Obamacare cost...

[calicoug]

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.

Of course it can impact pricing. You are viewing the law as if the government is actually offering health insurance in lieu of market participants. That isn't what Obamacare does. Simple changes in the law, like electronic records, taxes on Cadillac plans, creating a transparent market for insurance products, incentivizing results oriented medicine rather than services oriented medicine, etc are all means economists have requested for years to lower costs. They also happen to all be in Obamacare.

At least we can agree on this: costs are slowing. They have been for a while now and the slowing is continuing under Obamacare. So at a minimum conservative predictions that Obamacare would increase costs (or "ruin the healthcare system" ) appear to be completely wrong.

[All-American]

So at a minimum conservative predictions that Obamacare would increase costs (or "ruin the healthcare system" ) appear to be completely wrong.

I'll give you a free do-over on this sentence. Just this once. Try it again.

[ERCougar]

Of course it can impact pricing. You are viewing the law as if the government is actually offering health insurance in lieu of market participants. That isn't what Obamacare does. Simple changes in the law, like electronic records, taxes on Cadillac plans, creating a transparent market for insurance products, incentivizing results oriented medicine rather than services oriented medicine, etc are all means economists have requested for years to lower costs. They also happen to all be in Obamacare.

At least we can agree on this: costs are slowing. They have been for a while now and the slowing is continuing under Obamacare. So at a minimum conservative predictions that Obamacare would increase costs (or "ruin the healthcare system" ) appear to be completely wrong.

The problem that Obama has run into is that he promised things he could never meet. It was going to cost more to bring the uninsurable into the insurance market. Everyone knew this. Now Obama's paying the price of lying about it. I have mixed feelings about it, honestly, because this is political opportunism by the Republicans who have turned a blind eye to the problem for twenty years, but it's part of the game.

I agree with all of the features of Obamacare that you've highlighted, but you're conveniently leaving a few out (mandating employer-based coverage for full time workers, for one) that are wreaking havoc with the economy and aren't going to do anything to rein in healthcare costs.

[calicoug]

The problem that Obama has run into is that he promised things he could never meet. It was going to cost more to bring the uninsurable into the insurance market. Everyone knew this. Now Obama's paying the price of lying about it. I have mixed feelings about it, honestly, because this is political opportunism by the Republicans who have turned a blind eye to the problem for twenty years, but it's part of the game.

I agree with all of the features of Obamacare that you've highlighted, but you're conveniently leaving a few out (mandating employer-based coverage for full time workers, for one) that are wreaking havoc with the economy and aren't going to do anything to rein in healthcare costs.

Running health care through employers is hardly Obama's idea. It's one I would have much preferred to see abandoned entirely, but that wasn't going to be politically possible no matter which party was running things. I would strongly prefer a system where all individuals participate in the exchanges and employer based care is ended completely. Remove all tax incentives for employers to give health care to employees and you will see pay increase and all employees can then purchase plans that actually meet their needs (employer care is often far in excess of what employees really would want or purchase if left to their own devices). That was never an option on the table and it still isn't. We can wish it was, but blaming the law for including a fundamental reality about the American economy seems a bit silly to me. Hopefully this is something we can change in the next 20-30 years.

[All-American]

At least we can agree on this: costs are slowing. They have been for a while now and the slowing is continuing under Obamacare. So at a minimum conservative predictions that Obamacare would increase costs (or "ruin the healthcare system" ) appear to be completely wrong.

No, we can't agree on that. How on earth can you make that claim when premiums are doubling in California and near-doubling in Ohio?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...ealth-dollars/

SPENDING is going down, not COST. Any econ 101 student would be able to explain why spending goes down as costs go up.

EDIT: and, of course, I'm being a little imprecise with my statement above-- both spending and costs, as noted, are still going up, even if the rate at which spending is increasing is a little less.

[cowboy]

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.).

I don't know what your degree is in, but if you ever passed a business or econ class, some professors need to be fired. Insurance companies only incur costs to transfer to low regulation states if the move will make them more profitable than they are now. If something affords them the chance to be more profitable, then I'm having a hard time imagining why they would oppose it. Also, anything that transfers power from suppliers benefits buyers, in this case consumers. There were a couple of arguments that you could have made to bolster your position here, and you made none of them.

[il Padrino Ute]

I don't know what your degree is in, but if you ever passed a business or econ class, some professors need to be fired. Insurance companies only incur costs to transfer to low regulation states if the move will make them more profitable than they are now. If something affords them the chance to be more profitable, then I'm having a hard time imagining why they would oppose it. Also, anything that transfers power from suppliers benefits buyers, in this case consumers. There were a couple of arguments that you could have made to bolster your position here, and you made none of them.

the worshiper cowboy

[Indy Coug]

Here's an actuarial point of view from some of the rank and file. Keep in mind that not every actuary there is a healthcare actuary and that there are a lot of padawan learners that post on here, so don't interpret comments as necessarily representing professional consensus on the topic.

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actu...ight=Obamacare

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actu...amacare&page=2

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actu...ight=Obamacare

[calicoug]

No, we can't agree on that. How on earth can you make that claim when premiums are doubling in California and near-doubling in Ohio?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...ealth-dollars/

SPENDING is going down, not COST. Any econ 101 student would be able to explain why spending goes down as costs go up.

EDIT: and, of course, I'm being a little imprecise with my statement above-- both spending and costs, as noted, are still going up, even if the rate at which spending is increasing is a little less.

First, Premiums are not doubling in California. We have already covered this. I haven't looked into data on Ohio, but based on your position on California I suspect you're wrong there too.

Second, it actually appears that the cost curve is bending downwards. Spending began declining in 2006. Most economists attributed the decline and spending to the recession. Since Obamacare was enacted, that reduction in spending has actually increased. Because of that decline in spending appears to be due to a decline in costs. I am unaware of any study that supports your proposition that spending has decreased because costs are skyrocketing. There are some who believe spending has decreased because consumers have less money in their pockets while costs have increased at a normal pace, but that's completely different than your position. As I said before, however, while we can argue as to whether it is clear Obamacare is bending the cost curve downwards, it is clear the conservative response of "costs will skyrocket" is not true. Even though you still seem to buy it.

[calicoug]

I don't know what your degree is in, but if you ever passed a business or econ class, some professors need to be fired. Insurance companies only incur costs to transfer to low regulation states if the move will make them more profitable than they are now. If something affords them the chance to be more profitable, then I'm having a hard time imagining why they would oppose it. Also, anything that transfers power from suppliers benefits buyers, in this case consumers. There were a couple of arguments that you could have made to bolster your position here, and you made none of them.

You are missing some key points here. Insurance companies today in most states are effectively an oligopoly. If insurance is permitted to be sold across state lines, their oligopoly would be threatened. That isn't a particularly desirable result for the insurance companies which already have market dominance. Their ability to sell across state lines would mean that they could participate in an even larger market and potentially also earn an increasing portion of profits. However, the same is also true of many other market participants, some of which will already be set up in states which become low regulation states. The ability of insurance companies with a dominant market position in one state to compete this not mean they will also have the same ability to compete in a new regulatory environment.

My point, however, is that merely because insurance companies have a reason to be nervous about changes in the regulations which would increase competition across state lines does not mean that the ultimate result is good for consumers. While prices may decline for insurance products, the quality of the insurance products which are available to consumers and the protections the consumers have under the law would also decline.

[Indy Coug]

Any insurance product sold in a state has to be filed in and approved by that state. You can't create a product while domiciled in a different state and then sell it indiscriminately nationwide without regard to each state's requirements.

Just as a very quick example, we don't bother selling in Montana because Montana requires us to charge unisex rates for life insurance. This requires overhead for developing a different set of rates specifically for Montana and adds to the administrative overhead. The development and maintenance costs for doing this is not cost-justified because Montana is such a small state, so we opt not to write business there. We don't have the option to ignore the unisex rate requirement just because our company is domiciled in a different state that doesn't have this dumbass requirement.

[All-American]

First, Premiums are not doubling in California. We have already covered this. I haven't looked into data on Ohio, but based on your position on California I suspect you're wrong there too.

Second, it actually appears that the cost curve is bending downwards. Spending began declining in 2006. Most economists attributed the decline and spending to the recession. Since Obamacare was enacted, that reduction in spending has actually increased. Because of that decline in spending appears to be due to a decline in costs. I am unaware of any study that supports your proposition that spending has decreased because costs are skyrocketing. There are some who believe spending has decreased because consumers have less money in their pockets while costs have increased at a normal pace, but that's completely different than your position. As I said before, however, while we can argue as to whether it is clear Obamacare is bending the cost curve downwards, it is clear the conservative response of "costs will skyrocket" is not true. Even though you still seem to buy it.

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.

[All-American]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...by-88-percent/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...ealth-dollars/

[Indy Coug]

Would LA Ute care to opine about the (potential?) conflict with Obamacare and the McCarran-Ferguson act?

[calicoug]

Any insurance product sold in a state has to be filed in and approved by that state. You can't create a product while domiciled in a different state and then sell it indiscriminately nationwide without regard to each state's requirements.

Just as a very quick example, we don't bother selling in Montana because Montana requires us to charge unisex rates for life insurance. This requires overhead for developing a different set of rates specifically for Montana and adds to the administrative overhead. The development and maintenance costs for doing this is not cost-justified because Montana is such a small state, so we opt not to write business there. We don't have the option to ignore the unisex rate requirement just because our company is domiciled in a different state that doesn't have this dumbass requirement.

Correct. That's true today. We are talking about what it would be like if the laws imposing those restrictions were repealed.