Larry

OK. And now for our audience's edification, as requested by twa and chipwich, the Department of Remedial Mathematics is proud to present: Proof that shifting tokens from one member to another, within a set, does not change the average number of tokens per member. To start with, let's see just how remedial we are going to be required to be. Definitions/terminology: "Tokens" refers to whatever characteristic we are choosing to measure. It can be the amount paid in premiums for health insurance, the number of toes, the balance in a bank account, the number of receptions by a receiver. "Member" refers to the entity or container to which said tokens are assigned. Examples include the person paying the health insurance premium, or possessing the toes, or making the reception, or the bank account containing said balance. "Average number of tokens/member" is a mathematical formula. It is calculated by taking the total number of tokens possessed by all the members, divided by the number of members. Are we willing to admit to the above statements? Or are we going to try to argue against them, too?

I guess the answer to that one is "yes", too.

You going to try to propose an alternate definition of "average"? Apparently, yes, you are. ---------- Are some people here so devoted to the agenda that they claim they don't have, that they're going to demand that I deliver a mathematical proof that shifting tokens from one member of a set to another does not change the average number of tokens per member?

And I can see legitimate arguments against that. BUT, such cost shifts have ZERO effect on the AVERAGE premium.

I'm gonna pretend that you've answered my question, (even though you haven't), because you're actually asking for me to state my positions, and this is behavior that I want to reward. My responses are probably gonna be kinda long. (I bet you're shocked. ) 1) I was kinda under the impression that this matter had been dropped, but if you really want to revisit it, I guess that's fine with me. Yes, health insurance costs are rising. They've been rising for 50 years. And, from the day Obamacare passed, it's been part of an intentional political spin to try to assert that every single increase has been due to Obamacare. Even years before it even started to go into effect. This tends to make me rather skeptical of the claims, even though "it hasn't even taken effect" isn;t true, any more. I also observe a deliberate attempt to try to create the narrative that, now that it actually is starting to take effect, that it is causing huge increases. Claims of 40-50% seem to be pretty common. But I observe that all of these claims which have been carefully spaced, every few days, in this thread, all seem to be either anecdotal ("Some guy in Tulsa claims that his premium doubled, and his deductible tripled"), or to have a whole lot of qualifiers attached to them. I'm skeptical of statistics that have too many qualifiers attached to them. My analogy is the car commercial that announces that "It has the best resale value in it's class", while the fine print at the bottom of the screen mentions that "Class is defined as four door, five passenger sedans with front wheel drive, six cylinder engines with throttle body fuel injection, with 213-397 HP, navigation systems, wheelbase between 713 and 762 inches, weighing 7,316-7780 lbs, and MSRP of $13,748-$16,027" I assume that every one of those qualifiers that specify the car's weight down to the pound, or similar, was picked specifically to exclude some car that they wanted excluded. In short, the more qualifiers I see, the more I tend to assume that I'm seeing a cherry picked statistic. If they ditch all the qualifiers, and say "best resale value of all mid sized sedans"? That's a claim that carries more weight with me. And it sure seems like all of these weekly claims of "Obamacare is causing insurance rates to go up by 40%", sure seem to have a lot of qualifiers on them. I haven't seen anybody even attempt to claim that "The average person's insurance premium will go up by $x, or y%". This tends to make me suspect that what I'm seeing is a campaign, attempting to try to feed a narrative which the people are intentionally not actually making. However, I haven't seen anybody attempt to refute said campaign, by publishing the supposedly smaller number which is the real average person's increase, either. When I see what looks like a misinformation campaign, but the person being attacked isn't disputing it, that also makes me wonder why. So, while I don't consider these claims that 40% rate increases are typical or average to really be supported, I don't see them disputed, either. This makes me tend to simply try to stay away from debating them. Fortunately, in this case, I'm perfectly willing to discuss these issues, simply by beginning things with "Well, if these rate increases are typical, then . . . " We then get into discussing the reasons for these increases. And I assume that there are several. For one thing, there's the fact that insurance premiums seem to have been going up, like 10% a year, for all of my life. I think of it as "medical inflation", which seems to go up at much higher than the normal inflation rate. I assume that part of these supposed increases is simply the normal rate of inflation. I think it's guaranteed that part of the increase (now) is due to Obamacare. Obamacare mandates certain coverages. Adding coverage increases the amount that insurance companies pay out, and they have to raise their rates, to compensate for it. OTOH, I flat out refuse to believe that every person in America is having their insurance go up by $3,000 a year, because of the price of covering birth control. It's guaranteed to cause rates to go up. It's also guaranteed to be a small amount. And, while such mandates are guaranteed to raise premiums, they are also guaranteed to raise benefits. Raising benefits is the reason they cause rate increases. You can argue about whether such mandates are good or not. In it's most simplistic mathematical presentation, I'd say it's possible to argue that it never does. To argue that mandating coverage for something mandates that the average person's rates go up by $100, and the average person's benefit goes up by $80. But, to try to present things as though such mandates are causing huge increases in premiums, and zero increases in benefits? That's so dishonest that to me, when somebody attempts it, I conclude they're intentionally lying. That nobody could honestly believe that. Obamacare also has some other mandates, designed to, well, I guess "flatten" rates. Mandating things that will cause rates to go down for some people, and benefit others. Example: The mandate that men and women be charged the same price. But, mandates like that, while they definitely shift costs from one person to another, don't move the average by one bit. I also think it's possible to argue about whether these, is "cost sharing mandates" a good term?, are good or bad. To mandate that Group X subsidize Group Y. I've attacked such mandates, on exactly that basis. (Especially when, like in the case of demanding men subsidize women, I'm really suspicious that it was done for the purpose of rewarding demographic groups that tend to vote D.) But, again, trying to argue that such mandates are causing average costs to go up? Not mathematically believable. No, unfortunately, there is one and only one possible explanation for insurance rates going up 40%. It's because insurance benefits are going up 40%, too. Well, make that "plausible" explanation. Yeah, I suppose it's possible that every insurance company in the US just decided to raise rates 40%, and pocket the money. But is it plausible? That not one company says "Hey, I could raise my rates by only 30%, and I bet I'd triple my market share"? Similarly, if Obamacare simply imposed a 40% tax on insurance payments, that would cause artes to go up by 40%, with no increased payouts. (Because the insurance company never got the money.) But, the odds of that being the case, and nobody has pointed out that tax and said "here! This is why Obamacare is making your rates go up by 40%"? It would have been pointed out, before the thing even got passed. No, he only explanation that's believable, to be, if average rates are going up 40%, is that average benefits are going up 40%, too. (And, yes, insurance company profits and overhead are likely going up 40%, too.) I'm gonna combine these two, because the answer is the same. When Obamacare was being debated in Congress, this clause was part of the debate. And back then, the reports I read was that a large majority of the insurance industry already spends less than 20% on overhead. Reports said that some companies were above 20%, but they weren't much over. But that, if they can't get their overhead down, it might be a problem for them. I seem to recall people pointing out that Medicare runs less than 20% overhead, and claiming that this proves that the federal government is more efficient than the insurance companies. But I always regarded this as a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. It was regarded as a clause that wouldn't have any effect at all, right away, that all it did was that it might prevent a problem down the road which might not occur, anyway. ---------- Now, as to it causing people to lose jobs? Remember those 40% rate increases? If Acme Insurance, right now, brings in $10B in premiums, and runs their business on $2B. And next year, they're gonna bring in $14B, and be "limited" to only increasing their overhead spending by 40%, then yeah, they might decide to outsource their call center or whatever. But it won't be because they only had an operations budget that was 40% larger than last year's. When I hand a company 40% more money, and they fire workers, it wasn't because they had 40% more money. I'm claiming that the 80% is 100% responsible for the increase in the premium. The reason the premiums are going up, is because that's how much they have to go up, to cover the increased amounts they're planning to pay out. The spending didn't happen because of the rate increase. The rate increase happened because of (projected) spending increase. Yes, if Acme raises the average person's premiums by $3000/year, it's because Acme thinks they're gonna increase the amount they pay out, by $2400/year. Yes, the increased payout absolutely was the reason for the premium increase. Now, is that a BAD thing? That's debatable. But, my problem is what I see as the attempt to talk about the rate increases, as though there are no corresponding benefit increases. You just spend 24 hours, two pages, and like 20 posts, trying to avoid saying that, if these 40% rate increases are, in fact, typical, them what the insurance companies are gonna do with that money is "they're gonna pay out 40% more in benefits". (And, they're probably also gonna increase their operations costs by 40%. And the CEO will probably get a big raise, too.) (Will they try to cut some corners? Will they increase their rates by 40%, but only increase the number of people in the call center by 30%? I'm sure they will. Businesses are greedy and abusive towards their employees. And the sky is blue, and Dallas Sucks.)

You mean, the ones that were fired, by the insurance company? Kinda hard to support your claim that providers gave the power to pass their costs to their employers, when they're getting fired.

Psst: "YOUR discussion", was, and continues to be, an attempt to run away from the question I've asked, and which you still haven't answered. Somehow I doubt that, because you're still trying to deflect. Oooh, now there's a new one. "I refuse to answer your question, and demand that, when you discuss it, that you aren't allowed to mention the thing that I don't want to admit, exists, either." My question wasn't "Where does that extra money go, if we pretend that the 80% of it that goes directly to the consumer's benefit, doesn't exist?" ---------- Actually, she came into a thread about Obamacare, discussed Obamacare, and you attacked her personally and demanded that she go out and make up an argument for you, and then support the argument that she invented for you, because you're so vastly holier than her that you can't be bothered to actually make a point, yourself, let alone support it. ---------- ---------- Having said that, though, I have to observe that this post isn't exactly an emotionless discussion of the topic, either.

If you're waiting for me to get all upset over the fact that, when the insurance company starts doing 40% more business, the CEO will probably get a raise, you'll have to rant about the evils of capitalism, some more. Yes, I'm well aware that 1) 80% of that rate increase is going to pay for increased coverage. 2) You desperately want to avoid mentioning that fact, with an aversion akin to that of Holy Water. 3) Therefore, you will try to call attention to where a ting fraction of 20% of the money will go, instead. Ah, now we get to using a nebulous buzzword, with no support whatsoever, of the second person who touches the money. Did Obamacare include some provision that says that providers now get to tell insurance companies how much they demand to get paid? Cause I was kinda under the impression that the way that "negotiation" worked was, the insurance company goes to the provider and says "this is what I'll pay, take it or leave it". In which case, the providers ability to charge the insurers for this undefined buzzword is pretty close to zero. But, if you'd really like to support your assertion that Obamacare is causing insurance companies to pay providers more money, for the same services, than they used to, and that this price increase is due to "compliance costs", I'd love to see it.

Please post where I claimed that you "claimed 40% insurance premiums all over the place". But, let's just skip that endless tail chasing, and review. 1) twa posts probably his 50th post claiming 40% rate increases all over the place. 2) Within minutes, you jumped into your place in the two-person-circle-jerk, to agree with his claim. 3) I asked where all the money from these vast increases in the typical insurance premiums, was going. 4) You tried to claim it was going to the CEOs. (Well, actually, you tried to pretend that I said it. After all, wouldn;t be one of your posts, without you claiming I said something I didn't.) 5) I pointed out that they CAN'T give the money to the CEO. (At least, not most of it.) Because there's this pesky mandate that says that most of the extra money MUST be spent on one thing, and one thing only. And ask, again, where all the extra money is going. 6) You try to tell me that they're spending the extra money on laying off people. 7) I point out that you can't spend a 40% rate increase on laying off people. And ask the question again. 8) twa tries to tell me that the money is being spent on the evils of capitalism. 9) You try, again, to tell me that these rate increases are being spent laying people off. 10) You then try to avoid admitting the horrible fact that you cannot bear to mention, specifically the fact that this money is going to pay insurance benefits, by trying to assert that the insurance companies, which right now, are typically operating their business on just under 20% overhead, aren't capable of doing what they're already doing. I suppose it's progress. In your attempted deflection from the question, you did grudgingly admit, hidden within the deflection that 80% of the money from these supposed rate increases, are paying for benefit increases. 11) You then try to avoid the fact of where 80% of this money is going, by again pushing the notion that an industry which has been operating at around 20% overhead, for years, is just incapable of operating on 20% overhead, and can't we please talk about how mandating that they do what they're already doing will cause tragedy to the poor workers who will have to be laid off, to meet a mandate which they're already meeting: (I'll skip over the brief moment, then, where twa accidentally mentions that well, the increased premiums will be paying for increased benefits, then tries to claim that he doesn't have time to actually mention that said benefits exist. Let's just pretend that he didn;t admit that. After all, he's already pretending that he didn't admit it, either.) 12) You then attempt to go even more into the "let's try furiously to divert discussion away from where 80% of the money is going, cause I don't want to admit that the money is actually helping people in any way, by paying attention to the other 20%, instead", by trying to assert that 20% overhead is simply just too impossible a target to meet. First by inventing a mythical insurance company who runs 35% overhead. Then by claiming that you've told me you answered (something which you STILL haven't done), and ny announcing that gee, it's just impossible for a company to operate on less than 20% profit. Have we gone through enough review, now? ---------- Now, to review: An assertion has been made, of 40% rate increases, all over the place. I asked the question of where all that money must be going. Every single one of us knows where that money is going. It's going to pay for 40% increased benefits. Neither of you will admit it. It's glaringly obvious. So much so, that both of you have accidentally brushed up against admitting this fact. (And then, immediately jerked away from it like it was an electric fence.) In the course of trying to avoid mentioning it, youve both tried to deflect things to other topics. twa's attacked capitalism. You've asserted that the insurance industry simply cannot meet the goal that it must spend 80% of it's money on, the thing that you will not admit that it has to spend it's money on. I've tried to avoid pointing out that the BS you're throwing up, to try to avoid admitting what you don't want to admit, is BS. Because I'm not going to play the "make a BS claim, and then try to hide from it by making a different BS claim, asd hope you can run from claim to claim faster than people can point out they're BS" game. I'm not going to move on to the next BS claim, until we deal with this one: If the insurance industry is increasing rates, on average, by 40%, then where is 80% of that money, going?

No you didn't. You posted a pretty picture with nu information attached whatsoever, which simply stated that an industry lobbying organization claims that their industry is taxed. ---------- Well, the most recent time you've tried to shovel that line, was in . . . your previous post: ---------- Ah, now we get to a different deflection where you try to explain something by admitting something that you don't want to admit. You mean, some people's rates are going up, and some people's rates are going down? But, gee. You must have posted 75 posts in this thread about all kinds of places claiming rate increases of 40% or more. And I've never once seen you admit that some other people's rates are going down. Why, you haven't been deliberately posting cherry picked data to try to create the impression that the world consists of a sea of rate increases, with nobody actually getting anything in return for them, were you? Please, tell us more about these people that are being subsidized, by all these people, all over the place, who are getting rate increases of 40% or more. There must be huge numbers of people receiving these increased benefits, or else there must be a few people receiving millions or billions of dollars, each.

So, again. Where's all this extra money going? At least from what I've read, BO, (Before Obamacare), the health insurance industry, as a whole, spent about 80% of what they took in, back out in benefits, and spent around 20% on overhead, operating costs, and profit. Acme Insurance took in $100B in premiums, paid out $80B in benefits, and spent $20B "running the business". Now, if you buy the myth you're trying to shovel, THE AVERAGE CONSUMER is having his rates increase by 50-100%, AND the average consumer is having their coverage grossly reduced. The myth you're pushing is that next year, the amount Acme Insurance will take in is going to go from $100B to $150B, and the amount they pay out will go from $80B to $60B. Unfortunately, if your myth were true, then at the end of the year, Acme Insurance is gonna have to write a $80B check to their customers, for overcharging them. Because, if they take in $150B in premiums, they are required by law to pay out $120B in benefits. So, you're back to dodging the fact that your own myth ISN'T POSSIBLE. If typical premiums are going up by 50%, WHERE'S THE MONEY GOING?

You haven't presented any facts. (Well, none relevant to the question). The claim is made that insurance premiums are going up 40%, all over the place. (A claim which I find hard to believe. But I'm willing to pretend to believe it, rather than argue it). Where's the extra money going? "Well. They're going to lay off thousands of employees" is not an answer. True or false: 80% of that money is going to pay INSURANCE BENEFITS TO CUSTOMERS. Maybe coverage for things that weren't covered, before. (Perhaps coverage mandated by Obamacare). Maybe coverage for things that were covered, but now they're covered BETTER. But SOME kind of increased coverage. Right?

You're trying to run away from answering a question which we both know the answer to. But feel free to keep it up. Everybody in the audience (if there is anybody left, after months of the same old, same old, in this thread) knows the answer, too. And watching you try so hard not to say it has got to be doing wonders for your credibility. (If there's any of that left). 80% of this increased money the insurance companies are supposedly raking in, is required, by law, to be spent on WHAT?

You had time to make five posts, trying to avoid actually saying what you reluctantly tried to minimize by hiding it behind an attempted deflection. Still, I guess I should count my win. I assumed it would be two pages, and MAYBE, after that, CHIP would reluctantly admit the truth he's trying furiously to avoid mentioning. I assumed that you NEVER would.

"Mandated benefit costs"? What are these "benefits" you speak of?

And no, trying to dodge the question by inventing some other question (and one that's based on an untrue premise, at that) isn't answering the question, either.

Yes, you've now tried twice to dodge the question "What will the insurance companies spend that extra money on?", by trying to change the subject to "What are they cutting spending on?" And then tried to cover up the fact that you're running from the question by trying to be insulting. Unfortunately, that's not the question. You're the CEO of Acme Insurance. Last year, your company took in $10B. They paid out $8B of it, in the form of medical benefits to their customers. They ran the entire rest of the company on the other $2B. The people who answer the phones, the computer department, the accountants, the people who trim the bushes in front of the building, and your salary. Next year, you're raising everybody's rates by 40%. Next year, your company will have $14B. (Actually, they might have more, since supposedly more people will have insurance. But that number's hard to predict, so let's skip it.) What are you going to spend the extra $4B on? Hint: The answer is not in the form of "Well, we used to spend this much on X, and we've decided to eliminate it entirely"

Yeah, I know how you hate having corporations involved in health care. Damn that Obama and his agenda to ruin our perfectly good socialized medicine system by imposing capitalism on it. ---------- I know it's a vain hope, but if a miracle should occur, and you should become tired of spinning and dodging, you could take a shot at answering the question I'm asking, if you want.

(Laying people off doesn't cost money. It saves money. (At least in the short run.)) So, I'll ask you again: What are they spending all the extra money on? (We both know the answer. I'm simply experimenting to see how far you'll try to twist yourself, to avoid actually admitting what we both already know.)

Glad you're sticking to making things up and pretending I said them, instead of actually saying something, yourself. But let's just examine your assertion that the average insurance company in the US is raising insurance premiums by 40%, and giving the money to the company's CEO. If only it weren't for that pesky Obamacare mandate, that at least 80% of the money they take in, must be paid out as benefits. A ratio which, supposedly, many insurance companies aren't meeting, now. So, again: I wonder what they'll be doing with an extra 40% from everybody in the state.

Wonder what all those insurance companies are gonna do with all those huge buckets of money they'll be raking in.

Oh, I'm not aware that the government can "tweak individual firings". I was discussing what to do about the rule that supposedly caused the firings. Seems to me that, assuming said rule did cause this, (and assuming that this is typical, and not just some extreme outlier), then it's certainly a good idea to look for ways of pursuing the good intention (better quality) with less collateral damage. My glasses haven't looked like that for, well, for a few years.

Having trouble figuring out if that's a "yes" or a "no".

Observing that you didn't answer my question. Assuming that those doctors were "fired" because the insurance company wanted a five star quality rating (so they could qualify for bigger payments from Medicare.) Assuming that this qualifies as "this law caused these 'firings'." Should that section of the law be repealed? Is it a bad law? Or maybe it just needs some adjustments? Is there some way of tweaking it, so that we keep the "reward for quality" elements, without the "firing" aspects? (I've tried to think of one, and I'm haven't come up with one.)

Funny. I asked you to support your assertion that the doctors believe they were cut because of Obamacare. You post a quote that says "the insurance company says so". And then says "The doctors say this decision is contrary to the government's goals" That said, though, later on, you make an interesting point. That this decision, by the insurance company, might have been done out of an attempt to make the company's quality rating statistics, so they can get paid more. (That the doctors got cut, because they were making the company's stats look bad. (Or the company thought that they might.)) That's certainly a motivation that I can understand and believe. Sounds like a plausible explanation, at least. That said, though. If that was the motive for cutting the doctors, what do you do? Stop rating companies for quality?