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

[chipwhich]

Still waiting for you to support your claim. 

 

I'll be happy to respond to your third set of goalposts, after we deal with the first set. 

 

My claim that adding the birth control option adds to the cost of insurance?  I already told you how buying insurance works, you choose to not believe me, that's your choice.

[Larry]

His way we have to pay for birth control even if we are 60 LOL.

My claim that adding the birth control option adds to the cost of insurance?

What's that, the fourth time moving your own goalposts?

It's getting hard to keep track.

I already told you how buying insurance works, you choose to not believe me, that's your choice.

You can feel free to quit lying about what I said, any time you feel like it.

[chipwhich]

What's that, the fourth time moving your own goalposts?

It's getting hard to keep track.

You can feel free to quit lying about what I said, any time you feel like it.

 

I really don't understand your question.

My claim and my only claim is that by forcing plans to cover birth control, it raises the cost of insurance policies.  In addition it is part of the reason some people are losing their insurance policies that they like.

[Larry]

I really don't understand your question.

My claim and my only claim is that by forcing plans to cover birth control, it raises the cost of insurance policies.  In addition it is part of the reason some people are losing their insurance policies that they like.

OK, let's just pretend that that's the only claim you make, and pretend that you never made the one you've been insulting me, for pointing out, for 4-5 posts, now.

Forcing plans to cover birth control, . . . .

1) Raises costs by how much?

2) And also raises what?

(I've highlighted one word in the question, that provides you a hint at the answer to #2)

 

In addition it is part of the reason some people are losing their insurance policies that they like.

 

 

Feel free to try to support that claim, any time you'd like. 

Edited January 2, 2014 by Larry

[chipwhich]

Forcing plans to cover birth control, . . . .

1) Raises costs by how much?

 

 

You are trying to bait me into an argument which I honestly don't get.  So I am having trouble debating you on the topic.  I already said based on the cafeteria style plan of pricing, when I buy insurance, each additional option costs money.  I don't have a price.

 

 

 

2) And also raises what?

(I've highlighted one word in the question, that provides you a hint at the answer to #2)

 

Again, you are baiting, but frankly I am too slow to get your drift, unless your implication is free birth control will somehow save insurance companies money because of population control.  If that's your bait, thats a whole different argument.

 

 

Feel free to try to support that claim, any time you'd like.

 

There has been enough news on policies that were cancelled due to not meeting ACA requirements, I won't rehash that with you.

[Larry]

You are trying to bait me into an argument which I honestly don't get.  So I am having trouble debating you on the topic.  I already said based on the cafeteria style plan of pricing, when I buy insurance, each additional option costs money.  I don't have a price.

And yet, you persist in citing it as the example you pick, to explain why Obamacare is making insurance prices go up.

Now, granted, I certainly do not possess a knowledge of how much money birth control costs the average American. (Since you've moved from "birth control for 60 year olds" to "birth control", I have to assume you're referring to all demographics, nationwide.)

I don't even know how much birth control costs, for a representative sample of Americans. Not even for a representative sample of people of my age.

I do know that my costs for birth control, up till a year ago, were zero. And, while I don't assume that I represent every single person in the country, I also don't think I'm the only one, either.

What do you think a year of birth control, for the average American male costs? (Note: Not just for the average American who uses birth control. Average of all Americans.) $10 a year? $50? $50 seems really, really, high, for me. But my perspective can certainly be skewed. (I wouldn't be surprised at all if $10 is high. Remember, the cost of the coverage is based on how much the average consumer chooses to have his insurance pay for.)

Now, for females, I assume the average cost of birth control is probably a lot higher. Both because female birth control methods (I assume) are more expensive, and because (again, I assume) a much higher percentage of females use them.

Let's just pull a number out of my (no, I don't have one of those) appropriate orifices, and assume that the average female spends $200/year on birth control. (Again, that seems like a really, really, high number, for me, since I assume that lots of females don't use any, for one reason or another. But I freely admit my ignorance.)

If we average those two numbers, both of which I suspect are really, really, high estimates, then we arrive at the conclusion that mandating coverage for birth control adds $125 to the cost of the average American's health insurance.

That's $125 a year.

(Note that this calculation also assumes that none of those people had coverage for birth control, before.)

Note that this calculation also assumes that the average American also receives the benefit of an additional $125/year in insurance coverage.

(Pick a different estimate for the average cost, and you also get an identically different estimate for the average benefit.)

(That's because "cost" and "benefit", in this case, are not merely two numbers which are equal. They are the same number. The cost of the coverage, and the benefit of the coverage, are not two different numbers which are equal. They're two different terms to refer to one, single, check.)

You cannot assert that any of the numerous mandates on Obamacare are driving up costs, and not paying benefits. Because the benefits ARE the cost.

 

 

Again, you are baiting, but frankly I am too slow to get your drift, unless your implication is free birth control will somehow save insurance companies money because of population control.  If that's your bait, thats a whole different argument.

 

 Yes, I'm "baiting" you to try to get you to admit something you're trying very hard not to admit. 

 

I'll make it simple, by answering my own question: 

 

Adding coverage increases costs and coverage. 

 

I know it's a radical concept, that adding coverage adds coverage, but it is true. 

 

(Feel free to throw out the word "semantics", if you want.) 

 

There has been enough news on policies that were cancelled due to not meeting ACA requirements, I won't rehash that with you.

 

There have been lots of news on policies being cancelled due to not meeting ACA requirements, and people choosing to cancel them rather than comply with them.  

 

Curiously, people seem to like to pretend that part of that sentence isn't there. 

 

(It's kind of like the word "coverage".) 

 

----------

 

Yet, curiously, I'm not reading a thing about any of these mandates being this huge, crushing burden

 

No "well, the law mandates that insurance must cover collywobbles, and coverage for collywobbles adds $4,000 a year to the average policy, (collywobbles being so expensive, and such a huge number of people having it), and therefore, it's causing the average person to have to pay an extra $4,000 a year, so that one person in a million can receive $4B in coverage. 

 

----------

 

It's the dilemma that people would have, if they'd actually try to support their attempts to claim that these mandates are causing these huge costs that we're being told are typical. 

 

Pick a medical condition.  Any condition. 

 

In order for that condition to cause the average health insurance policy to go up $1000, then the average insured must have $1000 in costs, for that condition. 

 

There is no other way for it to add that much to the cost. 

 

To be more mathematical: 

 

The average cost of covering a condition = (the average cost of treating the condition) times (the percentage of people who get the condition). 

 

If it's a condition that only one person in a million gets, then a million dollars of coverage only adds a dollar to the insurance premium. 

 

If it only costs $10K, to treat, then even if one person out of 10 will get that condition, this year, it only adds $1K to their annual premium. 

 

----------

 

It is impossible to claim that the Obamacare mandates are hugely increasing insurance costs, without also claiming that it is hugely increasing coverage. 

 

(Because the coverage is the cost.) 

 

----------

 

* Yes, the insurance companies also charge overhead and profits.  Although Obamacare also limits those, for the first time.  It's more accurate to say that "80% of the increased premiums, are coverage.  But then, that was true, before, too, and you really can't blame Obamacare for the fact that private insurance companies operate at a profit. 

 

But, having said that, if you can find a place where the Obamacare law mandates a huge increase in overhead, without an increase in coverage, then I suspect I'll agree with you.  But I'm pretty certain that, if there were such a thing, we'd have heard about it, by now.

 

And, again, I'll point out:  One of Obamacare's mandates, is to put a cap on overhead and profit.

[chipwhich]

I will respond to your post Larry, I need to digest it, I still would like to know what "coverage" is being added.  I honestly don't get what you are saying.  "Coverage" as in now I get my birth control payments covered or "Coverage" means because I get birth control I won't have as many baby daddy.  Sorry I don't know what "Coverage" I get from adding birth control.

 

If I am a 60 year old female, I get no coverage at all BTW.

Edited January 2, 2014 by chipwhich

[Larry]

I will respond to your post Larry, I need to digest it, I still would like to know what "coverage" is being added.  I honestly don't get what you are saying.  "Coverage" as in now I get my birth control payments covered or "Coverage" means because I get birth control I won't have as many baby daddy.  Sorry I don't know what "Coverage" I get from adding birth control.

 

If I am a 60 year old female, I get no coverage at all BTW.

 

When you add birth control coverage, you get birth control coverage. 

 

It's not that complicated. 

 

If coverage for (condition X) adds $1,000 to the cost of insurance, it's because the insurance company wrote a $1,000 to somebody who has condition X. 

 

The "$1,000 cost" and the "$1,000 coverage"?  They're simply two different terms for referring to the exact same $1,000 check. 

 

When your insurance company says "If you want coverage for condition X, it's going to cost you $1,000 a year", what they are also saying is "We expect that, this year, the average person in that pool will receive $1,000 in payments for condition X". 

 

They may be saying that every person in the pool will receive $1,000 

 

They may be saying that half of them will receive zero, and the other half will receive $2,000. 

 

They may be saying that 99% of the people will receive zero, and 1% of them will receive $100,000. 

 

But they're saying that the average person's benefit will be $1,000, and therefore the average person's cost has to be $1,000. 

 

Or, another way of phrasing it is:  The average person's cost is $1,000, because it's worth $1,000, to the average person. 

[Larry]

Now, granted, the "you get what you pay for" assertion works better for events which fall in the category of random acts of fate. 

 

To pick a silly example, if Obamacare mandated that every health insurance policy sold in the US must provide coverage for any injury sustained while playing professional football, then those of us who have never played professional football, and are guaranteed never to do so, have a legitimate complaint.  They're being forced to pay for coverage which they are guaranteed never to use. 

 

And I can see an assertion that birth control falls into that category.  That it's more akin to coverage for a voluntary behavior, than for a disease. 

 

To which, I could respond by expressing the opinion that society might be better off, if there were no people who wanted birth control, but couldn't get it, because they couldn't afford it.  That, yeah, it's an infringement, but it's one for the greater good of society. 

 

OTOH, though, if we were to go down into that rabbit hole, I think it's very obvious that we'd be arguing about some real trivialities.  Because I suspect that, frankly, covering birth control is such a trivial cost increase as to not be worth arguing over.  (Although, if somebody has some actual numbers, I'd sure be willing to listen.)  

[chipwhich]

And yet, you persist in citing it as the example you pick, to explain why Obamacare is making insurance prices go up.

Let's just pull a number out of my (no, I don't have one of those) appropriate orifices, and assume that the average female spends $200/year on birth control. (Again, that seems like a really, really, high number, for me, since I assume that lots of females don't use any, for one reason or another. But I freely admit my ignorance.)

 

That's $125 a year.

 

Well your $125 a year probably translates into a lot more money for the insurance company to cover and roll out but you are making my point.

Birth Control is one example of an item that makes cancelled policies non compliant.

 

More importantly, for $125 a year we have to have this mandated for political purposes only?

 

 

 

I know it's a radical concept, that adding coverage adds coverage, but it is true.

 

From my perspective, I am not an insurance guy.  I buy what I am required to by and in the case of health insurance I buy it because I find it useful in my life.  I pay for the coverage I need.  Some people love coverage, they eat up scams like whole life insurance, and stuff like that, they want coverage.  So my daughter uses birth control, I would prefer to pay for it than buy the coverage.  Now if X% percentage of the population uses birth control and Y% doesn't use it, what value is paying for coverage for Y%?

 

 

 

There have been lots of news on policies being cancelled due to not meeting ACA requirements, and people choosing to cancel them rather than comply with them.  

 

Curiously, people seem to like to pretend that part of that sentence isn't there. 

 

(It's kind of like the word "coverage".)

 

Well obviously some of us don't want to buy or pay for coverage we don't need.  I don't have whole life insurance, I don't need it.  I don't like paying for coverage I don't want or need.  Not sure why you think paying for coverage is a good thing.  I guess insurance salesman love you.

 

 

No "well, the law mandates that insurance must cover collywobbles, and coverage for collywobbles adds $4,000 a year to the average policy, (collywobbles being so expensive, and such a huge number of people having it), and therefore, it's causing the average person to have to pay an extra $4,000 a year, so that one person in a million can receive $4B in coverage.

 

No it mandates junk that people should pay for themselves.

 

 

It's the dilemma that people would have, if they'd actually try to support their attempts to claim that these mandates are causing these huge costs that we're being told are typical.

 

You like to make claims that things are in fact in line with your views, but YOU NEVER back up a single claim.  If you have evidence these mandates are not causing any rate increases, I would LOVE to be informed.

[Larry]

You like to make claims that things are in fact in line with your views, but YOU NEVER back up a single claim. If you have evidence these mandates are not causing any rate increases, I would LOVE to be informed.

You mean, other than . . .

1). The fact that I've pointed out that it's IMPOSSIBLE? That the only way they can cause huge increases in costs, is if it also grants huge increases in coverage?

2). The fact that it's impossible to prove a negative?

3). The fact that, in 5 years of attacking Obamacare, not one person (including you) has so much as attempted to even come up with a believable theory linking any mandate to any huge costs?

Other than those?

[chipwhich]

You mean, other than . . .

1). The fact that I've pointed out that it's IMPOSSIBLE? That the only way they can cause huge increases in costs, is if it also grants huge increases in coverage?

2). The fact that it's impossible to prove a negative?

3). The fact that, in 5 years of attacking Obamacare, not one person (including you) has so much as attempted to even come up with a believable theory linking any mandate to any huge costs?

Other than those?

 

You tend to inject opinions in my posts that I don't have.  Perhaps I communicate poorly.

 

My baseline view on Obamacare is it gives most of the uninsured NOTHING that they want.  The cheap plans have high deductibles and unless you have a catastrophic illness, you won't be covered for most of your expenses.  In addition, Obamacare is accelerating the high deductible movement which is terrible for everyone.

 

I am not linking mandates to huge costs, I simply said mandating birth control is STUPID and is nothing more than a POLITICAL move.  It effects everyone, whether they need it or not.

[Wrong Direction]

Larry, your problem is you don't use enough words to explain your arguments. 

 

I just want to note that you have 1) coverage, 2) physician/hospital access and 3) premiums, 4) high deductibles and 5) catostrophic coverage as primary factors contributing to patient satisfaction over the next few months.

 

The coverage is up (compared to individual market, but better health plans are already cutting benefits to plan for cadillac plan regulations). The physician/hospital access is down. The premiums are up. The deductibles are up. The catostrophic costs are eliminated. Add in that many people are being forced out of their plans.

 

It's a complicated story, and I still have no idea what's in store with respect to legislative changes requested by Democrats in 2014.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

My mom has been a nurse for Kaiser Permanente close to 30 years now. Was just talking to her about all the changes. She says they told them all today that for the time being they have a new policy: the "We believe you" policy. Where if someone New calls or comes in and they can't find them in the system, they're supposed to say "we believe you" and make the appointment/see them regardless. That's hilarious to me. What a cluster****.

That said, I haven't had insurance in months and finally have it again, thank God. (laid off, was continuing my health insurance through COBRA, but COBRA is ridiculously expensive, was eating through my entire unemployment pay and absolutely killed my savings. Just couldn't continue it.)

[chipwhich]

That said, I haven't had insurance in months and finally have it again, thank God. (laid off, was continuing my health insurance through COBRA, but COBRA is ridiculously expensive, was eating through my entire unemployment pay and absolutely killed my savings. Just couldn't continue it.)

 

This post is not about you GACOLB.

 

Just as an FYI for those who don't know, COBRA is simply a continuation of your existing insurance that your employer provides their employers.  The premium paid for COBRA is the premium the Employer pays to keep the employee insured.  You don't need to pay the COBRA premium unless you have a need to go to the doctor.  So you don't have to "continue" your insurance and pay COBRA, not unless you need to use it.  So I hope in your case GACOLB, you didn't just pay that bill each month because you assumed you had to to keep insurance.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

This post is not about you GACOLB.

Just as an FYI for those who don't know, COBRA is simply a continuation of your existing insurance that your employer provides their employers. The premium paid for COBRA is the premium the Employer pays to keep the employee insured. You don't need to pay the COBRA premium unless you have a need to go to the doctor. So you don't have to "continue" your insurance and pay COBRA, not unless you need to use it. So I hope in your case GACOLB, you didn't just pay that bill each month because you assumed you had to to keep insurance.

Don't want to get into details but unfortunately I did/do need insurance and the whole pre-existing conditions thing made COBRA pretty much my only option at the time.

As I said earlier in the post, my mom has worked for Kaiser my entire life. I'm actually pretty well-versed in the system/my options as a result.

Edited January 3, 2014 by G.A.C.O.L.B.

[RichmondRedskin88]

Not gonna lie. The exchange helped me out because my new work's insurance is absolutely insane. My entire department went through the exchange after I went through it.

[twa]

'They had no idea if my insurance was active or not!': Obamacare confusion reigns as frustrated patients walk out of hospitals without treatment

• MailOnline spoke with patients who were told they would have to pay their bills in full if they couldn't prove they had insurance
• One was faced with a $3,000 hospital room charge and opted to leave the hospital after experiencing chest pains

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2532869/They-no-idea-insurance-active-not-At-Virginia-hospitals-Obamacare-confusion-reigns-frustrated-patients-walk-out.html

[Duckus]

This post is not about you GACOLB.

Just as an FYI for those who don't know, COBRA is simply a continuation of your existing insurance that your employer provides their employers. The premium paid for COBRA is the premium the Employer pays to keep the employee insured. You don't need to pay the COBRA premium unless you have a need to go to the doctor. So you don't have to "continue" your insurance and pay COBRA, not unless you need to use it. So I hope in your case GACOLB, you didn't just pay that bill each month because you assumed you had to to keep insurance.

?

I have never had to use COBRA but was under the assumption that it extended your current employer provided insurance for a limited period and you pay the full premium.

I assumed it works like any private insurance - you pay monthly monthly premiums and get insurance.

Your saying you can keep the insurance AND not pay the premium until you actually need it?

Or you just saying there is the option obviously to decline it and take the risk being uninsured or finding another private plan?

Edited January 3, 2014 by Duckus

[chipwhich]

?

I have never had to use COBRA but was under the assumption that it extended your current employer provided insurance for a limited period and you pay the full premium.

I assumed it works like any private insurance - you pay monthly monthly premiums and get insurance.

Your saying you can keep the insurance AND not pay the premium until you actually need it?

Or you just saying there is the option obviously to decline it and take the risk being uninsured or finding another private plan?

 

It continues your employer insurance, correct.

 

You don't pay it until you need it.

[Duckus]

It continues your employer insurance, correct.

 

You don't pay it until you need it.

 

I have not seen anything on that. Can you post a link? Everything I have read on COBRA is that you have to pay monthly. You have 60 days to accept it and once you do you are covered moving forward. You must pay the monthly premium to continue the coverage. 

 

Never seen anything about not paying until you need it. Interested in that.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Duckus

[PleaseBlitz]

Aside from all of the structural problems we've seen so far, my main issue with Obamacare is that, despite it being a democrat program, who typically champion income equality, Obamacare is essentially a program that forces a poor demographic (young people) to pay for a much richer demographic (old people).

 

Everyone thinks this is about paying for Granny, and everyone loves Granny.  But insurance is about actuarial tables . . . statistics, and statistically speaking, Granny has way more wealth than most 20 or 30 somethings.  

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/11/06/us_wealth_gap_between_young_and_old_is_widest_ever/

 

The typical U.S. household headed by a person age 65 or older has a net worth 47 times greater than a household headed by someone under 35, according to an analysis of census data released Monday.

 

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/11/07/the-rising-age-gap-in-economic-well-being/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/us-wealth-gap-young-old_n_1079372.html

[Kindred]

Aside from all of the structural problems we've seen so far, my main issue with Obamacare is that, despite it being a democrat program, who typically champion income equality, Obamacare is essentially a program that forces a poor demographic (young people) to pay for a much richer demographic (old people).

 

Everyone thinks this is about paying for Granny, and everyone loves Granny.  But insurance is about actuarial tables . . . statistics, and statistically speaking, Granny has way more wealth than most 20 or 30 somethings.  

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/11/06/us_wealth_gap_between_young_and_old_is_widest_ever/

 

 

 

 

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/11/07/the-rising-age-gap-in-economic-well-being/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/us-wealth-gap-young-old_n_1079372.html

 

Isnt that how all insurance works?

[Larry]

Isnt that how all insurance works?

Kinda, but not quite.

Yes, when you buy insurance, your money goes into a big pool with everybody else who bought that insurance, and then they pay out of that pool. Everybody pays in the same, but some people get paid out a lot more, some a lot less. In theory, the amount that goes into the pool, equals the amount that gets paid out.

BUT, not everybody goes into the same pool. The guy who's 25 pays into a pool that's full of other people who are 25. The guy whose 60 pays into the 60 pool. Since the average 25 year old doesn't get paid out as much as the average 60 year old, the 25 year old pays a lot less.

Obamacare alters that model, a bit. There's a mandate that says that the price they charge the 60 year old customers can't be higher than, I think, three times what they charge their youngest customer.

This means that, if the 60 year olds actually consume more than 3 times what the younguns consume, then the company will be forced to overcharge the younguns (and make a profit on them), and then use that profit to cover the fact that they're undercharging the old folks.

[PleaseBlitz]

Isnt that how all insurance works?

 

No, generally insurance is not set up to take money from the poor and give to the rich.  

 

 

Edit:  Excellent summation Larry, except for the "if" in bold, which should be a "when."

Edited January 3, 2014 by PleaseBlitz