PDA

View Full Version : Insurance...



sack316
12-21-2011, 09:40 AM
Well my health care went up another 10% for the coming year. How's everyone else doing?

Sack

eg8r
12-21-2011, 10:03 AM
LOL, how about that for Obama bringing down HC costs. I did not even bother to look at whether mine went up or not because no matter what I will continue paying for it. I have seen it go up consistently over the years though and I did not have any blinders on when Obama said he would correct that. All he has done is impose an HC tax on the poor who couldn't afford it before and will now be faced with fines if they still can't afford it.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
12-21-2011, 12:15 PM
If Obamacare eventually does bring about reductions in health care costs, it will be reductions in increases that weren't quite so large as they would have been, but increases still, so people will still deny that anything good happened with regard to pricing. This whole hypothetical 'would have been worse' seems hard for people to think about correctly, even as they make the identical leap of logic about keeping oil in their cars and replacing it periodically. (Yes, you'd save money in the short run by never replacing or topping up your oil, but most realize you'd lose a lot more than that once you ran your car engine dry of oil and needed an engine rebuild.)

I am sympathetic to any belief that this probably will not work out in the future. But I am most unsympathetic to anyone who claims current pricing increases mean Obamacare doesn't work. It cannot work until it is put in place, mainly the insurance exchanges, and those are still more than a year away.

ugotda7
12-21-2011, 03:32 PM
Wow, you are amazing......amazingly blinded and brain washed that is.

Sev
12-21-2011, 09:11 PM
I dont carry any.
Being a roofer why bother?

eg8r
12-21-2011, 09:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If Obamacare eventually does bring about reductions in health care costs, it will be reductions in increases that weren't quite so large as they would have been, but increases still, so people will still deny that anything good happened with regard to pricing.</div></div>So the whole "lowering HC costs" was just another example of sly misdirection? Look we all know he is going to reduce HC costs, it is impossible so why not just say that? It is not like he got any "new" support based on the sly misdirection.

It is sad that all the poor people that voted for Obama are going to be screwed dry when this bill goes into effect and starts costing them fines because they can't afford to cover themselves.

eg8r

eg8r
12-21-2011, 09:44 PM
What role on this board do you see yourself filling? Right now it is troll, I just wanted to know if that is what you were gunning for.

eg8r

Qtec
12-22-2011, 02:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, how about that for Obama bringing down HC costs. </div></div>

Did Obama raise the rates or was that your local friendly HC Insurance company?

Q

sack316
12-22-2011, 09:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If Obamacare eventually does bring about reductions in health care costs, it will be reductions in increases that weren't quite so large as they would have been, but increases still, so people will still deny that anything good happened with regard to pricing. This whole hypothetical 'would have been worse' seems hard for people to think about correctly, even as they make the identical leap of logic about keeping oil in their cars and replacing it periodically. (Yes, you'd save money in the short run by never replacing or topping up your oil, but most realize you'd lose a lot more than that once you ran your car engine dry of oil and needed an engine rebuild.)

I am sympathetic to any belief that this probably will not work out in the future. But I am most unsympathetic to anyone who claims current pricing increases mean Obamacare doesn't work. It cannot work until it is put in place, mainly the insurance exchanges, and those are still more than a year away. </div></div>

To be fair, insurance costs have risen to some extent pretty well every year for some time now. But not as drastically in one year as this year has been (last I read, I think the average is around 9% across the board).

Some of the reasoning given I've seen (as well as was told by my insurance company) was in anticipation of the new laws. Obviously I can't argue that this isn't a biased source, but that also does not mean it isn't reality.

I honestly wouldn't speculate myself here just yet on what factors are at play... but I'm sure it is more than just one... so I don't blame Obama alone per-say. But I do know what promises were given 3 years ago about health care costs... and I also know the increases have accelerated since then.

That's not to say there's a direct causal link by any means, but I'd also venture more than mere coincidence at the same time.

Sack

P.S. How do that statistics work in calculating these costs? For example, 2012 will see a 9% increase on average. Now, let's say once laws are in effect (for simplicity's sake we'll just say they start today), and it decreases 1%. Would the admin be able to claim they decreased insurance costs by 1%, even though the overall costs would still be some 15-20% higher than it was in 2010 when it took over? Just curious

Soflasnapper
12-22-2011, 11:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow, you are amazing......amazingly blinded and brain washed that is. </div></div>

My sympathies for your vision problems!

Possibly looking in a mirror and getting the whole thing backwards, in fact.

Soflasnapper
12-22-2011, 12:07 PM
I am reminded about what happened in a state that passed tort reform, limiting the awards for pain and suffering to something fairly smallish like $250k (however much pain and suffering were involved, but without limit on recovery of actual costs or lost wages, etc.).

What happened in that state was that insurance rates continued to go up, and at a faster rate. Upon inquiry, the insurance industry pointed out that factor in play was the return on their overall portfolio of investments which back up their promise of insurance, and that since the return on their investments was down, they needed to make up the difference in higher premium charges. So at least in that case, the bleatings of the insurance companies about their horrible exposure to crazed jury awards for pain and suffering wasn't the factor in their pricing at all, or at least, not enough to matter relative to their portfolio performance.

Now, how do you think the insurance companies' portfolios are doing now? Some exposure to real estate in their holdings, ya think? Fact is, we cannot even get them to reveal the details of their balance sheets to find out if what they say is so or not, unless we hear some unguarded talk about what they are really doing and why.

Now as for the details of the alleged cost savings, it's accumulative, and down the road, in terms of total costs. Whatever happens in the early years is washed out given that we're scoring or adding things up over some decades out. And just as compound interest is the most powerful force in the world when it works against you, it is also very powerful when it works on your side.

Trimming the projected average annual increases by 1, 2, 3 percentage points or more, saves the money in each of those years, but more, as the base upon which the future increases is based is decreased, double and triply and so forth, each year subsequently.

Which will still allow people to complain that their rates went up 8% this year over last year (say, for example), so cost containment must not have worked, but actually by having it grow by that number instead of by double-digit increase rates, a very large savings over time occurs (even if people don't notice, because things still went up).

eg8r
12-22-2011, 09:53 PM
Have you ever been able to draw a picture by following the numbered dots? When Obama said he would reduce HC costs was he actually going to reduce the costs or was that going to be my friendly HC provider?

eg8r

Qtec
12-22-2011, 10:37 PM
Are you capable of answering a question?

I have my doubts.

Q

eg8r
12-23-2011, 03:36 PM
I answered your question by using that stupid logic in a question back to you.

I also asked if you could draw a picture by following the numbered dots. Are you capable of answering a question? I have my doubts.

eg8r

LWW
12-28-2011, 11:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well my health care went up another 10% for the coming year. How's everyone else doing?

Sack </div></div>
The amount I have to pay went up $70 a month ... in spite of the fact dear leader promised it would go down by $208 a month.

LWW
12-28-2011, 11:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, how about that for Obama bringing down HC costs. </div></div>

Did Obama raise the rates or ... ?

Q </div></div>

Yes.

Next question?

Soflasnapper
12-28-2011, 01:44 PM
Now that Kim Jong-Il is dead, all his promises are null and void. Just so you're clear. It may save you a lot of heartache down the road. Do not expect anything he promised you to come true, whether he promised it directly or indirectly.

If you meant someone other than the real dear leader, perhaps Obama, even, then he never promised you anything, never said a thing about your health care situation or your premium cost increases, and whatever he did represent concerns matters in calendar years with numbers +2 from now. You could look it up, but of course, refuse to.

LWW
12-29-2011, 03:16 AM
Has dear leader actually brainwashed you to the point that you truly believe he never promised, ad infinitum, on the campaign trail that his plan would reduce premiums by $2,500.00 per year?

sack316
12-29-2011, 09:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...Now, how do you think the insurance companies' portfolios are doing now? Some exposure to real estate in their holdings, ya think? Fact is, we cannot even get them to reveal the <u>details of their balance sheets</u> to find out if what they say is so or not, unless we hear some unguarded talk about what they are really doing and why...

</div></div>

Unfair advantage to me on this particular bit (apologies for a late reply, I haven't been on in several days). But the girlfriend is a CPA working in the HC group of a fairly prominent firm here /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

Soflasnapper
12-29-2011, 10:08 AM
Has dear leader actually brainwashed you to the point that you truly believe he never promised, ad infinitum, on the campaign trail that his plan would reduce premiums by $2,500.00 per year?

During the presidential nomination campaign Obama said his program, once passed and after it was fully phased into effect, would save the average American family $2,500.

So now we see any number of counter-factuals to your claims.

-- His program was NOT passed (as proposed-- his campaign proposal included a public option* and no individual mandate, and the program passed reversed both of his proposed policies);

-- What he did get passed has not been fully phased in (it hasn't begun to phase in);

-- You are not 'an average family' (families with children covered of course have higher premiums than do single people or a married couple, and it is easier to achieve a given dollar amount of savings from a larger dollar amount),

-- The cost savings was to be measured against what the health care costs would have reached by that time (of full implementation), not what they were in 2010 or 2009, can't tell for sure what year you're erroneously complaining about.

*Public option proposal:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama’s key components here include:

Establishing a new public program that would look a lot like Medicare for those under age-65 that would be available to those who do not have access to an employer plan or qualify for existing government programs like Medicaid or SCHIP. This would also be open to small employers who do not offer a private plan. </div></div>

From a detailed examination of Obama's health care proposals, March 2009. (http://www.allhealth.org/briefingmaterials/candidatesanalyseslaszewski-1224.pdf) See page 3 for cited text

Sev
12-29-2011, 06:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If Obamacare eventually does bring about reductions in health care costs, it will be reductions in increases that weren't quite so large as they would have been, but increases still, so people will still deny that anything good happened with regard to pricing. This whole hypothetical 'would have been worse' seems hard for people to think about correctly, even as they make the identical leap of logic about keeping oil in their cars and replacing it periodically. (Yes, you'd save money in the short run by never replacing or topping up your oil, but most realize you'd lose a lot more than that once you ran your car engine dry of oil and needed an engine rebuild.)

I am sympathetic to any belief that this probably will not work out in the future. But I am most unsympathetic to anyone who claims current pricing increases mean Obamacare doesn't work. It cannot work until it is put in place, mainly the insurance exchanges, and those are still more than a year away. </div></div>

Thats called baseline budgeting.
There is never an actual cut.

LWW
12-30-2011, 02:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If Obamacare eventually does bring about reductions in health care costs, it will be reductions in increases that weren't quite so large as they would have been, but increases still, so people will still deny that anything good happened with regard to pricing. This whole hypothetical 'would have been worse' seems hard for people to think about correctly, even as they make the identical leap of logic about keeping oil in their cars and replacing it periodically. (Yes, you'd save money in the short run by never replacing or topping up your oil, but most realize you'd lose a lot more than that once you ran your car engine dry of oil and needed an engine rebuild.)

I am sympathetic to any belief that this probably will not work out in the future. But I am most unsympathetic to anyone who claims current pricing increases mean Obamacare doesn't work. It cannot work until it is put in place, mainly the insurance exchanges, and those are still more than a year away. </div></div>

Thats called baseline budgeting.
There is never an actual cut. </div></div>

You must remember that his sole reason for posting on this forum is to regurgitate the party line lies.

He both heralds the benefits of OBAMACARE while shielding his master by claiming dear leader's plan was never passed ... even though Obama never actually presented a plan beyond propaganda lines for the foolish who were swayed by whatever the party told them they believed.

LWW
12-30-2011, 02:13 AM
I think you said it best with this line:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I always and on all occasions 'slavishly defend dear leader,'</div></div>

Gayle in MD
01-02-2012, 10:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am reminded about what happened in a state that passed tort reform, limiting the awards for pain and suffering to something fairly smallish like $250k (however much pain and suffering were involved, but without limit on recovery of actual costs or lost wages, etc.).

What happened in that state was that insurance rates continued to go up, and at a faster rate. Upon inquiry, the insurance industry pointed out that factor in play was the return on their overall portfolio of investments which back up their promise of insurance, and that since the return on their investments was down, they needed to make up the difference in higher premium charges. So at least in that case, the bleatings of the insurance companies about their horrible exposure to crazed jury awards for pain and suffering wasn't the factor in their pricing at all, or at least, not enough to matter relative to their portfolio performance.

Now, how do you think the insurance companies' portfolios are doing now? Some exposure to real estate in their holdings, ya think? Fact is, we cannot even get them to reveal the details of their balance sheets to find out if what they say is so or not, unless we hear some unguarded talk about what they are really doing and why.

Now as for the details of the alleged cost savings, it's accumulative, and down the road, in terms of total costs. Whatever happens in the early years is washed out given that we're scoring or adding things up over some decades out. And just as compound interest is the most powerful force in the world when it works against you, it is also very powerful when it works on your side.

Trimming the projected average annual increases by 1, 2, 3 percentage points or more, saves the money in each of those years, but more, as the base upon which the future increases is based is decreased, double and triply and so forth, each year subsequently.

Which will still allow people to complain that their rates went up 8% this year over last year (say, for example), so cost containment must not have worked, but actually by having it grow by that number instead of by double-digit increase rates, a very large savings over time occurs (even if people don't notice, because things still went up).

</div></div>

Additionally, we know that a public option would have created more savings, through more competition.

AND, we now which party all lined up to prevent the public option.

I have to laugh when I see the dummies on this forum who call Democratics, fascists!
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
G.