Obamacare just raised your health care premium by $63

[petegz28]

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/1...premium-by-63/




P.S.
Direckshun, go **** yourself with a razor blade

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The question you should be asking is whether or not the line of business for which they're seeking a rate change is profitable and if so, how profitable. They shouldn't be required to subsidize this line with profits from another line.

Beyond that, you shouldn't be using government mandated minimum reserves as a benchmark for adequacy. In light of the government-enabled financial crisis we just experienced, it seems like a good thing if private financial institutions are opting for more than bare minimum precautions.

I am asking that question and this article provides no indication to the otherwise, short of a statement from a guy who was raising his rates stating that he didn't know what's going to happen. I understand that they have to make a profit annually and by all means they should make all of that 2% profit, but this is a response to the unknown and not a fact.
I don't use the government mandated minimum reserve as the benchmark, I merely list it for comparison purposes. My main focus is on the comparison between BS of CA and the requirements set forth from the BS association (of which they are 3x higher)

[Bootlegged]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I think you might need a translator. Your article is about BS of CA who is acting independent of other BS requirements. You call me dense when you take the actions of 1 independent company (that I've seen no other corresponding moves among other independent companies of Blue Shield) and extrapolate that to apply to every other company in the country with an intended hidden agenda?

That's the stupidest shit I have ever heard.

No wonder Obama won. His electorate speaks.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Bootlegged

No wonder Obama won. His electorate speaks.

You say that like it is an insult.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I am asking that question and this article provides no indication to the otherwise, short of a statement from a guy who was raising his rates stating that he didn't know what's going to happen. I understand that they have to make a profit annually and by all means they should make all of that 2% profit, but this is a response to the unknown and not a fact.
I don't use the government mandated minimum reserve as the benchmark, I merely list it for comparison purposes. My main focus is on the comparison between BS of CA and the requirements set forth from the BS association (of which they are 3x higher)

So, in other words, you don't really have enough facts to support your conclusions. And you were still confused about the whole extrapolate from BS to businesses in general idea which had nothing to do with what was being discussed. Sometimes the facts you have aren't really the facts you need. Waving the "I have facts" flag in these situations doesn't really get you anywhere.

[Bootlegged]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

You say that like it is an insult.

Anyone that can't understand the basic math of

A.) Payer increases rates

B.) Employers purchase insurance from Plans/Payers

A+B = Employers cut healthcare benefits. Employees forced to buy Healthcare by the government. Guess what happens?

Yes - by any rational standard that is an insult.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

So, in other words, you don't really have enough facts to support your conclusions. And you were still confused about the whole extrapolate from BS to businesses in general idea which had nothing to do with what was being discussed. Sometimes the facts you have aren't really the facts you need. Waving the "I have facts" flag in these situations doesn't really get you anywhere.

With all due respect, I feel the facts in the article don't support his conclusion. That was my point all along.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

With all due respect, I feel the facts in the article don't support his conclusion. That was my point all along.

That hasn't been your point all along, but it's a slightly better point than the one you were trying to make because it's not completely off-base and driven by a total misread of the argument.

The facts in the article don't prove his point, but they're certainly consistent with it. In that sense, they do support his point.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Bootlegged

Anyone that can't understand the basic math of

A.) Payer increases rates

B.) Employers purchase insurance from Plans/Payers

A+B = Employers cut healthcare benefits. Employees forced to buy Healthcare by the government. Guess what happens?

Yes - by any rational standard that is an insult.

No I understand that just fine. My problem is with your fallacy of association. Some does not equal all.

Your argument is one company raised their rates. One does not equal all.

Once that is eliminated then you have no argument for a government conspiracy to make everyone buy government health insurance by a giant rate increase. What you need is proof that all rates went up to the point that employers couldn't afford them and from what I've seen there is no conclusive evidence out there for that opinion.

[Bootlegged]

Originally Posted by Bootlegged

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...-premiums.html



Health insurance premiums may as much as double for some small businesses and individual buyers in the U.S. when the Affordable Care Act’s major provisions start in 2014, Aetna Inc. (AET)’s chief executive officer said.

While subsidies in the law will shield some people, other consumers who make too much for assistance are in for “premium rate shock,” Mark Bertolini, who runs the third-biggest U.S. health-insurance company, told analysts yesterday at a conference in New York. The prospect has spurred discussion of having Congress delay or phase in parts of the law, he said.

“We’ve shared it all with the people in Washington and I think it’s a big concern,” the CEO said. “We’re going to see some markets go up as much as as 100 percent.”

Bertolini’s prediction is at odds with Congressional Budget Office estimates that the law will have little effect on small and large-employer plans and the Obama administration’s projections that middle-class families will actually save money. The 2010 law is expected to extend health care to about 30 million people who otherwise couldn’t get insurance, paid for by new taxes and fees on companies and wealthier individuals.

Those taxes will make coverage more expensive for insurers, as will other provisions such as a ban on discriminating against people with pre-existing medical conditions, Bertolini said. Premiums are likely to increase 25 percent to 50 percent on average in the small-group and individual markets, he said, citing projections by his Hartford, Connecticut-based company.
High Estimate

The one-time jump in rates also includes increases in costs that would come even without the law, Bertolini said.

“That just seems silly,” said Gary Claxton, a vice president at Kaiser Family Foundation, a Menlo Park, California- based nonprofit that studies health issues. “I can’t imagine anything going on in the small-group market that would change the average premium that much. On the individual market, there’s arguments for things changing, but those magnitudes seem high.”

The Obama administration said last year that “middle-class families” buying insurance through the law’s new online exchanges may save as much as $2,300 a year starting in 2014. Nick Papas, a White House spokesman, declined to comment on Bertolini’s predictions.

The CBO estimated in 2009 that the law will increase premiums 10 percent to 13 percent for individuals and have little effect on small and large-employer plans. After the subsidies are factored in, individual bills will go down by about 60 percent, the agency predicted.

About 43 percent of people who buy on the exchanges, or individual markets outside of them, won’t be eligible for subsidies, according to the report. They would see premium increases “somewhat less” than 10 percent to 13 percent, CBO predicted.

Guess you missed this article as well.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

That hasn't been your point all along, but it's a slightly better point than the one you were trying to make because it's not completely off-base and driven by a total misread of the argument.

The facts in the article don't prove his point, but they're certainly consistent with it. In that sense, they do support his point.

I disagree that it supports his statement because I see no need to raise rates to remain profitable when all they are offering is a projected volatility as a reason to do so.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Bootlegged

Guess you missed this article as well.

I haven't read it yet. When I first posted you had not posted that.

Now it comes down to who you believe.

[Bootlegged]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I haven't read it yet. When I first posted you had not posted that.

Now it comes down to who you believe.

Yeah - the business directors or Gary Claxton, an Obama supporter. Gee...

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

No I understand that just fine. My problem is with your fallacy of association. Some does not equal all.

Your argument is one company raised their rates. One does not equal all.

Once that is eliminated then you have no argument for a government conspiracy to make everyone buy government health insurance by a giant rate increase. What you need is proof that all rates went up to the point that employers couldn't afford them and from what I've seen there is no conclusive evidence out there for that opinion.

Good lord. Now you're just flailing. Can you possibly be so insulated from current events to not know that the price of health care continues to rise and that premiums for most insurance policies are rising at a rate faster than inflation?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I disagree that it supports his statement because I see no need to raise rates to remain profitable when all they are offering is a projected volatility as a reason to do so.

You should read the article again then because you've still got your facts garbled.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

A small price to pay to ensure the sick get the care that they need.

What is a large price to pay?