Obamacare cost...

[calicoug]

Since both you and MRD are using theoreticals to support your position, I think the insurance industry would provide the best indicator as to who is more likely to be accurate. While it is widely believed that the insurance lobby was behind McCain's proposal to eliminate the state line rule, individual companies have been conspicuously silent on the issue. The two exceptions are the AARP, which sells insurance and opposes cross-state insurance pooling, and Blue Cross, which takes this position on its BCBS Minnesota website:



I would suppose that insurers would be all over a proposal that allowed them to reside in one state and profit by pooling across state lines, but at least in two instances, insurers are taking the opposite position. This at least suggests that the current arrangement allows companies to benefit more by having their own monopoly than they would by taking up residence in a less regulated state.

Of course insurers don't like change. If they already have a dominant market position, allowing sales across state lines opens them to a lot of risk. That doesn't mean opening sales across state lines is better for the consumer. It simply means many insurance companies would have to incur a lot of costs in moving to a low regulation state and may not be able to enjoy the same market power they once had. Similarly, insurance companies are not excited about the exchanges. The exchanges make it nearly impossible for an insurance company to offer an outrageously low premium for a product in an advertisement only to sign up about 95% of subscribers at a rate far higher than the advertised premium (due to health risks, age risks, gender, prior history, etc.).

[Uncle Ted]

Health care costs are not spiraling out of control. Growth in health care costs is actually slowing. Bad news for those who predicted Obamacare would cause costs to skyrocket.

Obamacare certainly has flaws, but it is nonsense like comparing the health care bill to the Dred Scott decision that makes it impossible to take seriously anything Republicans are saying.

I guess health insurance costs going up as much as 116% is slowing?

Health Insurers Warn on Premiums

Health insurers are privately warning brokers that premiums for many individuals and small businesses could increase sharply next year because of the health-care overhaul law, with the nation's biggest firm projecting that rates could more than double for some consumers buying their own plans.

[...]

In a private presentation to brokers late last month, UnitedHealth Group Inc., UNH -0.55% the nation's largest carrier, said premiums for some consumers buying their own plans could go up as much as 116%, and small-business rates as much as 25% to 50%.

[...]

Other carriers have also projected steep rate increases during private meetings and conversations with brokers. Brokers say they are being told to prepare the marketplace for small-business and individual rate increases as carriers get ready to file specific rate proposals and plan designs with regulators.


Insurers are "not being shy that premiums are going to increase in 2014," and are urging brokers to "brace our clients," said John Lacy, vice president of group benefits at Bouchard Insurance, a brokerage in Clearwater, Fla. His firm has been hearing from carrier representatives that individual premiums in Florida could go up 35% to 50%, on average, and small-business rates around 30%, though it hopes to find strategies to blunt the impact.


Aetna Inc., AET -1.72% in a presentation last fall to its national broker advisory council, suggested rates on individual plans not being grandfathered under the law could go up 55%, on average, and gave a figure of 29% for small business rates. Both numbers included 10 percentage points tied to medical-cost inflation, not the law. An Aetna spokesman said the numbers are "still generally in line with what we've been estimating," and represented the average impact in a typical state.


An official with Blue Cross & Blue Shield of North Carolina told a gathering of brokers last week that individual premiums could go up by as much as 40% to 50%, according to brokers who were present.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...054496682.html

I think is it all in the demographics you look at. A healthy male that is less than 49 years old and is on an individual plan (e.g. me) will most likely see their insurance costs skyrocket. Older people on a large company plan may actually see their health insurance costs increases appear to be slowing (thanks to the young, healthy males paying a lot more into the pools).

So given there is a lot less of a monetary incentive to be healthy (given the law pretty much prevents insurance companies from charging higher premiums prices if you are, say, overweight and otherwise unhealthy) and given the young and healthy will have less money to spend on things like health clubs one has to wonder if we will see a sharp increase in things like obesity. That, in turn, could create a spiraling effect on the group's health care costs.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Health care costs are not spiraling out of control. Growth in health care costs is actually slowing. Bad news for those who predicted Obamacare would cause costs to skyrocket.

Obamacare certainly has flaws, but it is nonsense like comparing the health care bill to the Dred Scott decision that makes it impossible to take seriously anything Republicans are saying.

Baghdadbob Coug is at it again. It's hard to take you seriously when you talk about health care costs instead of health insurance costs. My post mentioned one but not the other. You chose to address the one my post didn't mention and chose to not discuss the increase in health insurance. That's the standard bullshit we've all come to expect out of you.

[All-American]

I guess health insurance costs going up as much as 116% is slowing?

Right. Because it could have been 150%. Only a republican would fail to notice that 116% is less than 150%.

[Topper]

Right. Because it could have been 150%. Only a republican would fail to notice that 116% is less than 150%.

That surmisal is highly speculative. You can state unequivocally without Obamacare, health insurance premiums were guaranteed to rise by 150%? (Could have been, also means they could have decreased but for government's intervention) You know nobody knows anything about that hypothetical. The exchanges have not been successful, and there is nothing in the actuarial sciences which indicate a likelihood that the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act has achieved its purpose.

There are lots of speculative support by those advocating for more governmental control, but there is no reliable empirical evidence to support this claim. The health care industries is too vast a set of industries to get a handle on it, to have evidence to support any such claims.

[All-American]

That surmisal is highly speculative. You can state unequivocally without Obamacare, health insurance premiums were guaranteed to rise by 150%? (Could have been, also means they could have decreased but for government's intervention) You know nobody knows anything about that hypothetical. The exchanges have not been successful, and there is nothing in the actuarial sciences which indicate a likelihood that the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act has achieved its purpose.

There are lots of speculative support by those advocating for more governmental control, but there is no reliable empirical evidence to support this claim. The health care industries is too vast a set of industries to get a handle on it, to have evidence to support any such claims.

Well, then, I'm sure it WOULD have been a big success if only republicans wouldn't get in the way of enforcing it.

[Topper]

Well, then, I'm sure it WOULD have been a big success if only republicans wouldn't get in the way of enforcing it.

Your intelligence notwithstanding, your public confidence in a government intervention in an industry for which you've demonstrated no particular appreciation or understanding does NOT inspire confidence in your support.

First, it's not one industry, the health care industries. And the health insurance industry is really a fragmented series of markets. Costs are driven by predictable factors and non-predictable factors, such as the outbreak of a new disease or an unforeseen shortage. When politically biased advocates promote a far-reaching policy change over a complex spiderweb of industries, it shows how naive and ill-informed such persons are. Thus, the desire to tackle the mess shows ignorance enough.

[Indy Coug]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...on+Act+of+1945

[Uncle Ted]

Right. Because it could have been 150%. Only a republican would fail to notice that 116% is less than 150%.

Oh, so that's how Obama is going keep his promise of cutting health insurance premiums by $2,500. It is like when your wife hits a "great sale" and "saves a ton of money". And he would have got it done his first term if it wasn't for those damn republicans.

[All-American]

Your intelligence notwithstanding, your public confidence in a government intervention in an industry for which you've demonstrated no particular appreciation or understanding does NOT inspire confidence in your support.

First, it's not one industry, the health care industries. And the health insurance industry is really a fragmented series of markets. Costs are driven by predictable factors and non-predictable factors, such as the outbreak of a new disease or an unforeseen shortage. When politically biased advocates promote a far-reaching policy change over a complex spiderweb of industries, it shows how naive and ill-informed such persons are. Thus, the desire to tackle the mess shows ignorance enough.

But. . . but . . . Mitt's tax returns! greedy wall street! BUSH! BUSH!

(Guys, really. Is it not clear how facetious I am being? I despise Obamacare.)

[calicoug]

I guess health insurance costs going up as much as 116% is slowing?


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...054496682.html

I think is it all in the demographics you look at. A healthy male that is less than 49 years old and is on an individual plan (e.g. me) will most likely see their insurance costs skyrocket. Older people on a large company plan may actually see their health insurance costs increases appear to be slowing (thanks to the young, healthy males paying a lot more into the pools).

So given there is a lot less of a monetary incentive to be healthy (given the law pretty much prevents insurance companies from charging higher premiums prices if you are, say, overweight and otherwise unhealthy) and given the young and healthy will have less money to spend on things like health clubs one has to wonder if we will see a sharp increase in things like obesity. That, in turn, could create a spiraling effect on the group's health care costs.

As you note, insurance costs vary depending on the demographics of the group. That said, the overall health care costs are slowing which clearly should put downward pressure on health insurance costs in the long run too.

[calicoug]

Baghdadbob Coug is at it again. It's hard to take you seriously when you talk about health care costs instead of health insurance costs. My post mentioned one but not the other. You chose to address the one my post didn't mention and chose to not discuss the increase in health insurance. That's the standard bullshit we've all come to expect out of you.

Ah. My apologies. I didn't realize that health care costs were totally dependent from health insurance costs. Silly me. I mistakenly suggested that if overall costs are slowing it would have any impact on insurance in the long run. Clearly, insurance prices will escalate no matter what the underlying health care costs are doing. You should let market experts know that we are all focusing on the wrong thing. The most important cost to focus on is insurance. The actual costs that insurance covers are irrelevant.

Duly noted.

[calicoug]

But. . . but . . . Mitt's tax returns! greedy wall street! BUSH! BUSH!

(Guys, really. Is it not clear how facetious I am being? I despise Obamacare.)

Are you going to take that Topper? Hit him back! You have him on the ropes now!

[Uncle Ted]

As you note, insurance costs vary depending on the demographics of the group. That said, the overall health care costs are slowing which clearly should put downward pressure on health insurance costs in the long run too.

So there some group who will actually save $2,500 pay less on their health insurance? I am guessing that group is currently the uninsurable.

[Topper]

As you note, insurance costs vary depending on the demographics of the group. That said, the overall health care costs are slowing which clearly should put downward pressure on health insurance costs in the long run too.

You really believe government can impact those factors? When do government policies successfully affect market prices over the long haul? I am not familiar with very many such situations and no such for large industries. Government is too blunt an instrument to achieve that result. Slowing down of increases is the result of other forces, not government policies.