Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
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?
|
"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.
Threaded Mode