Media Coverage Of Politics

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

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".

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

.

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

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?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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?

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Estimated cost to cover to age 26 from age 19 range from 0.5% of claims to 1.5% of claims.

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.

[Jim in CT]

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.