chipwhich Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 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. Thank you sir. I will have to respond tomorrow, been tied up all day and need to focus before responding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 But, my problem is what I see as the attempt to talk about the rate increases, as though there are no corresponding benefit increases. My problem is my rate increases for others benefit....I know that is selfish which is why I will allow ya'll to pay the increase. btw you younguns needs to pony up http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/13/us-usa-healthcare-idUSBREA0C1GM20140113?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637 Gramps needs a subsidy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) ACA Sign-Ups - 9.97 million insured from Obamacare as of 1/13/2014. 2.34 million private 4.5 million medicaid/CHIP 30,000 off-exchanges 3.1 million Sub 26 This actually doesn't include some of the latest reports. Probably will be updated tomorrow with new numbers from a few states. I know Texas reported today 120,000 new sign-ups, and over 500,000+ applications. Edited January 14, 2014 by Duckus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 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. Yes, insurance costs have been rising for 50 years (well I will assume you are correct, don't feel like researching but it sounds like a reasonable assumption). From the day Obamacare passed, I haven't intentionally put a political spin on or assert that every single increase has been due to Obamacare. I think you might have exaggerated just *little* bit on that, but if you want to stand strong on that statement, I would just counter that's reverse political spin. For the record, I would put my flag in the sand stating none of my posts in this thread are political in nature although you and some other posters try and imply as much. This tends to make me rather skeptical of the claims, even though "it hasn't even taken effect" isn;t true, any more. What I can tell you is my rates have increased above the normal increase to help pay for the ACA exchanges to be set up. So Obamacare has caused my rates to increase (I am assuming your quote above is inferring that nothing with regards to the ACA has happened until recently, or in the past no costs have been passed on). 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. Not from me you haven't. 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%". Like I said, you haven't seen 40% claims by me, and the average person's premium increase will be seen over the next 2 years. Although I could argue the average persons premium is going to skyrocket because the average person who now pays insurance when combined with the average persons who now don't have insurance and their cost is ZERO will cause the average cost to skyrocket. 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. Again, you get hung up on this 40% which isn't the norm that I have seen in this thread, but continue to tout it like it's what everyone is saying, it isn't and I think it takes away from the debate (but serves your purpose) to imply this "campaign"). You haven't seen the 40% from me, although I seem to get attacked by others in this thread for what I don't say. You know I am being blamed for being anti Obama, the war in Iraq, and the mental health of our soldiers. Which of course isn't true but it's a way of combat. 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 don't think anyone disagrees with you on that point, I don't. 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. As I posted earlier, my rates went up last renewal *in part* due to Obamacare and a "tax" for a lack of a better word to help pay to set up the exchanges. And your birth control argument is just a straw man. It's an easy point of argument since it's ludicrous that is is even in Obamacare other than for political means. But I am glad your first sentence there admits that rates are increasing due to Obamacare, although your implication that it's just happening now is incorrect. 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. Definition of "benefit" a good or helpful result or effect. Raising requirements by insurance companies doesn't necessarily equate "benefits" to the insured. Some people might benefit, some might not. 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. I never once implied 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. If you have evidence of that, please post. I contend the answer to these and other questions will be known over the next couple of years. And if young people decide not to join, the answer might not please most. But we don't know 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 there is opinion and there is fact. My rates increase based on the *assumption* that based on certain statistics based on a census of people signing up that the probability of paying more drives the increase. Your explanation implies that you flat out deny any cost associated with implementing Obamacare. As per your quote "nobody could honestly believe that." 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"? Well it's a risk/reward type of scenario. If your census suggests you charge X and in your scenario you charge less than what your census tells you to charge, in year one you are risking a loss in money due to charging less than historically insurance company knows to be true cost. I don't think insurance companies are in to gambling on who they sign. 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 guess you and I disagree on the term "benefit". If I have insurance that has been going up 10% a year every year. A new mandate comes in that forces my insurance company to take every person, regardless of their current illness, and if the insurance company determines it will pay out a lot more money to pay for the sick, well that isn't a "benefit" to me. That is a "benefit" to the sick which I am footing the bill for. It's great the insurance company has to pay out a lot more money but it doesn't benefit the majority. It puts a burden on the majority. 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. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/what-portion-of-premiums-should-insurers-pay-out-in-benefits/?_r=0 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. You are forgetting that this is insurance. If I have a plumbing company and you hand me 40% more money to service peoples leaks then your opinion might be correct. If my business increases by 40% then I need to hire more plumbers. What you are really asking a company to do is increase my responsibilities by 40% (by most considered a high risk endeavor) and decrease my operating costs to 20% (which we can argue what the real number is). Depending on my health of the census (which by most accounts shows that the young and healthy aren't signing up), I am now taking a high risk lower reward option. Which I contend is why Obamacare will cause high deductible plans to be the norm going forward and which will lead to higher out of pocket expenses to everyon. 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. Again, the term "benefit". When you can stop using that term, it will be helpful. 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.) And we have a wrap. 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. Then I could join you guys on the left and say hey employers need to go back to the days where we paid everyone union wages and guaranteed health care and retirement $$$$ for life. Don't know the correct answer, but a public option might be nice if it was affordable and our government could afford it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 My problem is my rate increases for others benefit....I know that is selfish And I can see legitimate arguments against that. BUT, such cost shifts have ZERO effect on the AVERAGE premium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 And I can see legitimate arguments against that. BUT, such cost shifts have ZERO effect on the AVERAGE premium. how do you arrive at average in this post? Am I eligible for this average premium?....if not you need to adjust your metrics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 how do you arrive at average in this post? You going to try to propose an alternate definition of "average"? Am I eligible for this average premium?....if not you need to adjust your metrics 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 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? I have yet to see you post any evidence to support your suppositions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I have yet to see you post any evidence to support your suppositions. I guess the answer to that one is "yes", too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) I guess the answer to that one is "yes", too. Like I said I have yet to see you post anything but suppositions. Get yer tokens, er millenials errbody http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/01/obamacare-fail-enough-millennials-want-join/ Edited January 14, 2014 by chipwhich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 If you put twa and chipwhich on ignore, this is a pretty informative thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 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? No ,pointing out there are different averages within your group....not one pie,but several sizes that you seem to conflate into one by shifting slices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 No ,pointing out there are different averages within your group....not one pie,but several sizes that you seem to conflate into one by shifting slices. There is only one average for a group. Well, one average for each characteristic of a group. A group may have an average bank balance, and then a (different) average number of toes. But a group may only have one "average number of toes". That is, unless you want to try to propose a different definition of "average". ---------- I think I've provided the standard definition. Please, feel free to either 1) Agree with it. Or 2) Propose a different one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 the a group is what I am addressing,not the definition of average. income inequality for example ,the group contains the same amount of tokens/money....tis the division,not the average in the pool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 the a group is what I am addressing,not the definition of average. how do you arrive at average in this post? Am I eligible for this average premium?....if not you need to adjust your metrics Ah, we're getting closer. Larry: transferring costs from person to person doesn't change the average. Twa: well, it does if I cherry pick the people I'm averaging, so it includes the person whose rates went up, but ignore the person whose rates went down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Ah, we're getting closer. Larry: transferring costs from person to person doesn't change the average. Twa: well, it does if I cherry pick the people I'm averaging, so it includes the person whose rates went up, but ignore the person whose rates went down. Premiums are driven primarily by the sick people in the plan. Rates don't go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Ah, we're getting closer. Larry: transferring costs from person to person doesn't change the average. Twa: well, it does if I cherry pick the people I'm averaging, so it includes the person whose rates went up, but ignore the person whose rates went down. Transferring cost does raise the costs though....according to the Medicaid study....which in turn raises rates using average for the whole as you insist on is useless,just like the average of the money supply would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 As long as the healthcare system is for profit, rates and costs will continue to increase as the corporations involved want more and more profit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Premiums are driven primarily by the sick people in the plan. Rates don't go down. Curious. I've had two people demand that I prove what I've stated. I offer to do so, and NEITHER of them is willing to even agree on what the definition of "average" is. Or to propose their own definition. Instead, they both want to run to a different claim. I'm shocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) how did you arrive at a average is not questioning what the definition of average is. add Let's try this Do you include Medicare enrollees? Do you use pre-subsidy rates? Edited January 14, 2014 by twa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Transferring cost does raise the costs though....according to the Medicaid study....which in turn raises rates using average for the whole as you insist on is useless,just like the average of the money supply would be. Funny. I can demonstrate, with mathematical certainty, that it does not. Or we can watch you try to spin some more. But I do agree. Using the average (as opposed to a cherry picked average of part of the picture) doesn't seem useful. For pushing what you're trying to push. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikered30 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Between all of this bickering, some stats came out about Obamacare. 24% of those who signed up are 18-34 years old, the group that is supposed to carry the weight of the older, sicker people, the target was 38%. Obamacare prohibits insurers from charging sick people higher rates and limits the cost premium they can assign to older policyholders. Health policy experts say the administration may still get closer to that ratio by the time enrollment closes at the end of March, when more young Americans are expected to sign up to avoid the law's penalty for not having any coverage. Failure to improve on the numbers could lead insurers to raise prices next year. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/13/us-usa-healthcare-idUSBREA0C1GM20140113 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 I would assume lots of people aren't scared of the penalties. What between being told that the penalties aren't big enough (by the same people who were calling them a treasonous takeover, a few months ago), and probably hoping that maybe it will get repealed before the penalty is due. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 As long as the healthcare system is for profit, rates and costs will continue to increase as the corporations involved want more and more profit. What part of the for profit healthcare system would you get rid of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now