Obamacare cost...

[calicoug]

Right-- it could actually be more than doubling, if it hits that projected 146% ceiling. In Ohio, it's 88%. All your other questions and points of data you haven't seen yet would be fixed by a three minute google search, leading me to believe that your ignorance on those points is willful.

We have already had an entire discussion on California rates and why what you just claimed is wrong. You could read that. The alternative has something to do with willfulness. And there is no way to learn about Ohio in a 3 minute google search. That shallowness of research may indicate why you are confused in California. I'll look into Ohio more.

[All-American]

I already posted an article on Ohio. You could read that.

And as for the "discussion" of why a premium increase of up to 146% does not mean that costs are going up, I'll say only that your ability to state data in the eye and still deny it is not unimpressive, but it is unconvincing.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I observed a 50 year old woman with two asses come rolling out of Target the other day in a Target-owned Rascal. She had obtained a handicapped parking pass presumably because she suffers from making herself morbidly obese. The doctor, undoubtedly paid by Medicaid, SSDI Medicare or the woman's husband's insurance, thought the best solution to this woman's problems was allowing her to only walk 50 feet, instead of 100 feet, to the Target store entrance where she could at last plop her bountiful ass into the Target Hoverround.

I am self-employed and have catastrophic health insurance with a $10,000 deductible -- in fact I have two of these plans. One covers me and one of my kids and the other covers my wife an my other two kids. It's cheaper that way. I view health insurance the same way I view auto insurance. If I rack up $10,000 in medical bills in a year, tough shit for me, but in the meantime I'd rather pay $250 a month to cover my family. Obamacare does away with my type of health plan. Even though I like my health plan, I can't keep it, at least not in its current form. Instead, I am going to have to soon start paying about double what I'm paying now and the theory behind that is so I can subsidize people like the woman with two asses that can't even be bothered to walk into the store from a non-handicapped spot.

Eff-that. I would be more in favor of these people being able to get some $10,000 deductible plan or nothing at all -- whatever the market will bear. If you can't bother to keep your weight within 200 lbs of normal, then we shouldn't be subsidizing your choices. Chances are if people like this have to shell out an extra $10k a year for their own shitty choices then they'll stop making so many shitty choices

[calicoug]

I already posted an article on Ohio. You could read that.

And as for the "discussion" of why a premium increase of up to 146% does not mean that costs are going up, I'll say only that your ability to state data in the eye and still deny it is not unimpressive, but it is unconvincing.

When did I say costs aren't going up? I said growth is slowing. You seemed to realize that when you edited your last post but apparently then forgot it again. And "going up" wasn't your point. You said costs in California are "doubling" (odd given you now suggest a 143% increase if it did occur would be a "doubling").

Unimpressive is a good word here.

[Indy Coug]

When did I say costs aren't going up? I said growth is slowing. You seemed to realize that when you edited your last post but apparently then forgot it again. And "going up" wasn't your point. You said costs in California are "doubling" (odd given you now suggest a 143% increase if it did occur would be a "doubling").

Unimpressive is a good word here.

When you say the growth is slowing, are you referring to the national annual rate of healthcare inflation for the past 2-3 years, or are you referring to something else?

[calicoug]

When you say the growth is slowing, are you referring to the national annual rate of healthcare inflation for the past 2-3 years, or are you referring to something else?

I am referring to national health spending, although the national inflation rate shows the same trends I believe (looks like last year the inflation rate was 2.7% compared to a 5 year average of 3.4% and a 10 year average of 3.8%, but I'm having trouble finding good historical data for free).

[All-American]

When did I say costs aren't going up? I said growth is slowing. You seemed to realize that when you edited your last post but apparently then forgot it again. And "going up" wasn't your point. You said costs in California are "doubling" (odd given you now suggest a 143% increase if it did occur would be a "doubling").

Unimpressive is a good word here.

You got me. Spending is going up and continues to go up. Costs are also going up, and by quite a lot (e.g., 146% in CA and 88% in OH). Nice work.

[calicoug]

You got me. Spending is going up and continues to go up. Costs are also going up, and by quite a lot (e.g., 146% in CA and 88% in OH). Nice work.

You are all over the place. First, we are talking about health care costs. Your 146% amount is a reference to insurance costs, not health care costs, and isn't accurate in any event (unless you think that the lowest published rate of an online seller which is available for less than 10% of the market actually represents the appropriate baseline for measuring increases in "cost").

Second, yes- spending is going up. That was true before Obamacare and will be true after it too. Did you have a proposal in mind for health care reform that would lead to immediate negative growth in health care spending?

[All-American]

You are all over the place. First, we are talking about health care costs. Your 146% amount is a reference to insurance costs, not health care costs,

And to anybody who gets health care via insurance, that's a completely meaningless distinction

and isn't accurate in any event (unless you think that the lowest published rate of an online seller which is available for less than 10% of the market actually represents the appropriate baseline for measuring increases in "cost").

Ah, see, now that's a better argument. At least here, you try to contest the data. But if it's a broader market you want . . .

Second, yes- spending is going up. That was true before Obamacare and will be true after it too. Did you have a proposal in mind for health care reform that would lead to immediate negative growth in health care spending?

But Obamacare isn't moving the ball. We haven't made a dent in the rate of health care spending since it was passed.



http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...sts-and-budget

[calicoug]

And to anybody who gets health care via insurance, that's a completely meaningless distinction

Ah, see, now that's a better argument. At least here, you try to contest the data. But if it's a broader market you want . . .

Did you read the Forbes article this picture came from? It says the picture was created by comparing the price for a Bronze level product against the median price of the five cheapest products available on ehealthinsurance.com.

First, as I have already noted (and you have consistently ignored), the overwhelming majority of individuals do not qualify for the pricing offered by the five cheapest insurance products on ehealthinsurance.com.

Second, the five insurance products available in California are pretty lousy products- far inferior to even the Bronze plan. You can look this up on your own, but I actually went to the website, put in my zipcode, set the age to show me as a 40 year old male, then looked at the results.

The cheapest product is $129 a month (IPF PPO Advantage 3500). The deductible is $3500 and coinsurance is 50%. Office visits are $40 for the first two visits then 50% after the deductible. The second cheapest is the Deductible 50/5000 with HSA ($136 a month). It has a $5000 deductible with 30% coinsurance and I pay 50% for office visits after I meet the deductible. You get the picture. These aren't great insurance products. But even if they were, Forbes also forgets to mention the impact of subsidies.

According to California, a Bronze Plan for 40 year old single individuals would cost the consumer as follows:

Income of 150% of poverty line: $0
200% FPL: $48
250% FPL: $121
300% FPL: $202
400% FPL: $219

And those are real rates- rates that don't vary depending on preexisting conditions or gender or other factors. If you want that insurance product, you can get it at that price. It isn't like ehealthinsurance.com which has a 24 question survey you have to take after you click on "purchase" for the cheapest plan (you can try this too- just type in fake information and you can go through the entire insurance enrollment process). Factors like allergies, consuming alcohol, having panic attacks, expecting a child with anyone even if the mother is not listed in the application, having taken prescription medication in the past 12 months, having received any cosmetic surgery, having any recurring pain, etc. are all factors that ehealthinsurance.com asks about and all factors which impact your low level price. Those prices are an illusion for most Americans- just not most American conservatives who want to use them for a political point.

But Obamacare isn't moving the ball. We haven't made a dent in the rate of health care spending since it was passed.



http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...sts-and-budget

Are you under the impression your chart is unfavorable for Obamacare? In 2011, for the first time in a long time, health care costs grew slower than the rest of the economy (3.9% versus 3.97%). The government generally targets GDP plus one percent for health care spending (that's what Ryan targeted too in his plan, if you are wondering). So to actually be lower than the GDP growth rate is phenomenal.

[All-American]

Are you under the impression your chart is unfavorable for Obamacare? In 2011, for the first time in a long time, health care costs grew slower than the rest of the economy (3.9% versus 3.97%). The government generally targets GDP plus one percent for health care spending (that's what Ryan targeted too in his plan, if you are wondering). So to actually be lower than the GDP growth rate is phenomenal.

And we got there without Obamacare, which appears to have stopped us in our tracks. At any rate, I never heard you say thanks to President Bush for what progress we have made.

[calicoug]

And we got there without Obamacare, which appears to have stopped us in our tracks. At any rate, I never heard you say thanks to President Bush for what progress we have made.

Again it's clear you aren't bothering to read. Economists will tell you why it started slowing- the recession. They will also tell you the recession no longer fully explains why it continues to slow at a pace slower than GDP. What else could help explain things...

I have to appreciate the spin at the end of your post too. "Stopped us in our tracks," you say. Even if we are "stopped" (which requires ignoring GDP but I digress), we are stopped at the lowest point of growth we have seen in a very long time. Stopped at a lower point of growth than GDP. I'm excited for the full rullout of the new conservative rally cry.

"Well- maybe we were wrong in saying costs would skyrocket, but it still isn't doing anything more than keeping costs at their lowest levels in years! Repeal!!!"

[calicoug]

And we got there without Obamacare, which appears to have stopped us in our tracks. At any rate, I never heard you say thanks to President Bush for what progress we have made.

By the way- health care didn't grow more slowly than GDP until 2011- after Obamacare.

[Topper]

By the way- health care didn't grow more slowly than GDP until 2011- after Obamacare.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

More importantly, simple-minded people aggregate the industries and industrywide numbers drawing conclusions they wish to find. Doing so reveal complete and utter ignorance of the trends within the industry. Are costs within health slowing in increases because investments in medical technologies, or are efficiencies of scale for becoming better at older technologies slowing the costs irrespective government intervention in the health insurance industry?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

By the way- health care didn't grow more slowly than GDP until 2011- after Obamacare.

After Obamacare was passed -- not after Obamacare. Are you seriously claiming that the substantive parts of Obamacare were implemented in 2011? Do you think we're all oblivious to the fact that it really isn't coming into being until next year? What possible effect could legislation that is not being implemented for another three years have on the growth in health care spending in 2011?