My fiancee never believed me when I told her that she didn't start earning money for herself until the end of the day on Tuesday. Then her W-2 came in last week and everything clicked:
her: "What the *(^&%!!! $xx,xxx in federal taxes?!?"
me: I just smiled and said, "Remember when you used to make fun of me for calling the government Uncle Scam? Now you understand why."

Hey, at least Obama's health care reform resulted in me paying an extra $2500 in medical insurance costs last year.:smash:

Sensible, responsible people are losing the battle. We're aren't wealthy enough to be minimally affected by Uncle Scam and not poor enough to benefit.

**ROCK**---> Us <--- **HARD PLACE**

John,

What aspect of the law caused your insurance to go up $2,500 last year?

Thanks

Paul - the % increase in my insurance since O's plan passed has increased subsantially. I cant tell you what part of the plan influenced that but I know its up the last year way more than previous years.

what has been implemented so far has not impacted people's costs that much.

In 2010 adult child coverage until 26, lifetime $ limits prohibited and preventive care w/no cost sharing where all implemented.
In 2012 $1 per member per month for self funded plans was implement.

I'm not sure what you classify as "not that much". But these things you itemized (other than the $1 per member per month), would be considered significant to any actuary who does ratemaking for healthcare.

How about the ban on limits for pre-existing conditions? Has that gone in yet? That's huge.

I'm not saying that it's bad policy to eliminate lifetime limits or to eliminate bans for pre-existing conditions. But nobody, not even Barack the Almighty, can implement such things without the resultant increase in costs.

Despite liberals' hysterical claims to the contrary, health insurance is highly regulated, and the profit margins for that industry are pretty tight. You cannot increase coverage without increasing costs. It's just not possible.

There are things that could have been implemented to offset the increased costs (like tort reform), but the Trial Lawyers Lobby made sure that the Democratic-controlled Senate would never agree to that.

you're thinking like person, not like a corporation. Who is adminstering and providing coverage for ALL of obamacare? Insurance companies. They have me so they hit me for more $$$ to hedge their bets against future impacts of taking on all of the US. Im now (or soon) in a pool with everyone, before I was in a pool only with people who could afford insurance.

The benefit exchanges won't start until 2014 so the impact of covering the uninsured won't happen for a while although I understand what you're saying about ramping up premiums (but don't believe that is happening). There are regs. in place so currently on a fully insured plan, the insurer has to refund $s to the comp./emp. if the loss ratio is lower than the regs. If you work for a larger employer, you're probably self insured and the new mandates that have been already put in place didn't impact the cost that much. Supposedly there is a long article in Time mag. about how costs at hospitals are out of control - and that has nothing to do w/Obama care.

And Johnny's said that his cost went up in 2012 $2,500 b/c of Obamacare (not what will happen in 2014).

Paul - your entire response is assumptions. the rise my insurance premiums is a direct result of obamacare. trust me, i do my co.s planning

First, I'm self-employed. I don't have the luxury of "working for a larger employer" and like the millions of other small businesses in this country, I can shop rates but do not have the luxury of increasing employee contribution like what happens with those "larger employers". Also, concerning those larger employers and how "the new mandates... didn't impact the cost that much", are you forgetting the whole part of mandate allowing offspring to be on their parent's insurance through 26 years old? I guarantee something like that had a major impact for self-insured businesses.

Second, that article in Time about out of control costs at the hospital, this was my #1 complaint about Obamacare... it did nothing to address end costs even though Obama promised rates would come down. The short-sightedness of Obama and the Democrats when shoving this load of horse crap down our throats completely overlooked "WHY" costs are so high - bs malpractice suits, ER's being used as primary care clinics, unlimited health care for illegals.

This whole friggin government is so focused on "how do we enact legislation" that they completely ignore "why is it needed".

"If you work for a larger employer, you're probably self insured and the new mandates that have been already put in place didn't impact the cost that much."

Huh? If I run a large compoany that self-insures, these changes increase my expected loss costs by the same amount as they would increase if I was a health insurance company. Large companies that self insure, typically self-insure the lower end of costs. They buy insurance policies for the catastrophic stuff. And their employees pay a portion of the premium.

Paul, you keep making assumptions (like you don't believe premiums are being ramped up, and that if you work for a large company, your premiums haven't gone up much) that are wild speculation at best, demonstrably false at worst.

Healthcare costs are not going down as the Messiah promised they would.

Of course it did. PaulS won't want to admit that, because that would be admitting that Obama was dead wrong when he said costs would come down.

PaulS and spence talk in obtuse language with no detail when supporting Obama's policies... why?

Because when you are clear, detailed and support points with facts (as opposed to fluffy, feel-good conjecture or spence's "zingers") it is clear that the end results do not support Obama's propaganda.

PERFECT analysis. :btu:
Everyone should be required to watch Judge Judy for a week to see
how we are being ripped off.
Problem is "the workers" are still working at 4 pm, when the show airs, to provide the benefits for these system milkers and for the ones home watching having a beer and cigar on our $ and taking notes. Unbelievable.

Yes costs would come down and any increases would be offset by computerizing
and streamlining the system.
BTW, when will Obamacare be defunded as promised by some members of Congress if it was voted in?

Installing computers will not offset the increased costs of keeping kids on parents' plans till age 26, of abolishing lifetime caps on insurance benefits, of or abolish bans based on pre-existing conditions. Streamlining will save some money to be sure, but nowhere near enough to oiffset the increased costs that are a direct result of increasing the benefits.

I'm in favor of getting rid of bans for pre-existing conditions by the way, I think it's the ethical thing to do. And I'm willing to pay a tax hike for that. I just don't want Obama telling me he can wave his magic hand and add all that while lowering costs. If the Medicare system 'goes paperless', that will save money. Those savings will be dwarfed by the increased costs.

And yet you can't tell me what % is attributed to ObamaCare. I noted things that have already been implemented. Johnny said his costs went up $2,500 b/c of Obamacare. The things that have already been implemented aren't that expensive. The preexisting conditions is prob. the most exp. at this point but not $2,500
Tort reform has a place but it is minor $s

I didn't claim that they would go down but Johnny claimed that they went up b/c of Obamacare but still hasn't provided 1 bit of evidence.

Estimated cost to cover to age 26 from age 19 range from 0.5% of claims to 1.5% of claims. If the policy had students covered to age 23, this would have increased costs 0.9%. And if the policy had students covered to 25, the new regs. would cost an est. 0.7%. So again, where did the $2,500 you stated come from?

I've provided you lots of detail by stating what has already been implemented and you have not provided one bit of evidence to support your statement that your costs have increased $2,500 b/c of Obamacare. Is this evidence of the emotions Buckman mentioned in an earlier post? No evidence, just a feeling Obamacare has caused your costs to increase?

You didn't say costs would go down, but you did absolutely say they wouldn't go up much. And across the country, people's healthcare costs are rising by much more than the rate of inflation. You said companies aren't ramping up premiums because of Obamacare. What's your proof of that? Did you conduct a survey of all the largest companies, talk to the Employee Benefits department, and find out how much of the % increases are due to Obamacare? Or are you speculating, and making assumptions that are favorable to the man you support?

Obama said healthcare costs would come down. That's what he said. That's not what is happening. Tell me where I'm wrong, please.

So what discussion do you want to have? Johnny's $2,500 cost estimate or Obamacare? B/C your're mixing the 2.

Where did you get this data?

Let's say I have a typical policy for my wife and I, total cost is around $900 a month for a middle-aged couple (that includes what the employee pays, as well as what the employer pays, in other words, the total cost of a health insurance policy).

Let's say that now, because of Obamacare, I have to include coverage to my 25 year-old son. If I assume the high-end of your estimate (1.5%), you're telling me that adding my son only adds $13.50 a month to the cost of my policy(.015 x 900 = 13.5)??

No way, PaulS, no way...

A healthy 25 year-old will pay hundreds of dollars a month for a typical health insurance policy. Not $13.50. That is much more than the 1.5% increase you cited.

Johnny D, you are pretty young, and I believe self-insured. When you were 25, could you get a health insurance policy for $13.50 a month? Maybe in Zimbabwe, not in America.

Paul S -

You didn't say costs would go down, but you did absolutely say they wouldn't go up much. And I've given you actuarial est. of the increases - none of them would justify a $2,500 increase in Johnny's premium. And across the country, people's healthcare costs are rising by much more than the rate of inflation. And they have for many, many years You said companies aren't ramping up premiums because of Obamacare. What's your proof of that? The minimum loss ratio law. Companies have to now give return premium if the claims don't hit a minimum loss ratio. Did you conduct a survey of all the largest companies, talk to the Employee Benefits department, and find out how much of the % increases are due to Obamacare? No, but has Johhny or you provided 1 piece of evidence to back his claim that costs went up $2,500 b/c of Obamacare? Or are you speculating, and making assumptions that are favorable to the man you support?I've posted what has been implemented so far and the est. claim cost increase of each. So that isn't speculation.

"I've given you actuarial est. of the increases "

You posted some numbers without any links. I am a credentialed actuary, though I don't work in healthcare. There is no way that adding a 26 year-old to an "average" policy is only a 1.5% rate increase for an "average" couple. If that was true, kids that age could get health insurance policies for $25 a month, and they can't.

"And they have (health costs have gone up) for many, many years "

Ah. But Obama was the one claimed he could reverse that trend. And he didn't.

"The minimum loss ratio law. Companies have to now give return premium if the claims don't hit a minimum loss ratio"

That's not really anything new. Before Obama descended from the heavens, healthcare was already highly regulated by states. Companies already had to release their combined ratios to justify rate levels.

Companies are raising rates. If this loss ratio law has any teeth, these companies must truly believe that they need the higher rates, right?

"has Johhny or you provided 1 piece of evidence to back his claim that costs went up $2,500 b/c of Obamacare?"

I made no such claim. You made the claim that the effect of Obamacare has a negligible impact on loss costs. You typed in some numbers with no link to any study. And your numbers make no sense whatsoever.

Paul, please show me where a 25 year-old can get a healthcare policy for 1.5% of what his parents pay for a policy? Show me a policy for a typical middle-aged couple, that only increases in price by 1.5% by adding a 25 year-old? Show me that, and I will admit you are correct. Good luck with that.

I provide a significant amount of event production work for one of the country's largest Electronic Medical Records companies. Their events typically consist of VP and C-level individuals from large hospital and doctor networks discussing exactly what we're talking about here.

Obviously there is not much validity in me stating "well, what two years of research by them has shown..." so I'll try and see if they've published anything that validates my statements.

Frankly, I appreciate the detail. I'll need to review some numbers and follow up.

I'm not mixing anything. I never claimed that Johnny's policy increased directly because of Obamacare.

I can buy that the loss costs for a 25 year-old are a small fraction of the loss costs for our whole population. But you can't look at it that way, because the healthcare loss costs are disproportionately driven by seniors who aren't paying their fair share. So any added cost is absorbed by those who are already subsidizing senior citizens and those on Medicaid. So if the impact is 1.5% of the total, those that actually pay into the system, have to pay much more than 1.5%.

And I don't believe that covering pre-existing conditions only costs pennies. If that were the case, companies would already be doing that.

Paul, why are many businesses avoiding the costs of Obamacare by cutting hours and cutting employees? If the effect of Obamacare were as negligible as you claim, why are so many businesses seeking, and getting, exemptions?

I'm sorry Paul. Obama has his talents. But even he is subject to this fundamental law of economics: you can't get somethin' for nothin'.

Weren't the effects of Obamacare supposed to be an average decrease in premiums?

Jim, what is your actuarial certification?

I have to go to a meeting for a few hours.

God damn right. Obama was going to force companies to offer unlimited lifetime benefits, force companies to cover pre-existing conditions, force companies to cover children to age 26, force companies to provide birth control. All that, and he said costs would come down.

If he could pull that off, I would be his biggest fan. But not only could he not pull it off, no one calls him on it.

Fair question. I am a Fellow of the Casualty Actuarial Society. As such, I'm far from an expert on healthcare, which is covered by another actuarial society and a different track of exams is required to be a healthcare actuary. But I know that if you increase coverage, and don't do something else drastic (like serious tort reform), costs are not going to decrease. Costs cannot decrease.

Tort reform is small bucks (still part of the answer). I have not stated anywhere here that costs would go down. Bringing everyone (young and healthy) may do it but I don't know.

Let's try to estimate his 2012 premium and back into 2011.

$900 - your stated family cost
x 12 months
$10,800 your annual premium
50% - my estimated for what I think single coverage for Johnny was in 2012 based on your 3 or more family coverage
$5,400 Johhny's 2012 premium
- $2,500 His estimate of what Obamacare cost him in 2012
$2,900 what his estimate of what his 2012 premium would have been w/o Obamacare
$2,636 - 2011 premium. Assuming 10% trend for 2012. This is what his company would have increased Johnny's premium from
2011 to get to the $2,900.

So it appears Johnny's premium would have increased from $2,636 for 2011 to $5,400 in 2012. 205% Is that what happened? Maybe my #s are off - but where?