Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[chipwhich]

Really?

How much does this hypothetical person, (concerning whom we have been given no information whatsoever), have to pay, right now?

 

Would it be silly for me to ask where you're getting this "deductible upwards of $12,000" from? 

 

Well prices vary by location.  Lets say an ear infection visit costs $75 and the drops to cure them costs $150 for a total cost of $225.

 

Under Obamacare it will still cost you $225.  Plus a monthly premium.  Not having Obamacare it will cost you $225.

*EDIT* Sorry under Obamacare it may cost you more because you may owe a copay as well. 

 

Now some physicians will give you a better deal for paying cash than having to deal with insurance.

 

The deductibles are from HealthCare.gov website.

Edited December 3, 2013 by chipwhich

[ABQCOWBOY]

Haven't you heard? Obama is gonna throw people in jail if they don;t sign up.

At least, that was the basis for the claims that the law was unconstitutional.

----------

Having got that out of the way, though, . . . .

As I understand it, they very well might not (sign up) this year. As I understand it, the insurance plans are kinda expensive (because of various mandates designed to make plans cheaper for some people, at the expense of making them more expensive, on others). And the penalty for not signing up isn't very big.

(And I could also see some people deciding to gamble, and to hope that the penalty gets repealed, before it becomes effective. Or similar excuses being used to justify not spending money, right now.)

I'm not gonna be surprised at all, if complience isn't rather low. At least for 2014. And I would expect young people to be the main component in that demographic.

 

I don't really see any way that this law will become appealing to young people, ever.  

[Larry]

Well prices vary by location.  Lets say an ear infection visit costs $75 and the drops to cure them costs $150 for a total cost of $225.

 

Under Obamacare it will still cost you $225.  Plus a monthly premium.  Not having Obamacare it will cost you $225.

 

Now some physicians will give you a better deal for paying cash than having to deal with insurance.

 

The deductibles are from HealthCare.gov website.

Might want to check the question again.

(I know that moving goalposts is a full time job, around here. So I'll quote it.)

 

How many thousands will a Bronze plan owner have to pay before their kids will have ins pay for a ear infection?....can anyone answer?

Note: The question was "before their insurance will pay". Not "Well, it we assume that a person knows in advance that the only medical expense they will have, this year, is a kid's ear infection, then is it to their advantage to have any insurance at all?"

Yes, we all understand that the premiums for "insurance" are higher than the premiums for "no insurance".

It's just that the "no insurance" option has some rather scary risks, too.

(And the "insurance" option has some benefits, before you get to that deductible, too.)

But yeah, we all get that it is possible to construct a person for whom he will "lose money" on Obamacare insurance.

(That's true of all insurance, actually.)

[chipwhich]

Might want to check the question again.

(I know that moving goalposts is a full time job, around here. So I'll quote it.)

 

Note: The question was "before their insurance will pay". Not "Well, it we assume that a person knows in advance that the only medical expense they will have, this year, is a kid's ear infection, then is it to their advantage to have any insurance at all?"

Yes, we all understand that the premiums for "insurance" are higher than the premiums for "no insurance".

It's just that the "no insurance" option has some rather scary risks, too.

(And the "insurance" option has some benefits, before you get to that deductible, too.)

But yeah, we all get that it is possible to construct a person for whom he will "lose money" on Obamacare insurance.

(That's true of all insurance, actually.)

 

 

Larry, I don't move goal posts, I have told you all along that this is catastrophe insurance.

 

It's also a tax on the poor and middle class.

 

They already don't have money for the premiums, much less the deductibles.

 

Even our own LadySkinsFan takes her chances without insurance.

 

The only moving goal posts will be how to convince intelligent healthy people to sign up.  When you are young you think you are immortal.

Edited December 3, 2013 by chipwhich

[ABQCOWBOY]

There is no real incentive for young people to sign up, so far as I can tell.   For those who used to receive Healthcare in College, the ACA plan is not better for them because it's way more expensive.   For those who never had coverage, they still won't.  Why would they pay for it now that it is more expensive, when they never paid for it when it was relatively inexpensive?   Especially when parents now have to cover adults until they are age 26 (which is complete BS IMO).   I just don't see it.  They can jump in anytime they want if something serious happens and the penalty is like $100 bucks at tax time.   Heck, parents would likely give them 100 just to cover that expense in order to avoid the costs associated.

 

I don't think young people are going to do this and if you force them, then it's going to kill the Democratic Party and a great deal of their voter base.   I don't see it.

[Larry]

The deductibles are from HealthCare.gov website.

Thought I'd come back to this one.

Yes, those are the family deductibles. The deductibles per person are lower. But then, you're all about "let's try to make the numbers as scary as I possibly can".

But you are quite correct.

If we assume a head of household.

If we assume that he had no insurance whatsoever, before Obamacare.

If we assume that he signs up for the highest deductible he's allowed to sign up for.

If we assume that, next year, multiple people in his family need medical care.

If we assume that his total family medical expenses are $12,000. (Not more, because if it's more, then the insurance starts paying)

But, we assume that no individual in his family has more than $6,000.(If one individual has more, then the insurance starts paying.)

If we assume that no one in his family used any of the services which Obamacare mandates not counting towards the deductible . . .

THEN Obamacare will have cost this person . . . . the amount of the premium. And that's all.

All of the other expenses will be expenses that he would have had, anyway.

That's a whole lot of cherry picking, just to come up with a worst case hypothetical, where the worst case is "the amount of the premiums"

Edited December 3, 2013 by Larry

[chipwhich]

Thought I'd come back to this one.

Yes, those are the family deductibles. The deductibles per person are lower. but then, you're all about "let's try to make the numbers as scary as I possibly can".

But you are quite correct.

If we assume a head of household.

If we assume that he had no insurance whatsoever, before Obamacare.

If we assume that he signs up for the highest deductible he's allowed to sign up for.

If we assume that, next year, multiple people in his family need medical care.

If we assume that his total family medical expenses are $12,000. (Not more, because if it's more, then the insurance starts paying)

But, we assume that no individual in his family has more than $6,000.(If one individual has more, then the insurance starts paying.)

If we assume that no one in his family used any of the services which Obamacare mandates not counting towards the deductible . . .

THEN Obamacare will have cost this person . . . . the amount of the premium. And that's all.

All of the other expenses will be expenses that he would have had, anyway.

That's a whole lot of cherry picking, just to come up with a worst case hypothetical, where the worst case is "the amount of the premiums"

 

Larry, I am not trying to make scary, I am trying to have an honest discussion.

Who can afford $6,000 plus premiums?

 

Now for all the sickly folk that will sign up, it's a bargain.  But that's not what Obamacare needs to be successful.

 

You can try and put lipstick on a pig but your average uninsured family (or single) isn't paying out that kind of $$$ to be "insured".

 

You can pretty the pig up, but it's still a pig.

 

People want insurance, you know like SkinsMaryDu.  I went to the doctor, paid my $20 copay, badda bing.

 

Larry the uninsured aren't the rich in this country, they are the struggling working class folks.

Edited December 3, 2013 by chipwhich

[skinsmarydu]

POTUS speaking on ACA now.

[Larry]

Larry, I am not trying to make scary, I am trying to have an honest discussion.

Who can afford $6,000 plus premiums?

 

But who can afford $6000, without premiums. 

 

Yes, I understand that $6000, plus premiums, is more than $6000, without premiums. 

 

But Obamacare didn't make that person pay $6000. 

 

No, I will not allow you to play "let's compare a person who pays $6000, and premiums, against a person who pays no premiums, and doesn't get sick". 

 

 

You can try and put lipstick on a pig but your average uninsured family (or single) isn't paying out that kind of $$$ to be "insured".

 

 

Exactly.  They aren't paying out "that kind of money".  Not the kinds of numbers you keep trying to pretend are Obamacare's costs. 

 

They're paying out the premiums.  Period. 

 

Every single dime of money, beyond that, is money that they would have paid, anyway.  (And you have to engage in extraordinary levels of cherry picking, to make it even that bad.) 

 

When somebody signs up for Obamacare, they don't suddenly have to pay the premiums, and another $12K on top of that, that they didn't have to pay, before. 

Edited December 3, 2013 by Larry

[chipwhich]

But who can afford $6000, without premiums. 

 

Yes, I understand that $6000, plus premiums, is more than $6000, without premiums. 

 

But Obamacare didn't make that person pay $6000. 

 

No, I will not allow you to play "let's compare a person who pays $6000, and premiums, against a person who pays no premiums, and doesn't get sick". 

 

 

 

Exactly.  They aren't paying out "that kind of money".  Not the kinds of numbers you keep trying to pretend are Obamacare's costs. 

 

They're paying out the premiums.  Period. 

 

Every single dime of money, beyond that, is money that they would have paid, anyway.  (And you have to engage in extraordinary levels of cherry picking, to make it even that bad.) 

 

When somebody signs up for Obamacare, they don't suddenly have to pay the premiums, and another $12K on top of that, that they didn't have to pay, before. 

 

Unless catastrophe strikes, it's cheaper to not pick up the "insurance" which is the point.

 

You are correct.  When someone picks up Obamacare they just have to pay the premiums.

If they don't get Obamacare they just pay the fine.

 

If they go to the doctor under Obamacare for a yearly preventive maintenance  visit, it's a free visit (plus the cost of the premium).

 

If they go to the doctor not under Obamacare for a yearly preventive maintenance it costs them a doctors visit, lets say $100.  Still cheaper than the premium.

 

So basically the only ones who benefit from Obamacare are those who have catastrophes in their lives.

I get it, it's a great deal for America.

Edited December 3, 2013 by chipwhich

[ABQCOWBOY]

All true. Further more than forty stares have tort reform already, and healthcare costs in those states continue to rise faster than inflation.

Even tea party activists are off this explanation now as it is unsupported by the facts. Not to mention tort reform villages the seventh amendment.

Tort reform is nothing more than corporate welfare at the expense of individual liberties and rights.

 

I would be interested in seeing the supporting documentation for this.   If Tort reform is nothing more then corporate welfare at the expense of individual liberties and rights, what then is Obamacare?

[Larry]

Unless catastrophe strikes, it's cheaper to not pick up the "insurance" which is the point.

 

You are correct.  When someone picks up Obamacare they just have to pay the premiums.

If they don't get Obamacare they just pay the fine.

 

If they go to the doctor under Obamacare for a yearly preventive maintenance  visit, it's a free visit (plus the cost of the premium).

 

If they go to the doctor not under Obamacare for a yearly preventive maintenance it costs them a doctors visit, lets say $100.  Still cheaper than the premium.

 

So basically the only ones who benefit from Obamacare are those who have catastrophes in their lives.

I get it, it's a great deal for America.

 

Ah.  I see we've moved from "let's consider a hypothetical person under Obamacare, who has $12K in medical expenses, and pretend that Obamacare caused those expenses", to "let's assert that people are paying a thousand dollars a month for insurance which nobody will ever collect on". 

 

If the insurance companies never (or almost never) have to pay any money out, then why do the plans cost so much? 

[twa]

----------

Funny. I was under the impression that the Medicaid expansion was part of Obamacare.

 

 

Really?  HSA contributions don't count as income for purposes of FICA calculations? 

 

I'm not 100% certain that's not true, but it sure would be surprising, to me. 

 

 

Funny, I was under the impression that pretty much all plans had to comply with Obamacare's mandates.  Kinda thought that was the excuse being given for why so many people's insurance are being cancelled. 

 

 

 

Coulda sworn that, one sentence ago, you were asserting that such plans don't even have to be compliant.  Even used pretty colors to try to make that claim.

 

You would find it less funny if they quit changing the rules

 

Medicaid is a totally separate ins program than the Marketplace plans

 

S/E tax is not the same as FICA, and yes my bookeeper claims HSA deposits are taken from gross earnings before the S/E Tax

 

There are non-compliant plans,but they are being cancelled left and right, but with the POTUS "fix" it is possible more will survive for a year (you also have some issuing policies before the deadline for one year grace period)

 

the moving goal posts are coming from the govt....who knows what they will throw out next or postpone

 

guessing that is like guessing how much they are gonna bail out insurers for

[ABQCOWBOY]

Ah.  I see we've moved from "let's consider a hypothetical person under Obamacare, who has $12K in medical expenses, and pretend that Obamacare caused those expenses", to "let's assert that people are paying a thousand dollars a month for insurance which nobody will ever collect on". 

 

If the insurance companies never (or almost never) have to pay any money out, then why do the plans cost so much? 

At least in part, Obamacare has caused those increased expenses.   Since the law was passed, insurance has increased considerably and this, in no small part, is to cover Obamacare.  We are paying for benefits that have not yet been provided.  Those are increases that will not result in added benefits for those who have seen their Healthcare cost increase. 

[chipwhich]

Ah.  I see we've moved from "let's consider a hypothetical person under Obamacare, who has $12K in medical expenses, and pretend that Obamacare caused those expenses", to "let's assert that people are paying a thousand dollars a month for insurance which nobody will ever collect on". 

 

If the insurance companies never (or almost never) have to pay any money out, then why do the plans cost so much? 

 

Semantic Larry, that's what I am going to request the mods rename you on this site.

Let's not discuss the realities of what Obamacare is and is not and lets play semantic games with posts.

 

Let's combat every discussion with "move the goalposts" or use dramatic words like "hostage" and "GOP".

 

If you have some defense for Obamacare, feel free to discuss. 

 

Based on my own employees, the rate which they burn through deductibles is quite swift.  Of course knowing that I pay the deductible might make them go to the doctor more frequently.

 

For the sick who sign up, diabetics, heart disease, etc....those deductibles are REAL and will be PAID.  For the healthy, not so much.

 

But come on Semantic Larry, lets focus on "moving the goalposts" instead of just admitting to what you don't want to admit, because for you it's all about Political Party, Country, God, Family, and Self.

 

For Semantic Larry, the issues are secondary.

pretend that Obamacare caused those expenses"

 

I never said that Semantic Larry, that's a lie.

Edited December 3, 2013 by chipwhich

[skinsmarydu]

Ah.  I see we've moved from "let's consider a hypothetical person under Obamacare, who has $12K in medical expenses, and pretend that Obamacare caused those expenses", to "let's assert that people are paying a thousand dollars a month for insurance which nobody will ever collect on". 

 

If the insurance companies never (or almost never) have to pay any money out, then why do the plans cost so much?

And that's me. My BP pills cost $8.51/month. I'm checked every 3 months...co-pay is $25. I have no other issues, other than the GYN check-up every year, also only $25. Sooo, my out of pocket for the whole friggin'year,(flu shot was completely free with $25 checkup), I'm in for $227.12...I guess I'm getting ripped off!

I'll get checked into a hospital lickity-split if need be. That's what I give a crap about...once again, for now.

[skinsmarydu]

Semantic Larry, that's what I am going to request the mods rename you on this site.

Let's not discuss the realities of what Obamacare is and is not and lets play semantic games with posts.

 

Let's combat every discussion with "move the goalposts" or use dramatic words like "hostage" and "GOP".

 

If you have some defense for Obamacare, feel free to discuss. 

 

Based on my own employees, the rate which they burn through deductibles is quite swift.  Of course knowing that I pay the deductible might make them go to the doctor more frequently.

 

For the sick who sign up, diabetics, heart disease, etc....those deductibles are REAL and will be PAID.  For the healthy, not so much.

 

But come on Semantic Larry, lets focus on "moving the goalposts" instead of just admitting to what you don't want to admit, because for you it's all about Political Party, Country, God, Family, and Self.

 

For Semantic Larry, the issues are secondary.

 

I never said that Semantic Larry, that's a lie.

Dude! You keep backtracking yourself! You're trying to talk me off my stand, then realize I've done the research to know I'll be OK for the time being, then come back with something like "we'll all be screwed sooner or later"--for some reason, I can't get my multi-quote to work--that's so Rush Limbaugh!

There are those of us who are only minorly afflicted...once again, for now...if no one gives the darn thing a chance, we won't know what could've been, or what got screwed up & needs to be fixed.

It's not everyone's fault that your employees have health problems and you pay their deductibles.  Like I've said in the past, all hail to you for helping them out.  But I'm Ok with sharing so you can help them.  That's what it's about, collective sharing.  Get it?

[Larry]

You would find it less funny if they quit changing the rules

 

Medicaid is a totally separate ins program than the Marketplace plans

 

S/E tax is not the same as FICA, and yes my bookeeper claims HSA deposits are taken from gross earnings before the S/E Tax

 

There are non-compliant plans,but they are being cancelled left and right, but with the POTUS "fix" it is possible more will survive for a year (you also have some issuing policies before the deadline for one year grace period)

 

the moving goal posts are coming from the govt....who knows what they will throw out next or postpone

 

guessing that is like guessing how much they are gonna bail out insurers for

 

Semantic Larry, that's what I am going to request the mods rename you on this site.

Let's not discuss the realities of what Obamacare is and is not and lets play semantic games with posts.

 

Let's combat every discussion with "move the goalposts" or use dramatic words like "hostage" and "GOP".

 

If you have some defense for Obamacare, feel free to discuss. 

 

Based on my own employees, the rate which they burn through deductibles is quite swift.  Of course knowing that I pay the deductible might make them go to the doctor more frequently.

 

For the sick who sign up, diabetics, heart disease, etc....those deductibles are REAL and will be PAID.  For the healthy, not so much.

 

But come on Semantic Larry, lets focus on "moving the goalposts" instead of just admitting to what you don't want to admit, because for you it's all about Political Party, Country, God, Family, and Self.

 

For Semantic Larry, the issues are secondary.

 

I never said that Semantic Larry, that's a lie.

 

 

Ah.  I see we've fallen back on name calling. 

 

A tactic that seems inconsistent with trying to claim that the other guy is refusing to discuss the actual issue. 

 

But wait.  Consistency is a word, therefore it's semantics. 

 

But let's leave aside the name calling, and see if there's actually a point, in there, to respond to. 

 

Based on my own employees, the rate which they burn through deductibles is quite swift.  Of course knowing that I pay the deductible might make them go to the doctor more frequently

 

 

 

Really?  You think that having a $0 deductible might cause people to spend more on health care? 

 

Let's examine that theory which might be true. 

 

Granted, I'm going from memory, but I seem to remember an assertion along the lines that 80% of your employees run through their deductible in three months or less, and that virtually all of them do so within the year. 

 

What percentage of the person in the "typical person buying the highest deductible plan on the exchange" profile, runs through $5000 in medical expenses, in the first three months of the year? 

 

Is it 80%?  Or do their numbers differ from the numbers you're using your employees as examples of? 

 

Is it perhaps possible that your employees might have different health care spending, compared to the people signing up on the exchanges?  Is it possible that these people aren't the average health care consumer? 

 

Therefore, is it possible that maybe we (let's be generous with the "we") could stop trying to use people with $0 deductible, fully paid, health insurance, to represent average people who are signing up for high deductible plans that they're paying for, themselves? 

[Larry]

At least in part, Obamacare has caused those increased expenses.   Since the law was passed, insurance has increased considerably and this, in no small part, is to cover Obamacare.  We are paying for benefits that have not yet been provided.  Those are increases that will not result in added benefits for those who have seen their Healthcare cost increase. 

 

Pointing out that somebody in this thread (forget who) has made the claim that nationwide, health care costs have been increasing, but at half the rate they were increasing, before Obamacare passed. 

 

(I'm not at all sure I believe it, myself.  But I haven't challenged it, and really haven't seen anybody else do so, either.) 

 

But yes, I assume that it's pretty much guaranteed that some increases are due to the law.  (The law mandates coverage for some things.  I understand that psychiatric treatment for alcohol or drug addiction, for example.  You can argue about whether that mandate is good or not, but I think you'd have to be really divorced from reality to argue that said mandate didn't cost a dime.)  (And other mandates, like mandating the same prices for men and women, I assume force rates higher for some people, and lower for others.) 

 

But I'll point out that there's a huge difference between "paying for benefits that have not been provided" (which, I will point out, is what insurance IS), and asserting that the money being paid in will NEVER be paid out. 

 

I assume it's certainly possible that all of the insurance companies are simply gouging people, and charging them vastly more than they intend to pay out in benefits.  But it's not the first assumption I'd make.  And it's certainly not proven. 

Edited December 3, 2013 by Larry

[skinsmarydu]

Sorry, Larry, was going to the point of the name-calling, but lost myself in the interwebz neverland...

Chip, it's nobody's fault but your own that you're "on the hook" for your employees. That is, simply put, the way it is. Unless you change your policy, it's all you. The ACA did nothing. Your employees still cost what they always cost, rising every year. Until you know what is killing you, I'd sit back & wait till the test results come in. Hang on, dude. You did this to yourself. You took others' care on your back. Don't you feel better about yourself now?

*edit*

you should. Most employers don't give a crap. Mine certainly doesn't.

Edited December 3, 2013 by skinsmarydu

[ABQCOWBOY]

Pointing out that somebody in this thread (forget who) has made the claim that nationwide, health care costs have been increasing, but at half the rate they were increasing, before Obamacare passed. 

 

(I'm not at all sure I believe it, myself.  But I haven't challenged it, and really haven't seen anybody else do so, either.) 

 

But yes, I assume that it's pretty much guaranteed that some increases are due to the law.  (The law mandates coverage for some things.  I understand that psychiatric treatment for alcohol or drug addiction, for example.  You can argue about whether that mandate is good or not, but I think you'd have to be really divorced from reality to argue that said mandate didn't cost a dime.)  (And other mandates, like mandating the same prices for men and women, I assume force rates higher for some people, and lower for others.) 

 

But I'll point out that there's a huge difference between "paying for benefits that have not been provided" (which, I will point out, is what insurance IS), and asserting that the money being paid in will NEVER be paid out. 

 

I assume it's certainly possible that all of the insurance companies are simply gouging people, and charging them vastly more than they intend to pay out in benefits.  But it's not the first assumption I'd make.  And it's certainly not proven. 

 

 

I can only speak for myself, and if you were to look back (which I doubt anybody would but it is there some place), I stated  that my insurance costs have doubled in the last two years.   Mean while, my insurance coverage has actually declined.  It is in how ACA was built.   The plan new that people who paid in would basically be paying higher rates for future years.   Basically, consumers would pay in for benefits that would not be available for 2 more years under ACA.  This is one of the ways the law was constructed to try and drive down costs.  It's also how the CBA showed the costs to be lower (so to speak) then they actually would have been otherwise. 

 

Basically, consumers will be paying into the system without receiving benefits.   Does this make sense?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

You have a $20 deductible?

It's now clear again that we are arguing with someone who either is making up anything to argue or just has no ****ing clue what he's taking about.

[Larry]

I'm certain that lots of people's insurance costs have gone up. 

 

But how much of that is because the insurance companies doubled their rates, and how much is because their employer decided to cut back on the amount that he was chipping in? 

 

(And I absolutely guarantee you that nothing in Obamacare mandated that your rates double, two years before the mandates go into effect.  Simply because, if there were such a clause in the law, people attacking it would be pointing at it, instead of finding people who's employer decided to eliminate their insurance (and pocket the money), and somebody claimed it was because of Obamacare.)  

 

----------

 

It's one of the things that certainly makes discussing this topic tough.  There's so much going on that the end user doesn't see.  AND so many hidden things that it's pretty much impossible to compare apples to apples. 

 

(I've been saying for years that IF Obamacare can create an environment where it IS possible to compare apples to apples, then that might have more of a downward effect on health care costs than anything else in the law.  But, I'm not certain that it can accomplish that goal.) 

Edited December 3, 2013 by Larry

[chipwhich]

Dude! You keep backtracking yourself! You're trying to talk me off my stand, then realize I've done the research to know I'll be OK for the time being, then come back with something like "we'll all be screwed sooner or later"--for some reason, I can't get my multi-quote to work--that's so Rush Limbaugh!

 

SMD, I am not backtracking at all.  You aren't on Obamacare.  That isn't backtracking.

As far as knowing "where you stand", your husbands company insurance is the only one who will dictate that.  That policy gets renewed each year.  You won't know where you stand until they renew and see what their new rates are.  I don't tell my employees, beware next year we are doomed.  I just tell them, it will all be ok

[chipwhich]

Ah.  I see we've fallen back on name calling. 

 

A tactic that seems inconsistent with trying to claim that the other guy is refusing to discuss the actual issue. 

 

But wait.  Consistency is a word, therefore it's semantics. 

 

But let's leave aside the name calling, and see if there's actually a point, in there, to respond to. 

 

You are a big boy Larry.  You trying to paint my points as lies and misrepresent my views are much worse than my Semantic nickname

 

 

What percentage of the person in the "typical person buying the highest deductible plan on the exchange" profile, runs through $5000 in medical expenses, in the first three months of the year?

 

Anyone who has health conditions that require prescription drugs and multiple doctors visits to address things like high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, heart conditions, you know any unhealthy person.  They will run through it and fast.  My quickest employees run through it due to prescripition meds.

 

 

Is it 80%?  Or do their numbers differ from the numbers you're using your employees as examples of? 

 

Is it perhaps possible that your employees might have different health care spending, compared to the people signing up on the exchanges?  Is it possible that these people aren't the average health care consumer?

 

These are white collar professionals who typically are non smokers and have had insurance coverage most of their lives.  The average my benefits coordinator gave me for this census population is that 10% drive the rates for 100% of the employees.  I think the uninsured will be a greater census.

 

So yes my employees will have different health care spending, assuming leaning toward the healthier than might be rushing to sign up.

 

 

Really?  You think that having a $0 deductible might cause people to spend more on health care? 

 

Therefore, is it possible that maybe we (let's be generous with the "we") could stop trying to use people with $0 deductible, fully paid, health insurance, to represent average people who are signing up for high deductible plans that they're paying for, themselves?

 

Yes, which is what insurance companies want, you to never actually use the insurance.  Which is what Obamacare will provide.

 

Catastrophe insurance.

 

/dog chase tail.

 

(And I absolutely guarantee you that nothing in Obamacare mandated that your rates double, two years before the mandates go into effect.  Simply because, if there were such a clause in the law, people attacking it would be pointing at it, instead of finding people who's employer decided to eliminate their in

 

No it's because Obamacare is driving High Deductible plans more than ever to get people "cheap" premiums.

It's now clear again that we are arguing with someone who either is making up anything to argue or just has no ****ing clue what he's taking about.

 

Amen TSF.  JMS thought a copay was a deductible.