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

[twa]

Larry I told you where it was going....you ignored it

 

where did you come up with I said coverage was reduced btw?  ....do you conflate cancelled with reduced?

 

the rates are undeniably going up....in your fantasy world rebates will sent to individuals for the increase because you ignore they subsidize others.

[Larry]

Larry I told you where it was going....you ignored it

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.

 

----------

 

where did you come up with I said coverage was reduced btw?

 

 

Well, the most recent time you've tried to shovel that line, was in . . . your previous post: 

 

Higher deductibles

Higher co=pays

 

----------

 

 

the rates are undeniably going up....in your fantasy world rebates will sent to individuals for the increase because you ignore they subsidize others.

 

 

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. 

[twa]

I certainly agree those being totally subsidized are getting a deal Larry

 

I was obviously confused and thought we were talking about the folks that actually pay for ins.

[Larry]

Intellectual dishonesty.  Read, rinse, repeat.

 

First off, please post where I claimed 40% insurance premiums all over the place.  Intellectual dishonesty.

 

What I did post is how the 80% rule will cause lesser service.

 

But I didn't post anything you claimed, again intellectual dishonesty.

 

If you want to discuss what I post, please do but don't make up your own ****.

 

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. 

 

rates be rising,buckle up cupcake

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/01/10/new-survey-private-health-insurance-rates-set-to-rise-significantly-in-2014/

Among the states seeing the highest annualized rate hikes (for the full 2013 year) in the individual market are Connecticut, which is averaging a 37% increase; Florida (42%); Illinois (33%); Michigan (39%); and Minnesota (35%).

Among the states with the biggest annualized spike in the small group rates are Delaware, which is averaging a 35% increase; Michigan (30%); and Minnesota (50%).

. . . . .

 

2)  Within minutes, you jumped into your place in the two-person-circle-jerk, to agree with his claim. 

 

Gee just what I have been saying.

 

The rich get richer and the poor get more out of pocket expenses.

 

Income inequality just gets bigger.

 

But hey if you choose to sign up, you will be broke but ya might not have to go bankrupt.

 

I am sure someone will post how there is no evidence that this is a result of Obamacare....tax on the lower and middle class.  :cheers:

 

3)  I asked where all the money from these vast increases in the typical insurance premiums, was going. 

 

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

 

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.) 

 

Glad you are admitting Obamacare is stuffing the pockets of Corporate CEO's in the medical industryl

 

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. 

 

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.

 

6)  You try to tell me that they're spending the extra money on laying off people. 

 

I will give you a hint, they are laying off people and getting rid of a whole career field of benefits brokers.

 

A point that might be lost on you.

 

Quality service be damned!

 

7)  I point out that you can't spend a 40% rate increase on laying off people.  And ask the question again. 

 

(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.)

 

8)  twa tries to tell me that the money is being spent on the evils of capitalism. 

 

(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.)

 

9)  You try, again, to tell me that these rate increases are being spent laying people off. 

 

Well I would give you the answer if you will listen.  Ears up...KK???

 

I buy my benefits from a broker.  The broker doesn't work for the insurance company.  The broker gets commissions on sales.  My broker is concerned her whole career field is done.  Brokers do a lot of splainin Lucy.

 

So we just wiped them out.

. . .

 

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 might have to ship my call centers to India because I can no longer afford to pay salaries under the new plan.  You know limiting me to spending 80% of my money as benefits means I have to give lesser services to my insurees.

 

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 just want you to answer my question, what happens to the employees that the insurance company can't afford because of the 80% mandate?

 

Lay it out my friend.

 

(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. 

 

You are missing the forest for the trees.  Are you serious?

Insurance companies now have to spend 80% on medical costs.  So that means they have LESS money to spend on overhead.

 

I will give you an example.

Lets say my company makes $1 million dollars a year.  Lets say my company goal is a profit of $350,000 a year or 35%.  Lets assume I bring in free and clear $500,00 a year and I spend $150,000 a year on overhead personnel to support customer service and quality.

 

Now Obamacare says I can only make 20% in profit.

 

What do I do?

 

Now I take in $1 million dollars.  Of the $500,000 I have to send $300,000 in rebate checks to my insurees to meet the 80%.  Well guess what, that leaves out $150,000 I spent last year in expenses for overhead employees.

 

I guess you won't get it.  But it's par for the course.

 

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. 

 

I told you what it was spent for in my last post and you IGNORED the lost jobs because of expenses.

Talking about running away, I explained it to you and you IGNORED everything I posted.

 

Companies don't run on 20% profit.  You can ignore the facts if you choose, but you wont win in this argument.  I LOVE how you ignore the tough sticking points.

 

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? 

[twa]

What do you mean IF ? 

you do know 20% of that additional 40% is going to the ins company overhead including the CEO?

 

How much is going towards compliance costs of providers?

[skinsmarydu]

OK, as Larry & I understand it, 80% of all monies incurred by insurance companies, by law, now have to be directly for care.  If there is a surplus to the policy holder, it gets sent back...it's the law. 

Now, if you're insured by your employer, the employer gets the refund.

What you ****in' about, chip?  If your employees are healthy, and taking advantage of their benefits, maybe you'll get money back.  Hubby's boss already has.  It will allow him to throw more into the pot next year, so we all get a teensy break.  Get a grip, dude. 

[chipwhich]

OK, as Larry & I understand it, 80% of all monies incurred by insurance companies, by law, now have to be directly for care.  If there is a surplus to the policy holder, it gets sent back...it's the law. 

Now, if you're insured by your employer, the employer gets the refund.

What you ****in' about, chip?  If your employees are healthy, and taking advantage of their benefits, maybe you'll get money back.  Hubby's boss already has.  It will allow him to throw more into the pot next year, so we all get a teensy break.  Get a grip, dude. 

 

No offense SMD but you are so far out of this discussion, your best bet is to sit on the sidelines.

 

Please google what that 80% actually is allowed to pay for before jumping into the discussion.  Thanks.

[twa]

Is hubby in a small group plan?....if not,his fun really starts next year.

 

80% directly for care is not really accurate, the healthcare providers pass on overhead and ACA compliance costs.

[skinsmarydu]

No offense SMD but you are so far out of this discussion, your best bet is to sit on the sidelines.

 

Please google what that 80% actually is allowed to pay for before jumping into the discussion.  Thanks.

Is google the only thing you know? I would suggest branching out, maybe into the actual website of your preferred healthcare agency, but gee, what can I find?

The ACA is law. You should've had your folks out to vote against the POTUS if it's what you didn't want. Turns out, there were more of us than of the other.

I was completely against the war in Iraq. I now have to sit by & watch as my fellow warriors live in fear of homelessness, hunger, etc.

But as long as we fight everything, we'll all be OK? Is that your rationale?

Some things are good for the country, even if they come from someone you didn't vote for. Damn.

[chipwhich]

Every single one of us knows where that money is going.  It's going to pay for 40% increased benefits.

 

Well now you are moving the goalposts from MY discussion.   At least we can now be on the same page of what your argument is.  I was operating under the assertion/argument tied behind the 80%/20% cost of doing business. 

 

Tell me what that 40% increased "benefits" pays.  What does that pay for besides direct care to patients?  That's the million dollar question.

Is google the only thing you know? I would suggest branching out, maybe into the actual website of your preferred healthcare agency, but gee, what can I find?

The ACA is law. You should've had your folks out to vote against the POTUS if it's what you didn't want. Turns out, there were more of us than of the other.

I was completely against the war in Iraq. I now have to sit by & watch as my fellow warriors live in fear of homelessness, hunger, etc.

But as long as we fight everything, we'll all be OK? Is that your rationale?

Some things are good for the country, even if they come from someone you didn't vote for. Damn.

 

SMD, no offense but please take your politics elsewhere.  I have no interest in discussing politics.  If you want to understand the issues with the ACA and what it's going to cost all of us then I am all ears.  This has nothing to do with being anti Obama and I do care about doing good things for our country.  PM me when your rates start going through the roof and apologize for attacking me KK?

[skinsmarydu]

[sMD, no offense but please take your politics elsewhere.  I have no interest in discussing politics.  If you want to understand the issues with the ACA and what it's going to cost all of us then I am all ears.  This has nothing to do with being anti Obama and I do care about doing good things for our country.  PM me when your rates start going through the roof and apologize for attacking me KK?

When are you going to shut up about things you know nothing about? It's all politics, to you, policy for the rest of us.

When you figure out the difference, we'll all be waiting for your apology.

Edited January 13, 2014 by skinsmarydu

[chipwhich]

When are you going to shut up about things you know nothing about? It's all politics, to you, policy for the rest of us.

 

Mary, you came into a thread about Obamacare and threw out the Iraq war and arguing about voting for the POTUS.  That ain't policy sister.

Now back to the discussion.

[skinsmarydu]

SMD, no offense but please take your politics elsewhere.

You'll get banned before I do, and don't tell me I need to be elsewhere. You're a business owner, shouldn't you be? Since you're so concerned about the welfare of your employees, you know, wanting so desperately to deny your employees the care they need, cuz it might cost you an extra few dollars? Is this what your folks need?

Oh, I forgot...you'll never give them what they need, as their employer. Just a little above what's mandated, and then you'll ***** about that.

[skinsmarydu]

Mary, you came into a thread about Obamacare and threw out the Iraq war and arguing about voting for the POTUS.  That ain't policy sister.

Now back to the discussion.

Another clue that you've never served, and never would. Love loving yourself?

A lot of folks coming back from that dreadful decision won't have a conscious ability to do anything. Part of that is on the backs of the folks who said OK to the 4500 or so coming back wounded or worse, and wanting to deny them THE BENEFITS THEY DESERVE.

Gee, some of those benefits just might be medical. Falls into the same issue. We're all going to pay for it, please don't make me say crazy things if you can't get this. You shouldn't be running a concession stand if you can't figure this out.

[chipwhich]

You'll get banned before I do, and don't tell me I need to be elsewhere. You're a business owner, shouldn't you be? Since you're so concerned about the welfare of your employees, you know, wanting so desperately to deny your employees the care they need, cuz it might cost you an extra few dollars? Is this what your folks need?

Oh, I forgot...you'll never give them what they need, as their employer. Just a little above what's mandated, and then you'll ***** about that.

 

Report my post Mary.

[Larry]

What do you mean IF ? 

you do know 20% of that additional 40% is going to the ins company overhead including the CEO?

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.

How much is going towards compliance costs of providers?

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.

[chipwhich]

Another clue that you've never served, and never would. Love loving yourself?

A lot of folks coming back from that dreadful decision won't have a conscious ability to do anything. Part of that is on the backs of the folks who said OK to the 4500 or so coming back wounded or worse, and wanting to deny them THE BENEFITS THEY DESERVE.

Gee, some of those benefits just might be medical. Falls into the same issue. We're all going to pay for it, please don't make me say crazy things if you can't get this. You shouldn't be running a concession stand if you can't figure this out.

 

Wrong thread.

[Larry]

Well now you are moving the goalposts from MY discussion.

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.

 

At least we can now be on the same page of what your argument is.

 

Somehow I doubt that, because you're still trying to deflect. 

 

Tell me what that 40% increased "benefits" pays. What does that pay for besides direct care to patients? That's the million dollar question.

 

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?" 

----------

 

Mary, you came into a thread about Obamacare and threw out the Iraq war and arguing about voting for the POTUS.  That ain't policy sister.

Now back to the discussion.

 

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.

 

OK, as Larry & I understand it, 80% of all monies incurred by insurance companies, by law, now have to be directly for care. If there is a surplus to the policy holder, it gets sent back...it's the law.

Now, if you're insured by your employer, the employer gets the refund.

What you ****in' about, chip? If your employees are healthy, and taking advantage of their benefits, maybe you'll get money back. Hubby's boss already has. It will allow him to throw more into the pot next year, so we all get a teensy break. Get a grip, dude.

No offense SMD but you are so far out of this discussion, your best bet is to sit on the sidelines.

Please google what that 80% actually is allowed to pay for before jumping into the discussion. Thanks.

----------

----------

You'll get banned before I do, and don't tell me I need to be elsewhere. You're a business owner, shouldn't you be? Since you're so concerned about the welfare of your employees, you know, wanting so desperately to deny your employees the care they need, cuz it might cost you an extra few dollars? Is this what your folks need?

Oh, I forgot...you'll never give them what they need, as their employer. Just a little above what's mandated, and then you'll ***** about that.

Having said that, though, I have to observe that this post isn't exactly an emotionless discussion of the topic, either.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Larry

[twa]

Larry, you don't think compliance costs are a factor in the Dr firings we earlier discussed?

 

this thing you claim we don't want to admit has been a focus of many of our posts

Robbing peter to give paul coverage while matthew and luke get their cut is not excused by your focus on pauls new coverage...or calling it expanded benefits.

 

When they get to John,stephen and the rests pockets next year Judas might be swinging

[Larry]

Larry, you don't think compliance costs are a factor in the Dr firings we earlier discussed?

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.

[chipwhich]

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.

 

Larry there seems to be multiple topics intertwined which is confusing this conversation.

 

1) Health insurance costs are rising.  I blame Obamacare for some of the increase.  Your assertion is that Obamacare isn't to blame, or you wont accept any blame unless I prove it.

 

2) Obamacare is forcing an 80/20 spending policy.  I claim this will cause people to lose jobs.  Your assertion is that companies going to 80/20 has no effect on their operational strategy.

 

3) The 80% spending, where is it spent.  You are arguing that it is directly spent for the consumer benefit, I am claiming the 80% is partially contributing to the increase in health insurance.

 

4) You are claiming the health care industry was already operating at 80/20 which I disagree with.

So are my 4 assumptions correct?

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.

 

My apologies to Mary.

[twa]

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.

 

your wording there makes no sense to me either.

 

 the healthcare providers will pass compliance costs on(they are part of providing healthcare now) to the ins companies.....what other costs are passed on is what the firings impact.

 

my contention on the firing is that the ins company is trying to lean on providers to reduce costs to reap the benefits we earlier discussed.

in doing so network and provider availability shrinks.

 

ACA compliance costs will add to rates separate from any savings elsewhere

 

 

clear as mud right

[Larry]

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) Health insurance costs are rising.  I blame Obamacare for some of the increase.  Your assertion is that Obamacare isn't to blame, or you wont accept any blame unless I prove it.

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.) 

 

2) Obamacare is forcing an 80/20 spending policy.  I claim this will cause people to lose jobs.  Your assertion is that companies going to 80/20 has no effect on their operational strategy.
 
4) You are claiming the health care industry was already operating at 80/20 which I disagree with.

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

3) The 80% spending, where is it spent.  You are arguing that it is directly spent for the consumer benefit, I am claiming the 80% is partially contributing to the increase in health insurance.

 

 

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.) 

[LadySkinsFan]

chipwich, if we remove businesses from having to provide health insurance benefits to their employees, and the employees are free to buy their own insurance using a non-profit public option among their choices, doesn't that benefit the businesses overall?  They would have to provide the former funds to pay for health insurance benefits to their employees so they can buy their health insurance.  The public option could have a list of choices of coverages: maternity care, birth control, prescription coverages, elder care services and so on.  Each person/family can choose what works for them.

 

Then we wouldn't have lawsuits from employers who don't want to pay for abortion or birth control coverage.  It would truly mean that human beings were in control of their healthcare, and not government or business.

[LadySkinsFan]

I have observed that whenever corporations make less in profit, their immediate solution is to fire people.  People cost profits, whether they work for the providers or for the insurance companies.  I'll posit that the reason we don't have public option is because the people employed by care providers will fire all the people they employ to file all those claims, most of the time several times over, because the insurance companies' profit comes from delaying claims payment or denying payment at all.  That would have been a huge hit on unemployment of people and increased unemployment insurance claims.  That would have a huge impact on our economy, probably bigger than the recent economic problems, by throwing millions of people out of jobs. 

 

That said, I will not be buying health insurance.  I'm 62 this year, the "tax" for not buying insurance is relatively small for me this year, next year and the year after that.  Then I'll be 65 and eligible for Medicare.

Edited January 13, 2014 by LadySkinsFan