HC reform will make my healthcare costs

[rhaig 0]

My prediction is that this fall when I sign up for insurance again, to get the same benefits as last year, my costs will have gone up.

I know that the HC reform bill doesn't do anything that soon, but internal costs of compliance will be seen immediately at the insurance companies. And in a few years, my policy for my family will likely be one of those taxed at 40% so I'll see additional increase then. (I believe the wording is 10K value per policy. If it's per individual, then I'll be in the clear)

What this means at that time is that I must stop spending the money required to cover that increase. So while we've seen some economic recovery lately, we'll likely see more people in the same boat as me spending less in the next year. This could be a speed bump on the economic recovery road. I'm not an economist, but I know that spending (not overspending) and cashflow is what helps turn up an economy. What I see coming is a reduction in cashflow.

--
Rob

[mnealtx 0]

Lord Almighty, I feel my premium rising...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

There's no "increase less than usual" option.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

My prediction is that this fall when I sign up for insurance again, to get the same benefits as last year, my costs will have gone up.

That's because you're automatically pessimistic.

Quote

I know that the HC reform bill doesn't do anything that soon, but internal costs of compliance will be seen immediately at the insurance companies. And in a few years, my policy for my family will likely be one of those taxed at 40% so I'll see additional increase then. (I believe the wording is 10K value per policy. If it's per individual, then I'll be in the clear)

HC costs and the premium cost have less correlation than you think. IOW's, if costs go up for an individual company and they fail to find ways to lower costs or compete as other companies find these ways, they cannot charge more to compensate; either compete or go out of business.

Quote

What this means at that time is that I must stop spending the money required to cover that increase. So while we've seen some economic recovery lately, we'll likely see more people in the same boat as me spending less in the next year. This could be a speed bump on the economic recovery road. I'm not an economist, but I know that spending (not overspending) and cashflow is what helps turn up an economy. What I see coming is a reduction in cashflow.

So you're saying the alleged/expected by you increases in HC costs, the supposed money you spend will go into a black hole in the ins cos coffers? Or will it circulate? I guess if you believe as I do and that major corps are fascist it might just go into a black hole and be used as score, so you must think that in order to be correct.

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

they cannot charge more to compensate; either compete or go out of business.

They will charge more. Their operating expenses have gone up. What happens to cigarette prices when taxes increase? Do you think any of the tobacco CEOs lose a dime of compensation each time a new tobacco tax is implemented. I'm not comparing cigs to HC but it's an easy example. The price is always passed on to the consumer. Just like your jump ticket gets more expansive when crude goes up.

[tdog 0]

I KNOW my insurance is going to increase. I KNOW because my insurance carrier already told us in a memo for our renewal citing "pending government legislation". I also was given a copy of an email, sent by a large insurance company, to their agents, explaining how "reform" would change costs - and it does not look good for anyone who pays for insurance. I have been told by people in the industry to expect 50% increases over the next few years, which will take our stripped down plan and make it the "Cadillac" plan that will get a 40% government tax, thus increasing our costs 100% or doubling or costs.

One of the big concerns I have been told - the pre-existing condition clause. The problem is that anyone can take the "fine" for not having insurance and pay the government that fine - which goes into one budget (taxes)...

But the costs come out of a different budget...

When person gets sick who opted to pay the fine, and goes to their insurance company and buys insurance, the insurance company must pay the claims. That insurance company must not deny "preexisting conditions", but never received revenue when the person was healthy. Thus the risk pool is adversely affected.

It would be like buying car insurance after an accident, where the car insurance would have to cover any accident before... Would car insurance costs go up? Sure they would. Everyone would pay the $50 fine to the government until they need the $500 insurance....

The solution was simple in my opinion.... Preexisting conditions that arise while insured would be covered by the current or future insurance companies. Conditions that occur while uninsured (by choice, not administrative error) - are not covered... Then people would be motivated to buy insurance or accept the risk. Oh, and doctors would not have to see patients who don't have insurance unless they prepay. Then people would find value in insurance and the risk pool would be the least expensive to insure.

[Gawain 0]

No where in this debate has the left indicated how rates, or if rates would go down. They won't. This isn't about reform, it's about control:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704207504575130321235660474.html?KEYWORDS=The+ObamaCare+Crossroads

Quote

...through...de facto nationalization, costs will further explode. The Congressional Budget Office estimates ObamaCare will cost taxpayers $200 billion per year when fully implemented and grow annually at 8%, even under low-ball assumptions. Soon the public will reach its taxing limit, and then something will have to give on the care side. In short, medicine will be rationed by politics, no doubt with the same subtlety and wisdom as Congress's final madcap dash toward 216 votes.

As in the Western European and Canadian welfare states, doctors, hospitals and insurance companies will over time become public utilities. Government will set the cost-minded priorities and determine what kinds of treatment options patients are allowed to receive. Medicare's price controls will be exported to the remnants of the private sector.

All bureaucratized systems also restrict access to specialists and surgeries, leading to shortages and delays of months or years. This will be especially the case for the elderly and grievously ill, and for innovation in procedures, technologies and pharmaceuticals.

Eventually, quality and choice—the best attributes of American medicine in spite of its dysfunctions—will severely decline.

Democrats deny this reality, but government rationing will become inevitable given that overall federal spending is already at 25% of GDP and heading north, and Medicare's unfunded liabilities are roughly two and a half times larger than the entire U.S. economy in 2008. The ObamaCare bill already contains one of the largest tax increases outside the Great Depression or the world wars, including a major new tax on investment income—and no one seriously believes it will be enough.

So a vote for ObamaCare is also a vote against the vitality of American capitalism. Business elites have mostly held their tongues, or calculated that they can later dump their health-care liabilities on the government. Yet ObamaCare will lead to much higher levels of taxation across society. The tax wedge—the share of labor costs that never reaches workers but instead goes straight to government—will start flying towards the 50% that prevails today in most of Europe. In America, without the same welfare state obligations, it hovers near 30%.

Now, we'll see how easily this skids through the Senate.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[riddler 0]

Quote

I KNOW because my insurance carrier already told us in a memo for our renewal citing "pending government legislation".

And you can bet that they will increase our premiums now for changes that don't take effect until 2014. Insurance is and always will be on the verge of criminality - the claim to be based on numbers, and yes, they have statisticians that do run numbers, but the truth is, they will get you for whatever they can, whenever they can. Since they know everyone is watching, they will use this as an excuse to do it again now.

What's interesting to me is how this will affect small business people, like you and I. Our premiums will rise - they rose before any legislative actions were taken, and they will rise after. Any rise from today on will have right-wingers screaming that it was the result of legislation (and conveniently forget about all the major increases that happened in the years 2008-2010).

But people that work for corporations usually have healthcare paid by those corporations, and it will be interesting to see if more people move away from small business to corporate jobs just to get their insurance paid for. My health insurance has doubled in the last few years. I wonder if it will double again in the next few.

Ultimately, we are all paying for our baby-boomer parents, and grandparents. But corruption by insurers is the real heart of the issue, IMO.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

I KNOW my insurance is going to increase. I KNOW because my insurance carrier already told us in a memo for our renewal citing "pending government legislation"..

Scare tactic.

Premiums were going up anyway, just like they have in every recent year.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

No where in this debate has the left indicated how rates, or if rates would go down. They won't. This isn't about reform, it's about control:

What makes you think they weren't going up anyway? It's not like the current system gave us cheap premiums to begin with. Health insurance premiums have been increasing faster than the cost of living for years.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

they cannot charge more to compensate; either compete or go out of business.

They will charge more. Their operating expenses have gone up. What happens to cigarette prices when taxes increase? Do you think any of the tobacco CEOs lose a dime of compensation each time a new tobacco tax is implemented..

Which is why there SHOULD have been a public option.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tdog 0]

Quote

Quote

I KNOW my insurance is going to increase. I KNOW because my insurance carrier already told us in a memo for our renewal citing "pending government legislation"..

Scare tactic.

Premiums were going up anyway, just like they have in every recent year.

Actually, the last two years have been rather flat, and one year we went down....

[tdog 0]

Quote

Which is why there SHOULD have been a public option.

I would support a non-profit, coop, like USAA does for home/auto insurance for it's members. Cheap, well run, honest, and pay's profits back to it's customers....

There is no reason why we can't make one now... Government does not need to make one.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

My prediction is that this fall when I sign up for insurance again, to get the same benefits as last year, my costs will have gone up.

That's because you're automatically pessimistic.


yes.

yes I am.

Quote

***I know that the HC reform bill doesn't do anything that soon, but internal costs of compliance will be seen immediately at the insurance companies. And in a few years, my policy for my family will likely be one of those taxed at 40% so I'll see additional increase then. (I believe the wording is 10K value per policy. If it's per individual, then I'll be in the clear)

HC costs and the premium cost have less correlation than you think. IOW's, if costs go up for an individual company and they fail to find ways to lower costs or compete as other companies find these ways, they cannot charge more to compensate; either compete or go out of business.

my initial concern isn't the cost of the healthcare, it's the cost of the administration of the policy. The extra requirements and regulation around the policies will add (initially at least) additional administrative cost.

Quote

***What this means at that time is that I must stop spending the money required to cover that increase. So while we've seen some economic recovery lately, we'll likely see more people in the same boat as me spending less in the next year. This could be a speed bump on the economic recovery road. I'm not an economist, but I know that spending (not overspending) and cashflow is what helps turn up an economy. What I see coming is a reduction in cashflow.

So you're saying the alleged/expected by you increases in HC costs, the supposed money you spend will go into a black hole in the ins cos coffers? Or will it circulate? I guess if you believe as I do and that major corps are fascist it might just go into a black hole and be used as score, so you must think that in order to be correct.

Well I certainly don't think that money will go into the pockets of any of the employees of the insurance company. If it did, I'd have less concern wrt the economic impact. Money spent with large corporations contributes very little to daily cashflow for individuals.

--
Rob

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

No where in this debate has the left indicated how rates, or if rates would go down. They won't. This isn't about reform, it's about control:

What makes you think they weren't going up anyway? It's not like the current system gave us cheap premiums to begin with. Health insurance premiums have been increasing faster than the cost of living for years.

Remember what happened to airline fares after the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978?
Remember what happened to telecom rates after the Telecommunications Act?

Show me one example where "price controls" of regulation have actually reduced costs? Enablers could have been put in place that would have actually reduced costs. Other industries are able to do it, our government isn't one of them.

If you can't see the overbearing weight of overhead being the driver for increased costs, along with increased demand, then we need not discuss it. Too many now think that they shouldn't have to pay a dime for basic healthcare. I may as well file a claim to my auto-insurance for the oil change...

What was needed for real reform was basic oversight as a safety net to encourage states from easing their regulation over the insurance carriers, which is where the bottleneck is. Now, we'll have neither. Healthcare with the compassion of the IRS (which is who will enforce this), and the competence of Fannie/Freddie/Social Security/"add government agency here"....

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

No where in this debate has the left indicated how rates, or if rates would go down. They won't. This isn't about reform, it's about control:

What makes you think they weren't going up anyway? It's not like the current system gave us cheap premiums to begin with. Health insurance premiums have been increasing faster than the cost of living for years.

Because Obama SAID they were going to go down - 3000%, I believe it was.

The CPI for health insurance went DOWN 3.2% between 2008-2009.
Latest annual figures(Table 3A, pg 7 of the pdf).

Item and group: Health insurance
2008 CPI: 114.221
2009 CPI: 110.527
% change: -3.2

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhaig 0]

sure. I've seen an increase in each of the past 3 years. in 7 months when I re-up, I'll find out if that increase accelerates. Until then it's only speculation.

--
Rob

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

Which is why there SHOULD have been a public option.

Medicaid

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Which is why there SHOULD have been a public option.

Medicaid

Patch-together solutions are not really solutions.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I KNOW my insurance is going to increase. I KNOW because my insurance carrier already told us in a memo for our renewal citing "pending government legislation". I also was given a copy of an email, sent by a large insurance company, to their agents, explaining how "reform" would change costs - and it does not look good for anyone who pays for insurance. I have been told by people in the industry to expect 50% increases over the next few years, which will take our stripped down plan and make it the "Cadillac" plan that will get a 40% government tax, thus increasing our costs 100% or doubling or costs.

In other words SCARE TACTICS..... to force people into not supporting any kind of reform of the system that provides the obscene profits they are used to making.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No where in this debate has the left indicated how rates, or if rates would go down. They won't. This isn't about reform, it's about control:

What makes you think they weren't going up anyway? It's not like the current system gave us cheap premiums to begin with. Health insurance premiums have been increasing faster than the cost of living for years.

Because Obama SAID they were going to go down - 3000%, I believe it was.

The CPI for health insurance went DOWN 3.2% between 2008-2009.
Latest annual figures(Table 3A, pg 7 of the pdf).

Item and group: Health insurance
2008 CPI: 114.221
2009 CPI: 110.527
% change: -3.2

Must be on account of the $16 MILLION BONUS the CEO of Illinois BCBS awarded himself this year. Yep, I bet that made my premium go down. Oh, that's funny, it went UP.

I wonder how many people here had their premiums go down for the same amount of coverage.

(You Do realize, I'm sure, that change in average cost per household is NOT the same as change in premium. With your incredible grasp of statistics, I'm sure you have figured out why).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tdog 0]

Quote

In other words SCARE TACTICS..... to force people into not supporting any kind of reform the the system that provides the obscene profits they are used to making.

I was the first one to complain when the CEO of United Health made billions... I believe profit is good... Profit makes our world work. But greed is bad. And the system supported greed because only a few insurance companies were willing to conform to the regulations in our state... Anyone could, but few did.

But, why do you think the insurance companies sat back and watched this reform occur without lobbying the government or raising arms with their customers? BECAUSE THERE IS NO REFORM to cause them to limit profits. Now they have customers REQUIRED to purchase their services! The letter sent to us was not a warning or call to arms, but an FYI as part of our policy renewal process.

This could be the best thing that happened to insurance companies for which you hate!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

In other words SCARE TACTICS..... to force people into not supporting any kind of reform the the system that provides the obscene profits they are used to making.

I was the first one to complain when the CEO of United Health made billions... I believe profit is good... Profit makes our world work. But greed is bad. And the system supported greed because only a few insurance companies were willing to conform to the regulations in our state... Anyone could, but few did.

But, why do you think the insurance companies sat back and watched this reform occur without lobbying the government or raising arms with their customers? BECAUSE THERE IS NO REFORM to cause them to limit profits. Now they have customers REQUIRED to purchase their services! The letter sent to us was not a warning or call to arms, but an FYI as part of our policy renewal process.

This could be the best thing that happened to insurance companies for which you hate!

Personally I would like to hunt that fucker down and draw and quarter the cocksucking greedy bastard VERY VERY SLOWLY.

I have lived with over a year and a half of pain because they called my shoulder injury at Lost Prairie ( A NEW ONE) a pre- existing condition. Even after I had my doctor call the company to make sure the MRI he was ordering up was going to be covered... United NON-Health Care siad it would be covered yet when the bills got to them they would not cover the cost of ANY of it. Guess who got to pay for it all

Just wait till you find yourself in a similar position, paying for years and years and then find out you have pre-existing conditions allowing for corp executives to make BILLIONS off of YOUR pain

Just remember.. IT CAN NEVER HAPPEN TO YOU

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

In other words SCARE TACTICS..... to force people into not supporting any kind of reform the the system that provides the obscene profits they are used to making.

I was the first one to complain when the CEO of United Health made billions... I believe profit is good... Profit makes our world work. But greed is bad. And the system supported greed because only a few insurance companies were willing to conform to the regulations in our state... Anyone could, but few did.

But, why do you think the insurance companies sat back and watched this reform occur without lobbying the government or raising arms with their customers? BECAUSE THERE IS NO REFORM to cause them to limit profits. Now they have customers REQUIRED to purchase their services! The letter sent to us was not a warning or call to arms, but an FYI as part of our policy renewal process.

This could be the best thing that happened to insurance companies for which you hate!

Thanks to the GOP, which managed to eliminate a public option which would have provided some competition.

Average compensation for health insurance CEOs is in the tens of $millions, while they are raising premiums on working people way faster than the rate of inflation.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tdog 0]

Quote

Thanks to the GOP, which managed to eliminate a public option which would have provided some competition.

Average compensation for health insurance CEOs is in the tens of $millions, while they are raising premiums on working people way faster than the rate of inflation.

It was my understanding the public option was meant to be the insurance of last resort, not a cost effective alternative to provide competition.

Look at USAA or other non-profit business models run by private corporations... There are alternatives that work. But you have to remove the red tape and government to make it efficient.