SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Health Plan Cost for New Yorkers Set to Fall 50%, So the House GOP votes again to kill it< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43965
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 12:46 am  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Kill it?

Yes! Number 38?


Health Plan Cost for New Yorkers Set to Fall 50%
http://www.nytimes.com/2013....hp&_r=0

"Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see their premiums tumble next year in New York State as changes under the federal health care law take effect, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced on Wednesday."


In symbolic vote, House again passes bills to push back 'Obamacare'
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news....re?lite

"“Rather than attempting once again to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which the House has tried nearly 40 times, it's time for the Congress to stop fighting old political battles and join the President in an agenda focused on providing greater economic opportunity and security for middle class families and all those working to get into the middle class,” the Obama administration said in a statement."


Not "GOP " anymore but rather "PLBs" Petulant Little Babies.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
Ecocentric Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5227
Joined: Jun. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 3:42 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The party of no is really scared of this. They pretty much bet the farm that this wouldn't happen. More news like this and the 2014 election may be a whole new story.

--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 7:24 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

This is very unfortunate for insurance executives and board members.

That means that health insurance executives and board members won't get the multi-million dollar stock option packages that have characterized their industry. The obscene "profits" ( to be technical, "margins" ) that are spent on "administrative expenses" will be reduced once people start purchasing their insurance through the exchanges. Free market competition and transparency through the exchanges makes it easy for consumers to compare products and costs.

It is hard to believe that some people are opposed to this new law that makes health insurance policies and their hundreds of pages fine print "exclusions from coverage" simpler and more transparent for consumers.  

Obamacare brings SOME much needed free market competition to the US health insurance and medical care system. For far too long the US medical care system has gotten away with suppressing free market competition.

Even the current misinformation campaign and lobbying financed by the US health insurance and medical care system is falling flat as consumers learn about the new law.

Still, there are those who really expect to see Obama's death squads roaming the hospitals and killing off old people and sick children on January 1.

Those lies aren't enough to to repeal the law.


--------------
watch "All About That Bass" by Meghan Trainor
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 8:51 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Nice headline…….but speaking of fine print…

“The new premium rates do not affect a majority of New Yorkers, who receive insurance through their employers, only those who must purchase it on their own.”

So:
Health Plan Cost for a minority of New Yorkers Set to Fall 50%

“For years, New York has represented much that can go wrong with insurance markets.”

So:
Health Plan Cost for a minority of New Yorkers Set to Fall 50% because of previous bad insurance laws in the state that redistributed costs to other New Yorkers

Then, we can add in the ACA, and are finally left with:

Health Plan Cost for a minority of New Yorkers Set to Fall 50% because of previous bad insurance laws in the state that redistributed costs to other New Yorkers by redistributing cost to other Americans via the ACA
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6501
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 9:05 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(markinOhio @ Jul. 18 2013, 7:51 am)
QUOTE
Nice headline…….but speaking of fine print…

“The new premium rates do not affect a majority of New Yorkers, who receive insurance through their employers, only those who must purchase it on their own.”

So:
Health Plan Cost for a minority of New Yorkers Set to Fall 50%

“For years, New York has represented much that can go wrong with insurance markets.”

So:
Health Plan Cost for a minority of New Yorkers Set to Fall 50% because of previous bad insurance laws in the state that redistributed costs to other New Yorkers

Then, we can add in the ACA, and are finally left with:

Health Plan Cost for a minority of New Yorkers Set to Fall 50% because of previous bad insurance laws in the state that redistributed costs to other New Yorkers by redistributing cost to other Americans via the ACA

Someone else take this one - it's just way too much "low hanging fruit" for me - not even a challenge.

I know, I know: there are so many errors and misconceptions here, it's hard to know where to begin with a response. However, this should be easy for anyone familiar with either the provisions of the ACA or the article in question. Really.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 9:11 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Don’t worry! HSF will be back to set me straight.

I’ll even get him started….ACA was never intended to benefit the majority
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6501
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 9:35 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(markinOhio @ Jul. 18 2013, 8:11 am)
QUOTE
Don’t worry! HSF will be back to set me straight.

I’ll even get him started….ACA was never intended to benefit the majority
Your first two points are pretty much a foregone conclusion, since anyone familiar with the ACA would know the first, and the second is in the article cited.

I had thought about making a point earlier - yesterday when this was first posted? - that it's far too early to evaluate the effect of the ACA on cost. There are simply too many factors involved, and too many situations. The prognostication is generally good, but, luckily, the law itself allows for adjustment - assuming that the opponents of it don't do what they've done to date - fight it tooth and nail as a political maneuver.

If the law ever gets into widespread use -the fear of the right, I suspect - it will be effective enough to be popular. As the article indicates, many people are still, some 4 years later, not sure of the provisions of the law! Once the public does "get it", and assuming it does reduce the rate of increase in the cost of health care, the right will have a very hard time indeed "repealing" it - though I suspect they may very well continue to try to do so for years to come, just to rally the troops.

This item among your "points":
QUOTE
Health Plan Cost for a minority of New Yorkers Set to Fall 50% because of previous bad insurance laws in the state that redistributed costs to other New Yorkers
[My emphasis], as I understood it from reading the article yesterday, is completely wrongheaded - the point in the article was that the NY state plan did NOT properly distribute costs, because it didn't mandate that all people in the target audience for the plan actually participate, so those who considered themselves "too healthy" or "too young" didn't contribute, helping to spread the cost over a larger population, something that ACA does do.

So, you see why I thought this was "low hanging fruit".

Your floor.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 10:53 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Requiring insurance companies to dismiss risk tables and cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions raised the cost of everyone in New York through redistributing that cost.

The “fix” in the ACA, the driving force behind the reduced cost for a minority of New Yorkers, is the mandate which redistributes that cost to other Americans (those that are not means-tested out of subsidies).

Redistributing cost is not the same as reducing cost (I know, never intended to reduce cost). I fully understand that you can easily dismiss that point because we have fundamentally different ideas about which segment of the population is responsible for the burden of health care costs, and which segment of the population should benefit from health care reform in general. While it is low hanging fruit for the high minded, it is still beyond the grasp of the proletariat.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6501
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 11:09 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Yet, you ignore that the previously "redistributed costs" of caring for the uninsured were much larger, since care was not proactive (couldn't be), was given at the highest possible cost (emergency room), and that doesn't even consider the "social cost" of not having health care for a substantial portion of the public and the impact on people (esp. children, and their education) and the ability of those same people to maintain jobs at the low end of the scale, where health care isn't generally provided. (I think you meant "those who are means-tested out of subsidies.")

In those above ways, reduction in cost was clearly an intention of the ACA from the very start. And that isn't the only way in which it attempts to reduce cost of health care.

I'm surprised that you omitted the discussion in that article of "competition" - that seems to be a big "buzzword" with the right, yet you neglected it.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
Raznation Search for posts by this member.
Why surf when you can make waves!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 24421
Joined: Sep. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 1:04 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

http://youtu.be/Cgfnu9U_Jzo

*warning - rated R for language and finger use*


--------------
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 11
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 1:05 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Gabby @ Jul. 18 2013, 11:09 am)
QUOTE
Yet, you ignore that the previously "redistributed costs" of caring for the uninsured were much larger, since care was not proactive (couldn't be), was given at the highest possible cost (emergency room), and that doesn't even consider the "social cost" of not having health care for a substantial portion of the public and the impact on people (esp. children, and their education) and the ability of those same people to maintain jobs at the low end of the scale, where health care isn't generally provided. (I think you meant "those who are means-tested out of subsidies.")

In those above ways, reduction in cost was clearly an intention of the ACA from the very start. And that isn't the only way in which it attempts to reduce cost of health care.

I'm surprised that you omitted the discussion in that article of "competition" - that seems to be a big "buzzword" with the right, yet you neglected it.

I think that you are under the false impression that I attack the ACA from a position to the Right. I don’t think that they would be too accepting of my views on socialization….or at least something much closer to socialization than the ACA.

I’m not ignoring the redistributed cost of uninsured, I just don’t believe that it is any different than the redistributed cost of ACA (just now mandated by law). similar argument for preventive care.

Social cost? I guess that value depends on your perspective, The ACA redistribution of cost + means-tested subsidies will still pick winners (the poor) and losers (the middle class).
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43965
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 2:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Anyone who is of the opinion that uninsured and thus uncompensated-for medical treatment costs went uncollected from some one should be in the market for a great bridge I'm pricing to sell over the East River.

That " some one" would include the "middle class" whose employer provided health insurance would be priced accordingly as the medical care providers cover their total operating expenses.

Oh and on the Linguini Alert? ANY insurance system "redistributes": that's the purpose. :) From all of those that share the risk to the fewer who incur the losses.


Given my very first quoted sentence, the very lead sentence of the article so hardly "fine print" :D ,  was merely restated in some mistaken concept of rebuttal? Pass.

But rather than belabor the low hanging fruit of what the ACA bills have accomplished in terms of health insurance costs why not go after the ACA bills for what they have totally and so far (yes, yes, 2014 blah blah) completely failed in the promise to do? Namely the esteemed Senator McConnells pledge that we would get socialized medicine from these bills? I walk hallways crawling with medical doctors and let me tell you they're the same arrogant bastards they've always been, not nearly socialized from my experience, and We Were Promised! PLus he pledged plug-piulling and I don't know about anyone else's list but all of the people on the one I sent in are all still walkiong about carefree!

Then there's the no-longer-even-worthy-of-late-night-punchlines Palin's promise and pledge we'd get roving death squads for the "unproductive"? Well lo and behold as recently as this morning I see the entire Republican House Caucus is still about, and if cranking out a seemingly endless series of meaningless not-repeals of  HeritageFoundation/Romney/HillaryClinton/Latetotheparty-Obama-Care doesn't earn that bunch the manacles and The Wall I cannot see anything but an ACA FAIL!

RE Alabama? Given the excuses trotted out for raising prices long before any of the ACA bills' provisions had taken effect (and many of them have yet to do so) I'd prefer a documented report rather than an anecdote. Employees were getting lied to months after the bill's had passed and long before any of it's provisions had started blaming "ObamaCare" for their insurance getting upped, when there was zero connection. Though it is true that for coverage to match that outlined in the exchange standards that level of coverage would be a higher cost than some bare bones or so tightly restricted the price was unrealistically low and [i]not/i] a reasonable comparison. There was a popular piece put out trumpeting how California insurance costs were going to go up that was debunked for those very reasons which was discussed a bit ago on this very site. Turns out the author was "comparing" super bare bones policies with huge deductibles and monster exclusions people who are eligible for the exchange never could purchase to what the exchange prices might be, whose provisions even at the lowest level are not that stripped. Comparing Apples to billiard balls, which doesn't actually further the discussion. And there's an enormous amount of that sort of misinformation swirling around.

We are talking about one big chunk of the entire United States economy after all.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
EGreno Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 2:18 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Private insurance went up in Alabama to cover the cost of insuring the new large group.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 2:42 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Of course the people actually making insurance payments were/are paying for the uninsured. Who is paying under the ACA if not those same individuals?

Any insurance system redistributes cost, but traditionally those costs were redistributed based on risk, not on a means-tested ability to pay.

Prices going up in Alabama? Hey, some winners and some losers….But, it is great legislation if you happen to be deemed a winner, and NOT be forced (or even asked) to pay your own way.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43965
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 2:47 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

So, M what's your plan and what's it's cost impacts?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10262
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 2:56 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(markinOhio @ Jul. 18 2013, 8:51 am)
QUOTE
“For years, New York has represented much that can go wrong with insurance markets.”

I'm glad it was mentioned. Relating a 50% improvement of New York's insurance markets is like saying your genital herpes is feeling 50% better today.

--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43965
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 2:57 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(WalksWithBlackflies @ Jul. 18 2013, 11:56 am)
QUOTE

(markinOhio @ Jul. 18 2013, 8:51 am)
QUOTE
“For years, New York has represented much that can go wrong with insurance markets.”

I'm glad it was mentioned. Relating a 50% improvement of New York's insurance markets is like saying your genital herpes is feeling 50% better today.

That's more or less true nationwide: which was the point of the legislative effort and the Heritage Foundation's early considerations on issues such as personal responsibility in the mid-nineties.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
SW Mtn backpacker Search for posts by this member.
Born to hike, forced to work ...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7314
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 3:00 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

OMG!  You mean more health spending actually going to treatment and prevention instead of the CEO and assorted cronies in admin, marketeering, etc...?  How are we going to solve the health problems in this country if an HMO CEO isn't allowed to buy that 6th coastal mansion, instead of spending those moocher patients, with their "illnesses" and "injuries"?  

Don't they know their duty is to pay their premiums and then take their benefits denied letter with good nature before they roll over dead?


--------------
Usually Southwest and then some.

In wildness is the preservation of the world. - Henry Thoreau
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 3:08 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Jul. 18 2013, 2:47 pm)
QUOTE
So, M what's your plan and what's it's cost impacts?

You got me! I don’t have a plan.

But, I don’t think that asking for a plan that will benefit the majority of Americans is unreasonable. Or, if that is simply asking too much, a plan that will not adversely effect the majority of Americans.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 3:31 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(SW Mtn backpacker @ Jul. 18 2013, 3:00 pm)
QUOTE
OMG!  You mean more health spending actually going to treatment and prevention instead of the CEO and assorted cronies in admin, marketeering, etc...?  How are we going to solve the health problems in this country if an HMO CEO isn't allowed to buy that 6th coastal mansion, instead of spending those moocher patients, with their "illnesses" and "injuries"?  

Don't they know their duty is to pay their premiums and then take their benefits denied letter with good nature before they roll over dead?

That sounds great…

Until you think about just how much impact limiting profit margins and insurance executive compensation will have on the health insurance cost for the majority of Americans.

What is the ACA cap? 10-15%?
What is the median profit margin for insurance companies? 4%?

The middle class knows their duty, pay for yourself, add a little more so other’s don’t have to pay, roll over and play dead.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43965
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 3:45 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(markinOhio @ Jul. 18 2013, 12:31 pm)
QUOTE

(SW Mtn backpacker @ Jul. 18 2013, 3:00 pm)
QUOTE
OMG!  You mean more health spending actually going to treatment and prevention instead of the CEO and assorted cronies in admin, marketeering, etc...?  How are we going to solve the health problems in this country if an HMO CEO isn't allowed to buy that 6th coastal mansion, instead of spending those moocher patients, with their "illnesses" and "injuries"?  

Don't they know their duty is to pay their premiums and then take their benefits denied letter with good nature before they roll over dead?

That sounds great…

Until you think about just how much impact limiting profit margins and insurance executive compensation will have on the health insurance cost for the majority of Americans.
What is the ACA cap? 10-15%?
What is the median profit margin for insurance companies? 4%?
The middle class knows their duty, pay for yourself, add a little more so other’s don’t have to pay, roll over and play dead.

Well,  marketing, overheads and profit (as used in determining the ACA's medical loss ratio) are not the same thing as simply profit margins?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 4:18 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

So it will make a significant impact on health insurance cost for those that actually have to pay?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
wwwest Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6763
Joined: Dec. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 6:56 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Yes, of course it wil have a very significant impact for everyone who has to pay for health insurance:

1.  When fully implemented nearly all of the uninsured will have become insured, so that they are paying their fair share of medical insurance costs, and they will be able to have normal, cost effective preventative care rather than showing up at the ER and foisting off the incredibly high costs of emergent care onto the taxpayers and those who had health care insurance before ACA took effect.

The fact that many mid-20 year olds have been added to their parents insurance has already helped significantly because those are the most healthy group in the population and when they pay for insurance it lowers the amount needed for the less healthy.

You do not need to be a rocket scilentist, nor even a brain surgeon, to understand these concepts.

We won't have really efficient health care until we get to single payer, like every other intelligent nation in the world, but this is a first step in the right direction.

The camel's big nose is all the way in the tent.


--------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 8:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(wwwest @ Jul. 18 2013, 6:56 pm)
QUOTE
The fact that many mid-20 year olds have been added to their parents insurance has already helped significantly because those are the most healthy group in the population and when they pay for insurance it lowers the amount needed for the less healthy.

You do not need to be a rocket scilentist, nor even a brain surgeon, to understand these concepts.

Actually isn’t the exact opposite true? Since they can now stay on their parents plan, and they do NOT pay for health insurance?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 11:17 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

markinOhio
QUOTE
What is the ACA cap? 10-15%?
What is the median profit margin for insurance companies? 4%?


The 4% profit margin is not exactly honest when stock option packages for executives and board members of as much as 300 million are counted as an "expense" and even then hidden from shareholders until such stock options are exercised. Dodd-Frank makes this reporting more transparent. But the 4% number still fools a lot of people.

Counting stock options, bonuses, perks, etc as profits and using only salaries as executive compensation would show that health insurance is a VERY lucrative business. The problem is that shareholders don't get a big share.


--------------
watch "All About That Bass" by Meghan Trainor
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43965
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 18 2013, 11:21 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Ezra Klein gets it.

"New York has, for 20 years now, been a long-running experiment in what happens to universal coverage without an individual mandate. It’s the type of law the country would have if House Republicans succeeded in delaying the individual mandate, as they will vote to do this afternoon. The result: a small insurance market with very high insurance premiums."

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs....n&clsrd

Republicans bring pro. "Free ride "? Who knew?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
ScotH Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1728
Joined: Feb. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 19 2013, 5:52 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(markinOhio @ Jul. 18 2013, 8:06 pm)
QUOTE

(wwwest @ Jul. 18 2013, 6:56 pm)
QUOTE
The fact that many mid-20 year olds have been added to their parents insurance has already helped significantly because those are the most healthy group in the population and when they pay for insurance it lowers the amount needed for the less healthy.

You do not need to be a rocket scilentist, nor even a brain surgeon, to understand these concepts.

Actually isn’t the exact opposite true? Since they can now stay on their parents plan, and they do NOT pay for health insurance?

Not paying for coverage, all of this age group being covered, a disproprtionately higher use of medical services because there is coverage available to them. These circumstances would not lend themselves to driving down the cost of coverage, the reverse would be true.
It is wonderful that plans for individuals will decrease significantly in expense. They have been insanely expensive for years and in many cases have been purchased and then terminated after needed medical services were provided. Hopefully more people will purchase coverage and be able to maintain it due to the decreased expense.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
wwwest Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6763
Joined: Dec. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 19 2013, 2:24 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"Actually isn’t the exact opposite true? Since they can now stay on their parents plan, and they do NOT pay for health insurance? "

What, you think that kids get added to their parents insurance at no cost?

What planet are you on??  

Of course they have to pay for coverage, whether it is the 20 something kid or the parents who actually pay the money makes no difference to the health care system.  They are covered, they are paying an appropriate premium for the coverage, and they will not defer preventative and routine care until they have to show up at the ER as uninsured disasters.

Just a guess on my part, but I bet if Mom is paying the premium she makes sure that junior is getting regular health care, even more than if junior pays him/herself.


--------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 19 2013, 5:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(wwwest @ Jul. 19 2013, 2:24 pm)
QUOTE
"Actually isn’t the exact opposite true? Since they can now stay on their parents plan, and they do NOT pay for health insurance? "

What, you think that kids get added to their parents insurance at no cost?

What planet are you on??  

Of course they have to pay for coverage, whether it is the 20 something kid or the parents who actually pay the money makes no difference to the health care system.  They are covered, they are paying an appropriate premium for the coverage, and they will not defer preventative and routine care until they have to show up at the ER as uninsured disasters.

Just a guess on my part, but I bet if Mom is paying the premium she makes sure that junior is getting regular health care, even more than if junior pays him/herself.

Yes, children get added to their parents plan at no additional cost. Now, if it a single parent without any other children, then the parent would have to pay more for the family plan.  However, that would still be significantly less than a second individual plan.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
wwwest Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6763
Joined: Dec. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 20 2013, 12:41 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

Our children NEVER got added to our plan at no additional cost, not for their whole lives.  The cost is certainly less than a single individual would pay, but it is the appropriate cost, determined by the insurance company of what coverage of that child is needed for the company to make a profit by providing said insurance.

WASHINGTON — The White House issued rules on Monday allowing young adults to remain covered by their parents’ health insurance policies up to age 26.

The promise of such coverage has attracted great interest. Employers and insurers say they have been flooded with inquiries.

Under the rules, an employer-sponsored health plan or a company selling individual insurance policies must offer coverage to subscribers’ children up to the age of 26, regardless of whether a child lives with his or her parents, attends college, is a dependent for income-tax purposes or receives financial support from the parents.

Coverage is to be available to married and unmarried children alike.

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, estimated that 1.2 million people would gain coverage because of the new requirement.

The health department estimated that the average cost to cover each new enrollee would be $3,380 in 2011, $3,500 in 2012 and $3,690 in 2013.

The cost will be borne by all families with employer-sponsored insurance, with family premiums expected to rise by about 1 percent, the government said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/health/policy/11health.html?_r=0


--------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
32 replies since Jul. 18 2013, 12:46 am < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Health Plan Cost for New Yorkers Set to Fall 50%
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions