Media Coverage Of Politics

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Jim, what is your actuarial certification?

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

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

Your wrong b/c your making the wrong assumptions. First, I said "claims" would increase 1.5% in the example I gave - not premium. You take claims add the insurance companies, profit, expenses, taxes, etc. Still it is not much higher than the 1.5% - prob. 1.875%. Next, you're assuming that your claims will go up that amount - they won't. You, your wife, and child won't have additional claims. Johnny (said fiancee so he is single and I'll assume he doesn't have kids) won't have an increase in claims. The 50 year old who has a child covered under his policy b.c. the child was a student age 22 won't have an increase in claims. The working 24 year old with coverage won't have an increase in claims.

The only person who has an increase in claims is the person whose child wasn't insured b/c the policy wouldn't cover them (like a un/self/underemployed 22 year old non student). So total claims will increase 1.5% but we all will share the cost.



"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.If you want to discuss that, it is a different issue. I said I didn't see how Obamacare increased Johnny's premium $2,500.

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

"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.Really, I just showed you how you seem to have made some bad assumptions.

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.So now that I have showed that you have made what appears to be bad assumptions are you going to admit that I am correct?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Fair question. I am a Fellow of the Casualty Actuarial Society. 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 in CT]

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

Paul, you are still saying that Obamacare did not cause premium increases. Yup, not to the magnitude Johnny said b/c nothing was implemented prior to 2012 that would account for a $2,500 increase in 2012You still have not backed that up with anything other than assumptions (which conveniently support your conclusion) and unsubstantiated nunbers.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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?

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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...