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?

Jim - I work for a health insurer so the %s I quote where from internal doc. which I can't post here.

Here is the book of business averages for the dependents so pls. let me know where my numbers don't make sense?

The shading indicates high and low estimates.

"Tort reform is small bucks "

Based on what? I know politicians on your side are against tort reform bacause they take huge $$ from the Trial Lawyers lobby, but that alone doesn't mean tort reform isn't meaningful. Tell an OB/GYN or a neurologist that tort reform is "small bucks", and they'll tell you that you don't know what you're talking about. Medical Malpractice insurance is a huge expense for doctors in many fields. You dismiss it as "small bucks", with no supporting data whatsoever, just because you want it to be true. PaulS, I can state here that I look like Brad Pitt, but sadly, that alone doesn't make it so.

I do work in reserving Medical Malpractice claims. The lawyers get huge, huge sums of money. It is not "small bucks" just because your hero won't implement it.

I never claimed what % of Johnny's increase was due to Obamacare.

Paul, you are still saying that Obamacare did not cause premium increases. You still have not backed that up with anything other than assumptions (which conveniently support your conclusion) and unsubstantiated nunbers.

That's very convenient.

I don't know what that is. As I stated, even if the loss costs for a 26 year-old are 1.5% of the total, that does not mean that we all expect a 1.5% increase because of that. Because not everyone pays into the system. The smaller group that has to bear the burden of that additional cost, necessarily pays more than 1.5%, to make up for the fact that so many people aren't currently paying their fair share. Yuor chart, whatever that is, doesn't address that. So you cannot use that chart to extrapolate what the resultant premium increases are for the folks that pay.

And forgive me, but if you work in this industry and think that tort reform and med/mal insurance is "small bucks", that's irrefutable proof that your political ideology is preventing an objective review of the facts.

No assumptions - I gave you insurance company book of business estimates. You ignore everything you don't like.

Based on some of your statements on the $25 policy and others, I really don't think you're an actuary.

"No assumptions "

No?? Really?? How about your statement that tort reform amounts to "small bucks"? That wasn't an assumption on your part? You have an Excel spreadsheet, that maybe you just created on your own computer for all I know, to support that?

"Based on some of your statements on the $25 policy and others, I really don't think you're an actuary"

They showed, in an admittedly exaggerated way, that given that not everyone pays into the system, those that do pay, must pay a higher incremental cost than your overall average. If the overall impact is +1.5%, and not everyone pays into the system, then those that do pay, must necessarily see an increase of more than 1.5%. Correct or incorrect?

Given that you think Obama is doing an acceptable job handling the economy, I'm not all that concerned by what you think of my credentials. My company doesn't sell health insurance, but we do sell re-insurance to health insurance companies. Gives them a hedge against a catastrophic healthcare expenditure from any one insured. We're one of the biggest carriers in that space. So I'm not totally ignorant here. For sure, I know that you can't increase what's covered, and decrease costs, without seriously addressing fraud, defensive medicine (providing tests that aren't necessary, which is linked to tort reform), and tort reform.

And what did the tort reform have to do with my initial statement? Nothing. Isn't that an opinion?

As I said, I'm sorry but I really don't think you're an actuary.

Sigh. You said tort reform was "small bucks". Then you claimed that you made no assumptions. Your statement about tort reform was an assumption, and a poor assumption at that.

"I really don't think you're an actuary"

You also "don't think" tort reform is a potential source of significant decreases in healthcare costs, despite the fact that any living OB/GYN or neurosurgeon would disagree with you. Doctors are literally being driven out of the OB/GYN field baceuse of Medical Malpractice insurance costs. So I'm not all that concerned with your thoughts...

I'm just going to leave this here...
Dominican woman says she was paid to say she had sex with U.S. senator - CNN.com

I'm not saying he didn't take free flights, or is scott free.., but it appears the hooker part of the story was false

So now you believe her?
Maybe she is being paid to say she was paid to say that he didn't pay her enough for sex . :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, Fox believed her first, right?
Between this, the feds going looking and the lawyer on the hook too... I believe this part of the story...

He may be/is guilty of ethics violations.. I'm only referring to the hooker part here