, we want to be clear that in the highly unlikely event of a shortfall, HHS will use appropriations as available to fill it." "If conservatives want to stop the illegal Obamacare insurance bailout before it starts they must start planning now," wrote Conn Carroll of the right wing site Townhall.com.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

AndreaMackris

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Other than TheObama administration lying, what incentive does the insurers have in keeping the premiums down? None... Between healthcare and universities, the influx of public money is causing inflation of titanic proportions.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

How long before DR libs claim this is a lie? Cause this program has worked perfectly.

#ObamaIsWorstPotusEVER

#1 | Posted by justanoversight at 2014-05-21 10:05 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I've been saying all along that ORomneyBama Care only helps insurance companies.

#2 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-05-21 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Well, the GM bailout resulted in a much better GM, so this must be a good idea, too.....

Wait, what? ANOTHER recall?

Never mind.

#3 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-05-21 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

I thought it was "Revenue Neutral"?

#4 | Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2014-05-21 12:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"How long before DR libs claim this is a lie? Cause this program has worked perfectly. "

Truthfully, the headline for the thread is a lie because the program has been set up for a situation which, so far, hasn't occurred and which insurance company executives said probably won't in testimony before the Energy and Commerce committee earier this month. They also said that dramatic premium increases are unlikely and that, for the most part, ACA is working fine.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2014-05-21 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if

Has the hypothetical apocalypse you far-RWingers prep for and rage about ever come true? Well, at least, the parts that you didn't make true yourselves?

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-05-21 12:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

" It comes as part of an intensive administration effort to hold down premium increases for next year, a top priority for the White House as the rates will be announced ahead of this fall's congressional elections."

Yes it is all about politics and what aids the dem party rather than what is best for the country - of course no one here [on either side] is surprised at this. Dem Party over all.

#7 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-05-21 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Prediction:

Jay Carney will stand behind the podium and announce that the President learned of this from watching the news and that he is really outraged.

#8 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-05-21 01:04 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

That's because the President doesn't have access to Karl Rove's strategy meetings.

#9 | Posted by squinch at 2014-05-21 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

What I find hilarious is all over drudge retort we see lefties bashing CEO's and insurance companies as evil. Then turn around and claim their testimony as truth. If this wasn't likely or very possible why put the provision in the law? I'll tell you why. It's the only way Obama could get the health insurance companies to deal.

#10 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-21 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Fact is. Even if they bailout these companies the government will never tell us.

#11 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-21 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

#2

Been saying that for a while. If a republican had passed this exact legislation, the Obamabots would hate it.

It's not that other folks aren't benefiting because many are but the insurance industry is thriving off this. Which, prior to the passing of ACA, was ALL the problem.

I love the irony that Obamabots have to cheer for health insurance companies

#12 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-21 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Then turn around and claim their testimony as truth."

Since they were asked to testify in expectations that they would have nothing good to say about ACA, yes, it is good to use their testimony as evidence that ACA is working. It surprised the Republicans on the committee when they testified positively. They were hoping for an ACA bashing meet.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2014-05-21 02:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Been saying that for a while. If a republican had passed this exact legislation, the Obamabots would hate it. "

We didn't bash it when Romney got it passed in MA. Last time I checked he's still a Republican.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2014-05-21 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

They did not bail out the insurance companies. They set up a fund which could if needed but so far the insurance companies are doing fine. [...]

#15 | Posted by danni at 2014-05-21 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

If a republican had passed this exact legislation, the Obamabots would hate it.

It's not as partisan as you make it out to be. I'd say a lot of people want to have a single payer system. This is just a step in that direction.

The cons just keep blabbing on and on. Someone tends to retort. That's hardly supporting the other side.

#16 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-05-21 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

They set up a fund which could...

there in lies the rub...

could turns to will in 5... 4... 3... 2...

so if they are writing unprofitable Obamacare policies and need the taxpayers to pick up the slack that's OK?

PUSH THE OBAMACARE! PUSH THE OBAMACARE! it doesn't matter! we get it on the back later! wink wink! nudge nudge!

#17 | Posted by AuntieSocial at 2014-05-21 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

#11 | Posted by danni at 2014-05-21 02:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

The insurance companies love this law. They helped write it. They got a guarantee that if they lost money the government would bail them out. Why would anyone think they hate the law?

#18 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-21 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

what incentive does the insurers have in keeping the premiums down?

They have to keep premiums down because the law makes them accountable for rate increases. They also must spend at least 80% of the premiums collected on patients' health care instead of administrative, overhead and marketing costs. Insurers selling to large groups must spend at least 85% on care.

You folks are so committed to hating Obamacare you can't even acknowledge provisions you like. Before the law, everybody complained about insurers hiking up prices all the time. Now only Democrats complain, because Republicans pretend the only thing that has ever been wrong with the health insurance system is Obamacare.

#20 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-21 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here's the deal:

The Insurance Companies and Federal Government elected to pursue a corporatist healthcare program. Under this program, the government is able to "purchase votes" via a progressive wealth transfer system. For the insurance companies, they get no less than a fixed return. If one company does poorly and another does well, the one that does well will subsidize the one that does poorly. If they all do poorly, then the taxpayers provide the subsidy.

It's a win for everyone. Except the taxpayer.

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 08:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'd say a lot of people want to have a single payer system. This is just a step in that direction.

Obamacare is not a step towards single payer. It entrenches insurance companies even more than they were. It entrenches employer sponsered insurance even more than it was. Obamacare not a step towards single payer it is a giant leap away from it.

#22 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-05-21 08:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why do you say that Tao? All they have to do now is make a gov insurance company or expand medicare to include everyone.

#23 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-05-21 09:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

We didn't bash it when Romney got it passed in MA.

#14 | Posted by danni

I know a lot of people who did not want Romney due to his ideas about healthcare reform, maybe people on this site saw it differently? I wasn't around here in 2012.

If a republican had passed this exact legislation, the Obamabots would hate it.

#12 | Posted by eberly

Yes, and the diehard republicans would be defending it to the death, what is your point? That people are loyal to their parties?

#24 | Posted by mariosanchez at 2014-05-21 11:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, the GM bailout resulted in a much better GM, so this must be a good idea, too.....

Wait, what? ANOTHER recall?

Never mind.

#3 | Posted by MUSTANG

Only a true idiot would try to connect problems with a car built in 2007 with a president elected in 2009.

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-21 11:46 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Obamacare is not a step towards single payer. It entrenches insurance companies even more than they were. It entrenches employer sponsered insurance even more than it was. Obamacare not a step towards single payer it is a giant leap away from it."

The only way the ACA is a step toward single payer is that it may convince people that healthcare is a right and not just another consumer widget. Otherwise I agree.

#26 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2014-05-22 12:28 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

ORomneyBama Care

----

Because it is a bailout. Neither party is interested in real national health care because don wall st. doesn't want that.

#27 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-05-22 12:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Because it is a bailout. Neither party is interested in real national health care because don wall st. doesn't want that."

It is not a bailout, no money has been paid. It is just a fund to reassure insurance companies that they will be able to prosper under the new law, ACA would not be possible if all the insurance companies feared that they would only be stuck with new liabilities for older and sicker people without enough younger healthier customers to offset their costs and there was no way to absolutely guarantee them that the younger and healthier people would actually sign up. Now we have testimony from the CEOs of some of the largest companies who say that they have had enough sign ups and enough new customers actually paying so that no bailout will be necessary. I swear, this was all national news when they testified before Congress but it seems so many here just don't pay attention.

#28 | Posted by danni at 2014-05-22 07:44 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

Only a true idiot would try to connect problems with a car built in 2007 with a president elected in 2009.

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-21 11:46 PM | Reply | Flag

Only a true idiot would try to deny that Obama bailed out GM and ran on the fact that he did when GM killed people for profits and has failed to pay tax payers back.

#29 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-22 09:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

I know a lot of people who did not want Romney due to his ideas about healthcare reform, maybe people on this site saw it differently? I wasn't around here in 2012.

#24 | POSTED BY MARIOSANCHEZ AT 2014-05-21 11:46 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Romney even hated Romnobamacare in 2012 because he had to win GOP votes.

#30 | Posted by 726 at 2014-05-22 09:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

It is not a bailout, no money has been paid....yet

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-22 10:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

I thought it was "Revenue Neutral"?

#4 | Posted by shirtsbyeric

WOW............... the federal government doesn't even know what that is.

#32 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-22 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

Obamacare is not a step towards single payer. It entrenches insurance companies even more than they were. It entrenches employer sponsered insurance even more than it was. Obamacare not a step towards single payer it is a giant leap away from it.

#22 | Posted by TaoWarrior

So.................. the US taxpayer picking up all the companies losses is a 'giant leap away from single payer'? You sure could have fooled me.

#33 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-22 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Romney even hated Romnobamacare in 2012 because he had to win GOP votes.

-----------

I didn't know this, but it would not surprise me that romney also was part of keeping the sheeple in the dark about the fact that there is no difference between the parties.

[...]. It is a bailout slush fund. Deal with it.

And the truth is that both parties bailed gm and the entire finance mafia out for trillions; despite the fact that most Americans would rather have let them go bankrupt.

Again imagined differences between the parties are really just a shell game. Distinction without difference.

#34 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-05-22 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Only a true idiot would try to connect problems with a car built in 2007 with a president elected in 2009.

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

You missed the point again....and I'm shocked. Bail-outs are NOT good. They only encourage the bad behavior that got the business in trouble in the first place.

#35 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-22 10:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Again imagined differences between the parties are really just a shell game. Distinction without difference.

#34 | Posted by Shawn

There is a difference Shawn. The difference is the speed in which our country goes to hell. The dems want to do it in one year and the repubs want to do it in 5 years.

#36 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-22 11:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

They have to keep premiums down because the law makes them accountable for rate increases. They also must spend at least 80% of the premiums collected on patients' health care instead of administrative, overhead and marketing costs. Insurers selling to large groups must spend at least 85% on care.

-----------

Funny how the law seems to change based on how much bribe money is offered.

#37 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-05-22 11:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Corporations now own and govern this country....regardless of which of the big two Parties are in power.

That was not the case when we had large numbers of private sector union members that were catered to politically by the Ds. The Ds now look at unions as just an afterthought in their big tent, with Wall St, bankers and corporations as their major constituency, similar to the Rs.

So many Americans have been brainwashed to believe that unions are inherently evil and that giving global corporations absolute power is in the interest of the people. We need political offsetting power to the corporations before we have nothing but pure D/R fascism.

#38 | Posted by Robson at 2014-05-22 11:10 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Yes, and the diehard republicans would be defending it to the death, what is your point? That people are loyal to their parties?"

yes, to the point of complete absurdity.

"It's not as partisan as you make it out to be. I'd say a lot of people want to have a single payer system. This is just a step in that direction."

Bruce, I have to disagree. Obamacare further entrenches insurance companies into our healthcare system. That is NOT a step in the direction towards single payer. It's a step further away from single payer.

It still confuses me that anybody would think that Obamacare is step towards single payer. It's only a mere possibility of that if Obamacare fails miserably. That doesn't appear to be the case, at least not the near future.

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-22 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"They have to keep premiums down because the law makes them accountable for rate increases. They also must spend at least 80% of the premiums collected on patients' health care instead of administrative, overhead and marketing costs. Insurers selling to large groups must spend at least 85% on care."

most group health carriers were operating inside those parameters before Obamacare so that requirement was nothing they had to make drastic changes to comply with.

And they were denying claims, raising premiums, etc...you know....all of things obamabots were claiming represented all of the problem......prior to obamacare. Now, they think those problems just washed themselves away with those profit requirements.

In addition, we'll learn more later about how major insurance companies are complying with those requirements. It'll have to be dumbed down as it is likely very complex financial reporting mechanisms being utilized by the top accounting experts in the country. The same ones used by energy companies, wall street, etc.

#40 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-22 11:30 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The only problem with your statements eberly is that you call it obamacare. It is romneyobama care; designed by the heritage foundation. Other than that your statements above are dead on. There is no difference between the parties.

#41 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-05-22 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"romneyobama care"

Robamacare?

Robomneycare?

#42 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-22 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Health insurance companies call the shots, add huge costs, and reap the rewards even when they are incompetent....just like Wall St. Allowing massive too big to fail corporations has become the major threat to citizen freedom and honest government.

#43 | Posted by Robson at 2014-05-22 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

So.................. the US taxpayer picking up all the companies losses is a 'giant leap away from single payer'? You sure could have fooled me.

That money that is going to support insurance companies, under single-payer would be going to provide actual care not just access to care. The current insurance model has been guaranteed customers with the mandate, guaranteed profits with the bailout, yet you seem to think this moves us closer to single-payer?

#44 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-05-22 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

#43 | Posted by Robson
"honest government."

Sorry.. What?

#45 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-05-22 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obamacare Fund for Insurers Called 'Bailout'

When it's done up front, it's not a bailout it is a deal.

#46 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2014-05-22 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

When it's done up front, it's not a bailout it is a deal.

---------

And then someone sticks a knife in your chest it isn't backstabbing.

#48 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-05-22 06:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

We didn't bash it when Romney got it passed in MA. Last time I checked he's still a Republican.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2014-05-21 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Again you seem to overlook the difference of an individual state choosing, through its legislative powers to enact a form of universal healthcare, versus the federal government that has no legal power to do such as thing.

BTW - The ACA isn't even fully implemented so the costs are still largely unknown.

#49 | Posted by danv at 2014-05-22 10:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

#44 | Posted by TaoWarrior

Wake up tao. WTF is American about the government giving guaranteed profits with the bailout to private companies? If that isn't socialism I'll kiss your ### and give you an hour to gather a crowd.

#50 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-22 10:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

When it's done up front, it's not a bailout it is a deal.

#46 | Posted by FedUpWithPols

You are one sick puppy. Ain't no way that would be classified as a deal. It is a bailout.

#51 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-22 10:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now only Democrats complain, because Republicans pretend the only thing that has ever been wrong with the health insurance system is Obamacare.

#20 | Posted by rcade at

Yes, that and Benghazi. If not for Benghazi and Obamacare, there'd be no problems with the American health care system.

#52 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-23 08:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

"You are one sick puppy. Ain't no way that would be classified as a deal. It is a bailout."

well, it's an upfront bailout already negotiated.

but it's a virtual certainty that at some point, we'll have an insurance carrier receive a "bailout" and the CEO still bought a new gulfstream and a $18 million island resort home.

we'll see if we witness a reversal of who is crying about that.

#53 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-23 08:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort