Martin L

And when your boss is forced to pay for something, does it become your "boss's business"?

This is an old link to a report on the White House rulemaking process:

http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/healthcare/28360...

The report says that the new rule provides as follows:

"The measure would implement 85-percent “medical loss ratio” requirements on Medicare Advantage plans and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Program. In other words, plans that deliver services under those plans must spend at least 85 percent of their premiums on “clinical services, prescription drugs, quality improving activities, and direct benefits to beneficiaries,” according to the proposal.

"Overhead expenses and profits would be capped at 15 percent."

Sounds like a cost-cutting measure, right?

But economists will tell you that, if you ignore incentives, any coercive measure you implement will have unintended consequences. So, all insurers are incentivized to make their profits as close to 15% as possible. This means making their overhead expenses as little as possible (in terms of percentage). The easiest way to do this is to pay MORE for actual medical services. The per-transaction overhead costs generally remain the same regardless of the cost of the "direct benefit" that is being paid for.

(See "Update 1" for an example.)

This is an old link to a report on the White House rulemaking process:

http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/healthcare/28360...

The report says that the new rule provides as follows:

"The measure would implement 85-percent “medical loss ratio” requirements on Medicare Advantage plans and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Program. In other words, plans that deliver services under those plans must spend at least 85 percent of their premiums on “clinical services, prescription drugs, quality improving activities, and direct benefits to beneficiaries,” according to the proposal.

"Overhead expenses and profits would be capped at 15 percent."

Sounds like a cost-cutting measure, right?

But economists will tell you that, if you ignore incentives, any coercive measure you implement will have unintended consequences. So, all insurers are incentivized to make their profits as close to 15% as possible. This means making their overhead expenses as little as possible (in terms of percentage). The easiest way to do this is to pay MORE for actual medical services. The per-transaction overhead costs generally remain the same regardless of the cost of the "direct benefit" that is being paid for.

(See below for an example.)

ABC reporter asked Obama the following:

"In China, Syria, and Egypt — and now in Russia — we have seen you make strong statements and issue warnings that have been ignored. Are you concerned that America's influence in the world, your influence in the world, is on the decline?" And, he added, in light of recent developments, have you rethought your critiques of Romney?

Obama's reply (roughly transcribed):

"The truth of the matter is that America has got a whole lot of challenges. Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors — not out of strength, but out of weakness. ...

We have considerable influence on neighbors. We generally don't need to invade them in order to have a strong cooperative relationship with them. The fact that Russia felt the need to go in militarily and lay bare these violations of international law indicates less influence, not more.

"My response [to Romney] then continues to be what I believe today, which is: Russia's actions are a problem. They don't pose the number one national security threat to the United States."

See full article here: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-no-romney-wrong-russia...

But Obama never answered who is our greatest geopolitical foe? Obama's original answer (during the Romney debates) was Al-Qaeda. But pundits on both sides pointed out that Al-Qaeda is hardly a "geopolitical" threat.

If the USA's "greatest geopolitical foe" is not Russia, then who does Obama think it is?

Like it or not, Barack Obama is the Commander in Chief. And normally in time of conflict with another country, the US rallies around its Commander in Chief. This was not always the case during Bush's presidency, and many conservatives were highly critical of those who dared question President Bush's decisions during the course of his two wars.

So are these remarks by Republicans (Congressmen and others) appropriate at this time?

Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra: "The president talked about 'there will be costs,' He didn't say what those would be. What does this mean? Where does it go?...There's not a whole lot the United States can do."

John McCain: "When Putin sees the President of the United States say that we will act if you cross a red line and we don’t … I think Vladimir Putin, the former KGB operative that he is, does not have a belief that the penalty for this behavior will be very severe."

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton: "Putin at this point holds all the high cards — and all we have from the president is rhetoric."

Bolton again: "(Obama said that) 'Any violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilizing, which is not in the interest of Ukraine, Russia, or Europe.' He didn't mention the United States. It suggests that the United States has no interests in the Ukraine — and that's all Putin wanted to hear."

And one more from Bolton: "Candidate Obama indulged in a similar flight of fancy in August 2008, when Russia invaded Georgia, another former Soviet Republic. Obama then also urged both sides to exercise restraint — a weak, feckless response doubtless carefully noted in the Kremlin."

House Speaker John Boehner: "(the Obama administration's) acquiescence and, in some cases, silence in the face of Russia’s systemic and persistent meddling in the affairs of its neighbors … would embolden Russia to take additional and escalatory aggressive action. Those fears have been confirmed today."

Whether or not you agree with all or some of the above statements, do you think they should be made by public officials at this time?

Why or why not?

If any...

Not sure what the incentive is to use a government healthcare website (State or Federal) if you don't qualify for a subsidy. From what I've read, anyone who can afford to buy their own health care insurance would find a much wider range of choices on the open market. Why would anyone who is not looking for a subsidy use that website?

(I'm actually asking a question, not making a point here.)

If no, why not?

If yes, then why is this a racial issue?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3qtpdSQox0

Ms. Harris-Perry is an MSNBC commentator.

Please support your answer.

In other words, isn't bad regulation worse than no regulation at all?

If you have a separate answer for different categories (e.g., economically, socially, foreign policy), please share your thoughts on that also.

According to one poll, 71% of Democrats support the abolishment of the electoral college (significantly smaller majority of Repubs, also). If you support the abolishment of the electoral college, will you still feel the same way if Obama loses the popular vote but wins the election?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/should-the-elect...

The quote came from 60 Minutes last night.

If Israel was just "one of our closest allies" in the Middle East, then there must be other countries that he considers to be close allies. Does anyone have any thoughts on which countries in the Middle East qualify to be on Obama's list of "closest allies"?

Just looking for examples.

At 79 years of age, the odds are that RBG has few productive years left on the Bench. When she retires or dies, the President will nominate a replacement. If Obama is still President, that means we'll get a carbon-copy of Ginsburg. But if Romney replaces her, we'll get a younger version of Sam Alito.

Knowing this, should Ginsburg take that risk, or should she retire now?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/tea-party-patri...

Does his latest speech offer any clues?

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT. SOMEBODY ELSE MADE THAT HAPPEN."

Any business owners out there agree with that statement? Disagree? I'd like to know your thoughts.

Not really a political question; just curious as to what you think of the program.