Corruptbuddha
Governor
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682.html#articleTabs=article
More than double.
Now that's change you can believe in. But is it change you can live with?
'Unintended' Consequences?
- Thread starter Corruptbuddha
- Start date
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682.html#articleTabs=article
More than double.
Now that's change you can believe in. But is it change you can live with?
Doubter
Council Member
Cherry picking? What does this mean? "Part of the murkiness stems from the role of government subsidies. Federal subsidies under the health law will help lower-income consumers defray costs, but they are generally not included in insurers' premium projections. Many consumers will be getting more generous plans because of new requirements in the law. The effects of the law will vary widely, and insurers and other analysts agree that some consumers and small businesses will likely see premiums go down." the article uses the word "may" a lot which implies the "may not" outcome is more likely. The article also says it is medical costs unrelated to the healthcare law plays a major role in price projections.
Is it possible to have an honest debate?
Is it possible to have an honest debate?
Corruptbuddha
Governor
Here's the deal.
When you force insurers to protect and pay for people with pre-existing conditions, they stand to lose money. Right? When you force insurers to provide more coverage, they stand to lose money. Right?
How can they offset those losses?
Any idea?
I have one...raise premiums.
When you force insurers to protect and pay for people with pre-existing conditions, they stand to lose money. Right? When you force insurers to provide more coverage, they stand to lose money. Right?
How can they offset those losses?
Any idea?
I have one...raise premiums.
anti.reptile
Council Member
Survival of the fittest. May clean up our cities..
Bugsy McGurk
President
Standard Republican fare....
Obama says something about the health care reform he wants...
Pugs and nitwits like Judas Lieberman deny him what he wants, especially a public option that would make insurers truly compete...
And then Pugs blame Obama for the mess they created!
:lol:
OldGaffer
Governor
And trailer parks
1. My wife and I had had insurance with Aetna for about 15 years. I changed jobs on a Friday and was hired by another company 10 days later. My new insurance company was Aetna. They tried to deny coverage for my wife's cystic fibrosis. Why?....pre-existing condition. What you skip over is that once everyone is signed up for coverage, there will be no "pre-existing" conditions. The insurance companies just lost a way to avoid covering infants born with medical problems and they lost a way to quit covering you when you changed jobs.
2. How can they offset those costs? Gee, I dunno....have you checked into what the CEO of your insurance company is paid? In 2005 the CEO of United Healthcare made $124 million.
2. How can they offset those costs? Gee, I dunno....have you checked into what the CEO of your insurance company is paid? In 2005 the CEO of United Healthcare made $124 million.
Ok, let's do away with company provided insurance. Everybody on their own...Faith Based Healthcare (pray you don't get sick).....
So it's more charitable to raise the costs for the 80 percent of the people who already had insurance?
I guess it's easy to be charitable with someone else's money.
OldGaffer
Governor
My BC/BS plan went up as well, wait, let me whine and cry because some poor people dont die waiting to be seen in the emergency room.
OldGaffer
Governor
It seems for some, it is even easier to be charitable with someone elses lives.
jammer
Mayor
When you force people to have insurance, the insurance companies have more customers right? The more customers they have the more money they make, right? Even covering those with pre-existing conditions, the law of averages is that the percentage of claaims will be about the same.
What's your suggestion CB? Should people with pre-existing conditions just be told to go somewhere and quietly die off? Should only the wealthy and healthy be given coverage? They are the ones that most likely wouldn't be filing claims to begin with, thus guaranteeing your beloved insurance companies hugh profits.
America shouldn't be a third world nation when it comes to covering its citizens for adequate healthcare. "Let them eat cake!" is not the response the people need.
happyatheist
Mayor
Yes, it is possible to have an honest debate... if anyone wants to.
Any who has had health insurance through an employer for more than a year knows that, more often than not, your company switches health insurance plans regularly (usually annually) due to the fact that health insurance premiums go up every year, regardless of any changes in the law. In recent years, many plans easily see a 10-20% increase. If the increase is higher than 10%, most companies will shop around for a better deal, hence the constant switch from year to year in health insurers...
What the paragraph you mentioned means is that:
a) Exactly what the government subsidies will be is currently unknown from the sounds of it. If it covers the whole premium, then it will make no difference in the insurers' premium projections, unless the insurers have somehow decided that the subsidies will not cover the whole cost of the premium. (I guess that means if the government says the insurance premium is $480/month, but we're going to cap our subsidized customer's premiums at $380/month and you just have to live with that, then the insurers will have to make up the difference elsewhere - like those of us who have health insurance through work. But, I do not know if this is the case.)
b) Many people who insure as individuals, not through a job, choose plans with less coverage because it is cheaper. ie. It is a lot cheaper to get a catastrophic care plan that covers only major medical emergencies, than it is to get a plan that covers a lot of basics like annual exams and tests. With the law going into effect and requiring that ALL plans cover a wide variety of basics, those who insure as individuals will be forced to get a better plan than their pared down plan (because the pared down plans will be dropped), hence, they will automatically have to pay more because they will be getting more/better coverage.
c) Premiums, theoretically, should (and, historically, have in other insurance industries e.g. auto insurance) go down with everyone being required to have insurance. With everyone in the pool, paying for the premiums, and getting care earlier, the premiums offset costs because more people pay into it, and the insurance will reduce costs because more people will get care in the early stages of illness (because they actually have health insurance) when it is cheaper to treat.
I would liken it to the requirement most (all???) states have to carry auto insurance. When individual states first started mandatory auto insurance for all drivers, there was a big hue and cry about how it would be more expensive because of this or that reason (as well as all the individual rights nonsense). As it turned out, and very quickly, I might add, when the mandatory insurance went into effect, auto insurance rates went down, and did so fairly dramatically and fairly quickly. Not to mention that insured drivers were not held liable for uninsured drivers' accidents... Everyone had a stake in paying for insurance and no-one was unfairly penalized for their own or someone else's accidents.
Although, I would point out that I do not find it unrealistic or punitive to charge a surcharge for people who engage in unhealthy behaviour. Just as with auto insurance, if you have an "at-fault" car accident, your insurance rate increases for a period of time until you again prove a record of good driving. Likewise, I see no reason why a reasonable fee (say 1-5%) shouldn't be assessed to people who smoke, drink excessively, are fat or engage in other unhealthy activities that increase the likelihood that they will become unhealthy and, hence, more expensive to treat. Similarly, there can be a reduction of fees for those who show a decrease in unhealthy activities, the same way auto insurance premiums are lowered after periods of demonstrated safe driving.
But, overall, what the insurers are quoting, more often than not in these articles is not only the increase due to the new laws, but also the regular annual increases that happen every year. For example, if they started calculating in 2010 how much the increase for 2014 would be comparatively, they may very well be adding the annual increase for 2011 (10% ave.) plus the annual increase for 2012 (10% ave.) plus the annual increase for 2013 (10% ave.) plus the annual increase for 2014 (10% ave.) plus the increases due to the changes in the law in 2014 (10-20% ave.) and before long your looking at a 50-60% estimated increase from whenever they started calculating!!!
In reality, the average person who gets insurance through a small business job will probably see an increase about $15-25% in the first year - at least 10% of that being the normal average annual increase in premiums that happen every year. Those who get insurance on their own will probably see an increase of 40-50% in the first year because they will be forced to get better coverage than what they currently have (but will also be eligible for subsidies). Those who work for large companies will probably see little change, maybe a nominal increase of 5% or less because large companies get a better deal. I expect that after a year or 2 of the new laws in effect, insurance premiums will begin to drop as insurers will have to attempt to get more market share through better plan offerings in order to increase revenue - if everyone has insurance, the only way to get new customers is to steal them from other insurers...the only way to do that is offer a better product.
fairsheet
Senator
Doubter addressed this issue clear up top, but we didn't get back to it until h-a signed on.
Obamacare promises to subsidize premiums, in order to smooth out the inevitable market effects. Therefore, yammering about increased premiums without mentioning the subsidy offsets, is.....disingenuous.
The "funny" thing is...Obamacare-haters just love to screech about how much Obamacare is going to cost the taxpayer, but when one of those "costs" actually comes into play - in the form of these subsidies - they pretend they don't exist.
Obamacare promises to subsidize premiums, in order to smooth out the inevitable market effects. Therefore, yammering about increased premiums without mentioning the subsidy offsets, is.....disingenuous.
The "funny" thing is...Obamacare-haters just love to screech about how much Obamacare is going to cost the taxpayer, but when one of those "costs" actually comes into play - in the form of these subsidies - they pretend they don't exist.
I don't think any of the consequences were unintended. I think the producers of the plan, namely Barack Obama, knew exactly what it was and what it would do. There was ample evidence that what is happening now was going to happen. Nobody on the Left wanted to hear the truth.
fairsheet
Senator
As an interesting and perhaps counterintuitive aside to all this....the pre-Obamacare UNinsured pool, was actually healthier than the pre-Obamacare INsured pool. That actually makes sense though. For instance, virtually ALL Americans 65 or older (less healthy), are insured under Medicare and the largest uninsured pool is made up of relatively healthy young people.
Therefore...on paper anyway, adding the currently uninsured pool to the currently insured pool, should reduce the average cost across the board.
Therefore...on paper anyway, adding the currently uninsured pool to the currently insured pool, should reduce the average cost across the board.
Corruptbuddha
Governor
LOL.
How long until we see the windfall? Because the 10 year projection ain't looking all that rosy.
fairsheet
Senator
I don't remember anyone speaking in terms of windfalls. The rosiest predictions I heard, went to the potential for a downward bend in the cost curve.
As to the projections you're seeing? What do they say about the contrast between Obamacare and doing nothing? Yeah....they don't make that contrast, do they?
