Media Coverage Of Politics

[PaulS]

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

[PaulS]

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.

[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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

That's very convenient.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

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.

[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...

[RIROCKHOUND]

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

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