Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[PMZ]

Again more statements with absolutely no evidence to back them up. It's financially beneficial to insurance companies to keep their members healthy. All kinds of insurance companies are taking strides to introduce programs that prevent illness before they occur. My insurance company PAYS me to get a physical every year. My cousin works as wellness coach for another major health insurance company. It is not unreasonable to see that premiums would go up some as a result of these new services. Though these increases are not nearly what have been put upon by some by Obamacare. Normally it's a few percent increase each year. Now thanks to Obama, many are seeing doubling or more.

First of all my post was about "these days", the introduction of Obamacare insurance regulation.

Second of all you forgot any evidence of premium increases caused by the regulations other than to insure coverage adequate for reasonable assurance that people are being personally responsible for the cost of their families health care.

I've presented the evidence several times. The community rating mandate portion of the bill MUST and IS making premiums for the young and healthy increase. It's called the law of averages. Learn about it sometime.

I love how conservatives love to simplify things hoping to create a boogeyman.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...nd-premium-joy-under-the-affordable-care-act/

 

[Bern80]

First of all my post was about "these days", the introduction of Obamacare insurance regulation.

Second of all you forgot any evidence of premium increases caused by the regulations other than to insure coverage adequate for reasonable assurance that people are being personally responsible for the cost of their families health care.

I've presented the evidence several times. The community rating mandate portion of the bill MUST and IS making premiums for the young and healthy increase. It's called the law of averages. Learn about it sometime.

I love how conservatives love to simplify things hoping to create a boogeyman.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...nd-premium-joy-under-the-affordable-care-act/

Actually the above link says the same thing I did in a bit more detail. Are you saying the article you sighted is wrong too or does it just not say what you think it says?

 

[PMZ]

I've presented the evidence several times. The community rating mandate portion of the bill MUST and IS making premiums for the young and healthy increase. It's called the law of averages. Learn about it sometime.

I love how conservatives love to simplify things hoping to create a boogeyman.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...nd-premium-joy-under-the-affordable-care-act/

Actually the above link says the same thing I did in a bit more detail. Are you saying the article you sighted is wrong too or does it just not say what you think it says?

It sounds like normal insurance practice to me. Some people win the insurance bet, some people lose. That's the nature of risk.

 

[Bern80]

I love how conservatives love to simplify things hoping to create a boogeyman.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...nd-premium-joy-under-the-affordable-care-act/

Actually the above link says the same thing I did in a bit more detail. Are you saying the article you sighted is wrong too or does it just not say what you think it says?

It sounds like normal insurance practice to me. Some people win the insurance bet, some people lose. That's the nature of risk.

No that's not how it works at all. Up until Obamacare ALL forms of insurance charged premiums on the basis of risk. The greater the risk financially you are to the insurer the more you pay in premiums. The graph in the article you posted shows exactly what I said previously.

'This form of premium setting is known as “community rating.” Because it forces healthier individuals to subsidize sicker individuals through the community-rated premiums,'


That the premiums for the young and healthy are going up as a result of the community rating. Of course now that you cited an article that supports my argument rather than yours, you're trying to weasel your way out of it.

 

[PMZ]

Actually the above link says the same thing I did in a bit more detail. Are you saying the article you sighted is wrong too or does it just not say what you think it says?

It sounds like normal insurance practice to me. Some people win the insurance bet, some people lose. That's the nature of risk.

No that's not how it works at all. Up until Obamacare ALL forms of insurance charged premiums on the basis of risk. The greater the risk financially you are to the insurer the more you pay in premiums. The graph in the article you posted shows exactly what I said previously.

'This form of premium setting is known as “community rating.” Because it forces healthier individuals to subsidize sicker individuals through the community-rated premiums,'


That the premiums for the young and healthy are going up as a result of the community rating. Of course now that you cited an article that supports my argument rather than yours, you're trying to weasel your way out of it.

" the premiums for the young and healthy are going up as a result of the community rating."

No. The premiums for some are going up and are counterbalanced by others going down. Otherwise it would be just a scam on the part of insurers to make more profit.

 

[itfitzme]

As workers, there is little choice for workers when unemployment is high. In fact the best state for business is what we have today. An over supplied labor market and tax payer supported consumption to dig out of recession.

The result. Lower compensation for workers, higher compensation for executives who are able to sell their country club friends on their ability to "save" struggling businesses.

In fact, the relationship is quite clear.

The relationship between wages and the supply and demand for labor may be divided into two time periods. In the most general sense, the trend for employment to population ratio changed in the year 2000. The yearly trend, from 1985 through 2012 is show here.



From 1985 through 2000, the employment to population ratio rose from 60.4% to 64.4%. This trend was a continuation of the upward trend that began in 1962. From 2000 through 2012, the employment to population fell, from 64.4% to 58.3%, in 2009 when the global economy receded. From 2009 to 2012, has remained relatively flat, rising .3%.

The relationship between wages and the supply of labor becomes apparent when the wage index is presented as a function of the employment to population ratio. This is shown here.



From 1985 through 2000, the global economy continued on the upward growth that began after the end of WWII. This growth created a demand for labor. As the availability of labor tightened up, the wages increased. After 2000, changes to the global economy shifted the labor market leverage from the supply side to the demand side. As more and more people were not employed, wages real wages stagnated, flatenning out.

So, absolutely, what we have now is an economic condition that drives wages down.

Data Source:
BLS : Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
SSA : Average Wage Index (AWI)
CPI : ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

 

[Bern80]

It sounds like normal insurance practice to me. Some people win the insurance bet, some people lose. That's the nature of risk.

No that's not how it works at all. Up until Obamacare ALL forms of insurance charged premiums on the basis of risk. The greater the risk financially you are to the insurer the more you pay in premiums. The graph in the article you posted shows exactly what I said previously.

'This form of premium setting is known as “community rating.” Because it forces healthier individuals to subsidize sicker individuals through the community-rated premiums,'


That the premiums for the young and healthy are going up as a result of the community rating. Of course now that you cited an article that supports my argument rather than yours, you're trying to weasel your way out of it.

" the premiums for the young and healthy are going up as a result of the community rating."

No. The premiums for some are going up and are counterbalanced by others going down. Otherwise it would be just a scam on the part of insurers to make more profit.

Then why did you cite an article that says otherwise? What part of math and averages do you not understand? 'Some' in this case are the young and healthy. Fun watching you squirm though.

 

[dblack]

How great would it be if Republicans came out with a solid legislative proposal to control health care costs, the real cause of all of this trauma.

I think that might even allow them to get elected some day again.

Or Democrats. Yeah, it would be cool.

 

[PMZ]

No that's not how it works at all. Up until Obamacare ALL forms of insurance charged premiums on the basis of risk. The greater the risk financially you are to the insurer the more you pay in premiums. The graph in the article you posted shows exactly what I said previously.

'This form of premium setting is known as “community rating.” Because it forces healthier individuals to subsidize sicker individuals through the community-rated premiums,'


That the premiums for the young and healthy are going up as a result of the community rating. Of course now that you cited an article that supports my argument rather than yours, you're trying to weasel your way out of it.

" the premiums for the young and healthy are going up as a result of the community rating."

No. The premiums for some are going up and are counterbalanced by others going down. Otherwise it would be just a scam on the part of insurers to make more profit.

Then why did you cite an article that says otherwise? What part of math and averages do you not understand? 'Some' in this case are the young and healthy. Fun watching you squirm though.

So your assessment is that community rating is a scam by which insurance companies merely raise rates independent of risks. That is make more money regardless of the cost to others, and I don't think that's a goal of regulation.

 

[Bern80]

" the premiums for the young and healthy are going up as a result of the community rating."

No. The premiums for some are going up and are counterbalanced by others going down. Otherwise it would be just a scam on the part of insurers to make more profit.

Then why did you cite an article that says otherwise? What part of math and averages do you not understand? 'Some' in this case are the young and healthy. Fun watching you squirm though.

So your assessment is that community rating is a scam by which insurance companies merely raise rates independent of risks. That is make more money regardless of the cost to others, and I don't think that's a goal of regulation.

No it's not a scam. It's an Obamacare regulation that requires insurance companies to avgerage out the rates of a given policy across a given risk pool. There is only one possible outcome of that which the graph in YOUR article reflects; the premium rates for the young and healthy go up while the premium rates of the sick and elderly go down. Seriously PMZ, there is plenty that can be legitimately debated about on Obamacare, but this isn't one of those things. It's not political. It's math. I still don't get why you cited the article you cited since it quite clearly explains exactly this and what I've been telling you for two pages now and you've been denying.

 

[itfitzme]

Sure, it is true that people whom would not have otherwise buy medical insurance will be paying more in terms of medical insurance.

Not buying insurance doesn't have a direct insurance cost associated with it.

It is true that people that would not have purchased medical insurance and are lucky enough to not need substantial medical care will end up paying more than they might otherwise have, during the period of time for which they would not have otherwise purchased insurance.

Not purchasing health insurance and not getting sick or being in a sever accident doesn't have either insurance or medical costs associated with it.

These are the only things that are true.

 

[Bern80]

Sure, it is true that people whom would not have otherwise buy medical insurance will be paying more in terms of medical insurance.

Not buying insurance doesn't have a direct insurance cost associated with it.

It is true that people that would not have purchased medical insurance and are lucky enough to not need substantial medical care will end up paying more than they might otherwise have, during the period of time for which they would not have otherwise purchased insurance.

Not purchasing health insurance and not getting sick or being in a sever accident doesn't have either insurance or medical costs associated with it.

These are the only things that are true.

We're not talking about going from paying nothing to paying something. We're not talking about the people that didn't have insurance at all and now have to buy it. We're talking about people who had plans that are seeing drastic increases or plans that are being canceled altogether and being forced to purchase significantly more expensive plans. We're talking about going from paying something to paying more. Again the article PMZ posted has an illustration of this. We're talking about people on the individual market. Young, healthy people who were paying one rate pre-Obamacare who's rates are doubling or more post-Obamacare due to the community rating and pre-existing condition mandates.

 

[itfitzme]

Sure, it is true that people whom would not have otherwise buy medical insurance will be paying more in terms of medical insurance.

Not buying insurance doesn't have a direct insurance cost associated with it.

It is true that people that would not have purchased medical insurance and are lucky enough to not need substantial medical care will end up paying more than they might otherwise have, during the period of time for which they would not have otherwise purchased insurance.

Not purchasing health insurance and not getting sick or being in a sever accident doesn't have either insurance or medical costs associated with it.

These are the only things that are true.

We're not talking about going from paying nothing to paying something. We're talking about going from paying something to paying more. Again the article PMZ posted has an illustration of this. We're talking about people on the individual market. Young, healthy people who were paying one rate pre-Obamacare who's rates are doubling or more post-Obamacare.

It is easier to just list the couple of things that are correct rather than all the others that aren't.

 

[itfitzme]

Family Insurance Premiums Rise 4 Percent For 2nd Year In Row, Survey Finds AUG 20, 2013

"For the second year in a row, health insurance premiums for job-based family coverage rose a relatively modest 4 percent, reflecting slowed health spending."

"The average cost of a single employee’s insurance premiums rose 5 percent, to $5,884, with workers paying an average of $999, the survey found. "

"'The premium increase this year is very moderate, but the pain[sic] factor for health insurance cost has not disappeared," said Drew Altman, president and CEO of the foundation. "Over time, what people pay for health care has dramatically eclipsed both their wages and inflation.'"

Family Insurance Premiums Rise 4 Percent For 2nd Year In Row, Survey Finds - Kaiser Health News

 

[Bern80]

Sure, it is true that people whom would not have otherwise buy medical insurance will be paying more in terms of medical insurance.

Not buying insurance doesn't have a direct insurance cost associated with it.

It is true that people that would not have purchased medical insurance and are lucky enough to not need substantial medical care will end up paying more than they might otherwise have, during the period of time for which they would not have otherwise purchased insurance.

Not purchasing health insurance and not getting sick or being in a sever accident doesn't have either insurance or medical costs associated with it.

These are the only things that are true.

We're not talking about going from paying nothing to paying something. We're talking about going from paying something to paying more. Again the article PMZ posted has an illustration of this. We're talking about people on the individual market. Young, healthy people who were paying one rate pre-Obamacare who's rates are doubling or more post-Obamacare.

It is easier to just list the couple of things that are correct rather than all the others that aren't.

You keep saying that yet can't seem to provide any evidence for it. Are the small business owner's I know seeing their raties nearly doubling lieing? Is the gentleman in the article PMZ posted simply mistaken about what will (see is) happening to the raties of the young and healthy. If so, I'm afraid simply saying I'm wrong doesn't cut it. At some point you have to show evidence for it.

 

[Bern80]

Family Insurance Premiums Rise 4 Percent For 2nd Year In Row, Survey Finds AUG 20, 2013

"For the second year in a row, health insurance premiums for job-based family coverage rose a relatively modest 4 percent, reflecting slowed health spending."

"The average cost of a single employee’s insurance premiums rose 5 percent, to $5,884, with workers paying an average of $999, the survey found. "

"'The premium increase this year is very moderate, but the pain[sic] factor for health insurance cost has not disappeared," said Drew Altman, president and CEO of the foundation. "Over time, what people pay for health care has dramatically eclipsed both their wages and inflation.'"

Family Insurance Premiums Rise 4 Percent For 2nd Year In Row, Survey Finds - Kaiser Health News

More info irellavant to the conversaton. We're talking about people on the individual market. Not employer based insurance and not young and healthy people who didn't previously have it.

 

[itfitzme]

Then why did you cite an article that says otherwise? What part of math and averages do you not understand? 'Some' in this case are the young and healthy. Fun watching you squirm though.

So your assessment is that community rating is a scam by which insurance companies merely raise rates independent of risks. That is make more money regardless of the cost to others, and I don't think that's a goal of regulation.

No it's not a scam. It's an Obamacare regulation that requires insurance companies to avgerage out the rates of a given policy across a given risk pool. There is only one possible outcome of that which the graph in YOUR article reflects; the premium rates for the young and healthy go up while the premium rates of the sick and elderly go down. Seriously PMZ, there is plenty that can be legitimately debated about on Obamacare, but this isn't one of those things. It's not political. It's math. I still don't get why you cited the article you cited since it quite clearly explains exactly this and what I've been telling you for two pages now and you've been denying.

For the math to be correct, you have to do the right math.

 

[itfitzme]

Family Insurance Premiums Rise 4 Percent For 2nd Year In Row, Survey Finds AUG 20, 2013

"For the second year in a row, health insurance premiums for job-based family coverage rose a relatively modest 4 percent, reflecting slowed health spending."

"The average cost of a single employee’s insurance premiums rose 5 percent, to $5,884, with workers paying an average of $999, the survey found. "

"'The premium increase this year is very moderate, but the pain[sic] factor for health insurance cost has not disappeared," said Drew Altman, president and CEO of the foundation. "Over time, what people pay for health care has dramatically eclipsed both their wages and inflation.'"

Family Insurance Premiums Rise 4 Percent For 2nd Year In Row, Survey Finds - Kaiser Health News

More info irellavant to the conversaton. We're talking about people on the individual market. Not employer based insurance and not young and healthy people who didn't previously have it.

Regardless, your math is wrong.

 

[Bern80]

Family Insurance Premiums Rise 4 Percent For 2nd Year In Row, Survey Finds AUG 20, 2013

"For the second year in a row, health insurance premiums for job-based family coverage rose a relatively modest 4 percent, reflecting slowed health spending."

"The average cost of a single employee’s insurance premiums rose 5 percent, to $5,884, with workers paying an average of $999, the survey found. "

"'The premium increase this year is very moderate, but the pain[sic] factor for health insurance cost has not disappeared," said Drew Altman, president and CEO of the foundation. "Over time, what people pay for health care has dramatically eclipsed both their wages and inflation.'"

Family Insurance Premiums Rise 4 Percent For 2nd Year In Row, Survey Finds - Kaiser Health News

More info irellavant to the conversaton. We're talking about people on the individual market. Not employer based insurance and not young and healthy people who didn't previously have it.

Regardless, your math is wrong.

How so? Did you read PMZ's link. Did he get the math wrong too? Again, if so, how? Last I checked when you avg a group of numbers the low numbers in the range rise to the avg. and the high numbers in the range fall to the average.

 

[itfitzme]

We're not talking about going from paying nothing to paying something. We're talking about going from paying something to paying more. Again the article PMZ posted has an illustration of this. We're talking about people on the individual market. Young, healthy people who were paying one rate pre-Obamacare who's rates are doubling or more post-Obamacare.

It is easier to just list the couple of things that are correct rather than all the others that aren't.

You keep saying that yet can't seem to provide any evidence for it. Are the small business owner's I know seeing their raties nearly doubling lieing? Is the gentleman in the article PMZ posted simply mistaken about what will (see is) happening to the raties of the young and healthy. If so, I'm afraid simply saying I'm wrong doesn't cut it. At some point you have to show evidence for it.

Well, nothing you have presented is evidence of anything. Why should anyone else have to live up to a standard higher than the one you apply to yourself?

There is a funny story about two economics students. One announced his intent to switch majors to physics. His friend replies, “When you do, the average IQ for the physics department will go up and the average for the economics department will go down.” There is no “law of averages” that requires the average to be higher.

I've already provided my response to the presented article.

It is true that people whom would not have otherwise buy medical insurance will be paying more in terms of medical insurance. Not buying insurance doesn't have a direct insurance cost associated with it.

It is true that people that would not have purchased medical insurance and are lucky enough to not need substantial medical care will end up paying more than they might otherwise have, during the period of time for which they would not have otherwise purchased insurance.

Not purchasing health insurance and not getting sick or being in a sever accident doesn't have either insurance or medical costs associated with it.

The article sited doesn't definitively predict health care premiums. It does provide some insight into some of the effects that will affect health care premiums.

So, What evidence do you think can possibly be provided that will definitively predict prices in the future?