Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[PMZ]

Then why did you cite an article that says otherwise? What part of math and averages do you not understand? 'Some' in this case are the young and healthy. Fun watching you squirm though.

So your assessment is that community rating is a scam by which insurance companies merely raise rates independent of risks. That is make more money regardless of the cost to others, and I don't think that's a goal of regulation.

No it's not a scam. It's an Obamacare regulation that requires insurance companies to avgerage out the rates of a given policy across a given risk pool. There is only one possible outcome of that which the graph in YOUR article reflects; the premium rates for the young and healthy go up while the premium rates of the sick and elderly go down. Seriously PMZ, there is plenty that can be legitimately debated about on Obamacare, but this isn't one of those things. It's not political. It's math. I still don't get why you cited the article you cited since it quite clearly explains exactly this and what I've been telling you for two pages now and you've been denying.

Just what I said. Some go up. Some go down. Balance. That's always true of insurance. There are winners and losers.

 

[itfitzme]

More info irellavant to the conversaton. We're talking about people on the individual market. Not employer based insurance and not young and healthy people who didn't previously have it.

Regardless, your math is wrong.

How so? Did you read PMZ's link. Did he get the math wrong too? Again, if so, how? Last I checked when you avg a group of numbers the low numbers in the range rise to the avg. and the high numbers in the range fall to the average.

Actually, yes, he got the math wrong.

There is no rule in math that says that when new numbers are added, the mean must go up. And, there is no rule in micro-economics that says that the equilibrium price must go up with quantity. And there is no rule in macro-economics that says that the real "price" must go up.

There is no evidence that demonstrates all these new numbers are higher risk. This is the assumption made in the article. The article depends on this "adverse selection" criteria that it never proves. There is just as much reason to consider that the opposite is true. Even if adverse selection were at work specifically in the health insurance market, that doesn't mean it is at work in the aggregate health care markets. The insurance market is the end use point for the majority of the health care market.

One point is that the total cost of health care, including insurance premiums, is primarily a function of the service used, not a function of the service insured for. This is true for insurance premiums as well. Adding covered service to a health plan does not necessitate that the price rise. If pap smears were added as a service to an insurance plan that accepted only men, it wouldn't add a dime. If prostate examinations were added as a service to an insurance plan that accepted only woman, it wouldn't cost a dime. There is no rule that says adding a service increases cost.

Even then, approaching the problem from a "price" perspective is completely useless. To begin with, there is service provided the uninsured. Then there is the simple fact that "price" and "cost" are not the same thing. Nominal and real price are not the same. And, there is the issue that wages are not fixed. They are highly dependent on numerous factors, including the employment to population ratio.

To apply the simple micro economic models, market imperfections have to be ignored. And the fact is that the health care markets, including insurance, includes every imperfection imaginable. And this includes the effects of the general labor market.

In addition to the note above regarding covered but underutilized service, if we are to apply a simple model, it would be this;

1) The aggregate price paid for all healthcare services provided is divided up among the consumers that pay for health care and insurance as well as the tax payer. That aggregate price is simply not assigned to the uninsured though they do receive health services. The poor and disabled are already insured. They are insured under Medicare, Medi-caid, or simply by the cost write offs by health care providers. Regardless, every working person is covering the cost of healthcare, including the uninsured. Those not paying for insurance are essentially off book.

2) The real price of health insurance and care is dependent on simply the nominal price but also upon the wages earned. The difference between an economy where no one purchases a good and one where everyone purchases a good is exactly the price of that good. The only caveat is if the production of that service detracts from the production of some other service or good. For that to occur requires that the employment to population ratio be at it’s highest level. That is no less than 64.4%.

3) Much of the health insurance and care market is a volume, efficiency of scale business where the significant costs are fixed costs. The insurance market is definitively such.

The simple essence of these are that the change in the health care markets will be a shift in supply along with an increase in quantity demanded. And this is just to start.

The point of presenting the available data on group coverage is that it is real data available about the real market.

 

[itfitzme]

Here is something;

http://www.epionline.org/studies/oneill_06-2009.pdf


Check out the conclusion and the table on page 40

Appendix Table 3. Relation Between Insurance Status and Personal Characteristics in 1992 and the Probability of Death by 2002, by 2004, and by 2006 (OLS Regression Results for HRS cohort ages 51–61 in 1992)

The paper brings up an interesting distinction between the voluntarily and involuntarily uninsured as well as makes effort to determine the real health status for these two groups.

The article's direction was not specifically regarding premium prices, so the conclusion isn't directly answering the question.

IT does give us an idea with "The unadjusted difference in mortality between the voluntarily uninsured and the privately insured is only 3 percentage points at the start and it falls below 2 percentage points after controlling for differences in characteristics."

This suggests that the article on "adverse selection" makes a bold assumption.

 

[PMZ]

Regardless, your math is wrong.

How so? Did you read PMZ's link. Did he get the math wrong too? Again, if so, how? Last I checked when you avg a group of numbers the low numbers in the range rise to the avg. and the high numbers in the range fall to the average.

Actually, yes, he got the math wrong.

There is no rule in math that says that when new numbers are added, the mean must go up. And, there is no rule in micro-economics that says that the equilibrium price must go up with quantity. And there is no rule in macro-economics that says that the real "price" must go up.

There is no evidence that demonstrates all these new numbers are higher risk. This is the assumption made in the article. The article depends on this "adverse selection" criteria that it never proves. There is just as much reason to consider that the opposite is true. Even if adverse selection were at work specifically in the health insurance market, that doesn't mean it is at work in the aggregate health care markets. The insurance market is the end use point for the majority of the health care market.

One point is that the total cost of health care, including insurance premiums, is primarily a function of the service used, not a function of the service insured for. This is true for insurance premiums as well. Adding covered service to a health plan does not necessitate that the price rise. If pap smears were added as a service to an insurance plan that accepted only men, it wouldn't add a dime. If prostate examinations were added as a service to an insurance plan that accepted only woman, it wouldn't cost a dime. There is no rule that says adding a service increases cost.

Even then, approaching the problem from a "price" perspective is completely useless. To begin with, there is service provided the uninsured. Then there is the simple fact that "price" and "cost" are not the same thing. Nominal and real price are not the same. And, there is the issue that wages are not fixed. They are highly dependent on numerous factors, including the employment to population ratio.

To apply the simple micro economic models, market imperfections have to be ignored. And the fact is that the health care markets, including insurance, includes every imperfection imaginable. And this includes the effects of the general labor market.

In addition to the note above regarding covered but underutilized service, if we are to apply a simple model, it would be this;

1) The aggregate price paid for all healthcare services provided is divided up among the consumers that pay for health care and insurance as well as the tax payer. That aggregate price is simply not assigned to the uninsured though they do receive health services. The poor and disabled are already insured. They are insured under Medicare, Medi-caid, or simply by the cost write offs by health care providers. Regardless, every working person is covering the cost of healthcare, including the uninsured. Those not paying for insurance are essentially off book.

2)The real price of health insurance and care is dependent on simply the nominal price but also upon the wages earned. The difference between an economy where no one purchases a good and one where everyone purchases a good is exactly the price of that good. The only caveat is if the production of that service detracts from the production of some other service or good. For that to occur requires that the employment to population ratio be at it’s highest level. That is no less than 64.4%.

3)Much of the health insurance and care market is a volume, efficiency of scale business where the significant costs are fixed costs. The insurance market is definitively such.

The simple essence of these are that the change in the health care markets will be a shift in supply along with an increase in quantity demanded. And this is just to start.

The point of presenting the available data on group coverage is that it is real data available about the real market.

One of the gross errors made about our health care non-system is that it is somehow separate from other systems. So if a person becomes insured for health care our costs must go up.

Whether total costs go up or down depends on many factors.

If the person obtained health care before insurance from hospital emergency rooms, that is the most expensive, least effective treatment possible for anything other than dire emergencies. Insured diagnostics and treatment will be much cheaper.

Experience shows that very often preventative medicine is very cost effective compared to treatment. Those costs will go down.

Prompt treatment of contagious diseases will limit their spread and therefore cost.

Freeing up emergency treatment facilities for true emergencies will allow better treatment of them.

Business medical lost time will be reduced and productivity increased.
The overhead of insurance companies will be spread over more policyholders thus increasing the productivity of those companies.

Fewer workers and drivers with marginal health will reduce accidents.

 

[Bern80]

It is easier to just list the couple of things that are correct rather than all the others that aren't.

You keep saying that yet can't seem to provide any evidence for it. Are the small business owner's I know seeing their raties nearly doubling lieing? Is the gentleman in the article PMZ posted simply mistaken about what will (see is) happening to the raties of the young and healthy. If so, I'm afraid simply saying I'm wrong doesn't cut it. At some point you have to show evidence for it.

Well, nothing you have presented is evidence of anything. Why should anyone else have to live up to a standard higher than the one you apply to yourself?

There is a funny story about two economics students. One announced his intent to switch majors to physics. His friend replies, “When you do, the average IQ for the physics department will go up and the average for the economics department will go down.” There is no “law of averages” that requires the average to be higher.

I've already provided my response to the presented article.

It is true that people whom would not have otherwise buy medical insurance will be paying more in terms of medical insurance. Not buying insurance doesn't have a direct insurance cost associated with it.

It is true that people that would not have purchased medical insurance and are lucky enough to not need substantial medical care will end up paying more than they might otherwise have, during the period of time for which they would not have otherwise purchased insurance.

Not purchasing health insurance and not getting sick or being in a sever accident doesn't have either insurance or medical costs associated with it.

The article sited doesn't definitively predict health care premiums. It does provide some insight into some of the effects that will affect health care premiums.

So, What evidence do you think can possibly be provided that will definitively predict prices in the future?

The community rating mandate does that. It perfectly predicts what will happen to the price of premiums. Again it's simply math. It's a mandate that requires insurance companies to avg. premiums across a given risk pool. Therefore some permiums MUST go up. That this regulation exists is your evidence that premiums are and must go up.

 

[Bern80]

Regardless, your math is wrong.

How so? Did you read PMZ's link. Did he get the math wrong too? Again, if so, how? Last I checked when you avg a group of numbers the low numbers in the range rise to the avg. and the high numbers in the range fall to the average.

Actually, yes, he got the math wrong.

There is no rule in math that says that when new numbers are added, the mean must go up. And, there is no rule in micro-economics that says that the equilibrium price must go up with quantity. And there is no rule in macro-economics that says that the real "price" must go up.

There is no evidence that demonstrates all these new numbers are higher risk. This is the assumption made in the article. The article depends on this "adverse selection" criteria that it never proves. There is just as much reason to consider that the opposite is true. Even if adverse selection were at work specifically in the health insurance market, that doesn't mean it is at work in the aggregate health care markets. The insurance market is the end use point for the majority of the health care market.

One point is that the total cost of health care, including insurance premiums, is primarily a function of the service used, not a function of the service insured for. This is true for insurance premiums as well. Adding covered service to a health plan does not necessitate that the price rise. If pap smears were added as a service to an insurance plan that accepted only men, it wouldn't add a dime. If prostate examinations were added as a service to an insurance plan that accepted only woman, it wouldn't cost a dime. There is no rule that says adding a service increases cost.

Even then, approaching the problem from a "price" perspective is completely useless. To begin with, there is service provided the uninsured. Then there is the simple fact that "price" and "cost" are not the same thing. Nominal and real price are not the same. And, there is the issue that wages are not fixed. They are highly dependent on numerous factors, including the employment to population ratio.

To apply the simple micro economic models, market imperfections have to be ignored. And the fact is that the health care markets, including insurance, includes every imperfection imaginable. And this includes the effects of the general labor market.

In addition to the note above regarding covered but underutilized service, if we are to apply a simple model, it would be this;

1) The aggregate price paid for all healthcare services provided is divided up among the consumers that pay for health care and insurance as well as the tax payer. That aggregate price is simply not assigned to the uninsured though they do receive health services. The poor and disabled are already insured. They are insured under Medicare, Medi-caid, or simply by the cost write offs by health care providers. Regardless, every working person is covering the cost of healthcare, including the uninsured. Those not paying for insurance are essentially off book.

2) The real price of health insurance and care is dependent on simply the nominal price but also upon the wages earned. The difference between an economy where no one purchases a good and one where everyone purchases a good is exactly the price of that good. The only caveat is if the production of that service detracts from the production of some other service or good. For that to occur requires that the employment to population ratio be at it’s highest level. That is no less than 64.4%.

3) Much of the health insurance and care market is a volume, efficiency of scale business where the significant costs are fixed costs. The insurance market is definitively such.

The simple essence of these are that the change in the health care markets will be a shift in supply along with an increase in quantity demanded. And this is just to start.

The point of presenting the available data on group coverage is that it is real data available about the real market.

We're not talking about adding numbers. We're talking about average them. And yes when you avg. a group of numbers the new avg. is indeed going to be greater than some of those numbers. That's what the community rating does. It says this group of people have this plan. The group of people pay different premium prices currently based on their risk factor. The government now says you can't do that. You have to charge them all the same price for the same plan. And you are simply naive or want so desperately for Obamacare to work that you're willing to be willfully obtuse about the fact that it's the premiums of the young and healthy that MUST go up.

At the end of the day basically what you're left claiming is that you don't know what will happen while at the same time claiming what I'm telling isn't what's going to happen (despite the evidence here and now that it is).

 

[PMZ]

How so? Did you read PMZ's link. Did he get the math wrong too? Again, if so, how? Last I checked when you avg a group of numbers the low numbers in the range rise to the avg. and the high numbers in the range fall to the average.

Actually, yes, he got the math wrong.

There is no rule in math that says that when new numbers are added, the mean must go up. And, there is no rule in micro-economics that says that the equilibrium price must go up with quantity. And there is no rule in macro-economics that says that the real "price" must go up.

There is no evidence that demonstrates all these new numbers are higher risk. This is the assumption made in the article. The article depends on this "adverse selection" criteria that it never proves. There is just as much reason to consider that the opposite is true. Even if adverse selection were at work specifically in the health insurance market, that doesn't mean it is at work in the aggregate health care markets. The insurance market is the end use point for the majority of the health care market.

One point is that the total cost of health care, including insurance premiums, is primarily a function of the service used, not a function of the service insured for. This is true for insurance premiums as well. Adding covered service to a health plan does not necessitate that the price rise. If pap smears were added as a service to an insurance plan that accepted only men, it wouldn't add a dime. If prostate examinations were added as a service to an insurance plan that accepted only woman, it wouldn't cost a dime. There is no rule that says adding a service increases cost.

Even then, approaching the problem from a "price" perspective is completely useless. To begin with, there is service provided the uninsured. Then there is the simple fact that "price" and "cost" are not the same thing. Nominal and real price are not the same. And, there is the issue that wages are not fixed. They are highly dependent on numerous factors, including the employment to population ratio.

To apply the simple micro economic models, market imperfections have to be ignored. And the fact is that the health care markets, including insurance, includes every imperfection imaginable. And this includes the effects of the general labor market.

In addition to the note above regarding covered but underutilized service, if we are to apply a simple model, it would be this;

1) The aggregate price paid for all healthcare services provided is divided up among the consumers that pay for health care and insurance as well as the tax payer. That aggregate price is simply not assigned to the uninsured though they do receive health services. The poor and disabled are already insured. They are insured under Medicare, Medi-caid, or simply by the cost write offs by health care providers. Regardless, every working person is covering the cost of healthcare, including the uninsured. Those not paying for insurance are essentially off book.

2)The real price of health insurance and care is dependent on simply the nominal price but also upon the wages earned. The difference between an economy where no one purchases a good and one where everyone purchases a good is exactly the price of that good. The only caveat is if the production of that service detracts from the production of some other service or good. For that to occur requires that the employment to population ratio be at it’s highest level. That is no less than 64.4%.

3)Much of the health insurance and care market is a volume, efficiency of scale business where the significant costs are fixed costs. The insurance market is definitively such.

The simple essence of these are that the change in the health care markets will be a shift in supply along with an increase in quantity demanded. And this is just to start.

The point of presenting the available data on group coverage is that it is real data available about the real market.

We're talking about adding numbers. We're talking about average them. And yes when you avg. a group of numbers the new avg. is indeed going to be greater than some of those numbers. That's what the community rating does. It says this group of people have this plan. The group of people pay different premium prices currently based on their risk factor. The government now says you can't do that. You have to charge them all the same price for the same plan. And you are simply naive or want so desperately for Obamacare to work that you're willing to be willfully obtuse about the fact that it's the premiums of the young and healthy that MUST go up.

Do you really expect that spreading risk should result in everyone getting the same 'return' on their insurance dollar?

With insurance, the lucky ones get no return and the unlucky ones get max return.

No insurance company creates a whole new rate structure for every customer. They have to be grouped somehow.

 

[Bern80]

So your assessment is that community rating is a scam by which insurance companies merely raise rates independent of risks. That is make more money regardless of the cost to others, and I don't think that's a goal of regulation.

No it's not a scam. It's an Obamacare regulation that requires insurance companies to avgerage out the rates of a given policy across a given risk pool. There is only one possible outcome of that which the graph in YOUR article reflects; the premium rates for the young and healthy go up while the premium rates of the sick and elderly go down. Seriously PMZ, there is plenty that can be legitimately debated about on Obamacare, but this isn't one of those things. It's not political. It's math. I still don't get why you cited the article you cited since it quite clearly explains exactly this and what I've been telling you for two pages now and you've been denying.

Just what I said. Some go up. Some go down. Balance. That's always true of insurance. There are winners and losers.

Actually no what you said was the rates of the young and healthy would not go up. Further why should the young and healthy be the losers? You agreed with me that one should not be obligated to another's outcomes yet support a system that does exactly that. The elderly and sick are obligating the young and healthy to their medical expenses. So which is it?

 

[Bern80]

Actually, yes, he got the math wrong.

There is no rule in math that says that when new numbers are added, the mean must go up. And, there is no rule in micro-economics that says that the equilibrium price must go up with quantity. And there is no rule in macro-economics that says that the real "price" must go up.

There is no evidence that demonstrates all these new numbers are higher risk. This is the assumption made in the article. The article depends on this "adverse selection" criteria that it never proves. There is just as much reason to consider that the opposite is true. Even if adverse selection were at work specifically in the health insurance market, that doesn't mean it is at work in the aggregate health care markets. The insurance market is the end use point for the majority of the health care market.

One point is that the total cost of health care, including insurance premiums, is primarily a function of the service used, not a function of the service insured for. This is true for insurance premiums as well. Adding covered service to a health plan does not necessitate that the price rise. If pap smears were added as a service to an insurance plan that accepted only men, it wouldn't add a dime. If prostate examinations were added as a service to an insurance plan that accepted only woman, it wouldn't cost a dime. There is no rule that says adding a service increases cost.

Even then, approaching the problem from a "price" perspective is completely useless. To begin with, there is service provided the uninsured. Then there is the simple fact that "price" and "cost" are not the same thing. Nominal and real price are not the same. And, there is the issue that wages are not fixed. They are highly dependent on numerous factors, including the employment to population ratio.

To apply the simple micro economic models, market imperfections have to be ignored. And the fact is that the health care markets, including insurance, includes every imperfection imaginable. And this includes the effects of the general labor market.

In addition to the note above regarding covered but underutilized service, if we are to apply a simple model, it would be this;

1) The aggregate price paid for all healthcare services provided is divided up among the consumers that pay for health care and insurance as well as the tax payer. That aggregate price is simply not assigned to the uninsured though they do receive health services. The poor and disabled are already insured. They are insured under Medicare, Medi-caid, or simply by the cost write offs by health care providers. Regardless, every working person is covering the cost of healthcare, including the uninsured. Those not paying for insurance are essentially off book.

2)The real price of health insurance and care is dependent on simply the nominal price but also upon the wages earned. The difference between an economy where no one purchases a good and one where everyone purchases a good is exactly the price of that good. The only caveat is if the production of that service detracts from the production of some other service or good. For that to occur requires that the employment to population ratio be at it’s highest level. That is no less than 64.4%.

3)Much of the health insurance and care market is a volume, efficiency of scale business where the significant costs are fixed costs. The insurance market is definitively such.

The simple essence of these are that the change in the health care markets will be a shift in supply along with an increase in quantity demanded. And this is just to start.

The point of presenting the available data on group coverage is that it is real data available about the real market.

We're talking about adding numbers. We're talking about average them. And yes when you avg. a group of numbers the new avg. is indeed going to be greater than some of those numbers. That's what the community rating does. It says this group of people have this plan. The group of people pay different premium prices currently based on their risk factor. The government now says you can't do that. You have to charge them all the same price for the same plan. And you are simply naive or want so desperately for Obamacare to work that you're willing to be willfully obtuse about the fact that it's the premiums of the young and healthy that MUST go up.

Do you really expect that spreading risk should result in everyone getting the same 'return' on their insurance dollar?

With insurance, the lucky ones get no return and the unlucky ones get max return.

No insurance company creates a whole new rate structure for every customer. They have to be grouped somehow.

We're not talking about how much people get out of insurance. We're talking about how much they put in. Though since you bring it up how exactly is it fair that a group of people all put in the same amount of money, but some get to take more out than others?

 

[dblack]

No it's not a scam. It's an Obamacare regulation that requires insurance companies to avgerage out the rates of a given policy across a given risk pool. There is only one possible outcome of that which the graph in YOUR article reflects; the premium rates for the young and healthy go up while the premium rates of the sick and elderly go down. Seriously PMZ, there is plenty that can be legitimately debated about on Obamacare, but this isn't one of those things. It's not political. It's math. I still don't get why you cited the article you cited since it quite clearly explains exactly this and what I've been telling you for two pages now and you've been denying.

Just what I said. Some go up. Some go down. Balance. That's always true of insurance. There are winners and losers.

Actually no what you said was the rates of the young and healthy would not go up. Further why should the young and healthy be the losers? You agreed with me that one should not be obligated to another's outcomes yet support a system that does exactly that. The elderly and sick are obligating the young and healthy to their medical expenses. So which is it?

It's socialized health care costs run through the pipeline of private, for-profit corporations. Everybody 'wins'.

 

[PMZ]

No it's not a scam. It's an Obamacare regulation that requires insurance companies to avgerage out the rates of a given policy across a given risk pool. There is only one possible outcome of that which the graph in YOUR article reflects; the premium rates for the young and healthy go up while the premium rates of the sick and elderly go down. Seriously PMZ, there is plenty that can be legitimately debated about on Obamacare, but this isn't one of those things. It's not political. It's math. I still don't get why you cited the article you cited since it quite clearly explains exactly this and what I've been telling you for two pages now and you've been denying.

Just what I said. Some go up. Some go down. Balance. That's always true of insurance. There are winners and losers.

Actually no what you said was the rates of the young and healthy would not go up. Further why should the young and healthy be the losers? You agreed with me that one should not be obligated to another's outcomes yet support a system that does exactly that. The elderly and sick are obligating the young and healthy to their medical expenses. So which is it?

The elderly are on Medicare and that is completely unrelated.

When I worked, my company provided health care insurance. The rate that they paid was based on the health of their population.

But we were part of a community.

Others, in the same community, on the average were higher risk (the community risk was higher than our company risk), so paid higher rates.

The way that worked out was good for the company but at the expense of the community.

That could be called fair to the company but unfair to the community.

It has to be done one way or the other.

Obamacare chose community rating. If you are young, you boo, if not, you cheer.

It sounds like you want the young cheering and every one else booing.

 

[Antares]

Most companies already used Community Rating, this is a very minor thing in relation to the ACA.

The usual rating method was broken down down to zip codes.

 

[Bern80]

Just what I said. Some go up. Some go down. Balance. That's always true of insurance. There are winners and losers.

Actually no what you said was the rates of the young and healthy would not go up. Further why should the young and healthy be the losers? You agreed with me that one should not be obligated to another's outcomes yet support a system that does exactly that. The elderly and sick are obligating the young and healthy to their medical expenses. So which is it?

The elderly are on Medicare and that is completely unrelated.

When I worked, my company provided health care insurance. The rate that they paid was based on the health of their population.

But we were part of a community.

Others, in the same community, on the average were higher risk (the community risk was higher than our company risk), so paid higher rates.

The way that worked out was good for the company but at the expense of the community.

That could be called fair to the company but unfair to the community.

It has to be done one way or the other.

Obamacare chose community rating. If you are young, you boo, if not, you cheer.

It sounds like you want the young cheering and every one else booing.

That isn't unfair to the community. Paying more than someone else is not an inherently unfair situation. It's dependent on why they pay more and you just said it was because they were higher risk, so no it is not unfair that they pay more as a result.

What I want, if we're going to use an insurance based approach is one that is fair and makes sense. An inurance model that punishes healthy people for the sake of sick people can't work nor is it even moral. One thing you as a liberal really probably don't want to here is a lot of the illness in this country is self inflicted from our diets and lack of exercise. You have just removed the financial incentive for doing that. Not only are your rates not going to go up as a result of the choices you make, but someone else, a healthy person making good choices, is being forced to pay for someone elses bad choices.

 

[PMZ]

Actually no what you said was the rates of the young and healthy would not go up. Further why should the young and healthy be the losers? You agreed with me that one should not be obligated to another's outcomes yet support a system that does exactly that. The elderly and sick are obligating the young and healthy to their medical expenses. So which is it?

The elderly are on Medicare and that is completely unrelated.

When I worked, my company provided health care insurance. The rate that they paid was based on the health of their population.

But we were part of a community.

Others, in the same community, on the average were higher risk (the community risk was higher than our company risk), so paid higher rates.

The way that worked out was good for the company but at the expense of the community.

That could be called fair to the company but unfair to the community.

It has to be done one way or the other.

Obamacare chose community rating. If you are young, you boo, if not, you cheer.

It sounds like you want the young cheering and every one else booing.

That isn't unfair to the community. Paying more than someone else is not an inherently unfair situation. It's dependent on why they pay more and you just said it was because they were higher risk, so no it is not unfair that they pay more as a result.

What I want, if we're going to use an insurance based approach is one that is fair and makes sense. An inurance model that punishes healthy people for the sake of sick people can't work nor is it even moral. One thing you as a liberal really probably don't want to here is a lot of the illness in this country is self inflicted from our diets and lack of exercise. You have just removed the financial incentive for doing that. Not only are your rates not going to go up as a result of the choices you make, but someone else, a healthy person making good choices, is being forced to pay for someone elses bad choices.

Life is not fair. If it was, there would be no random illness.

All that the Obamacare community rating mandate does is to adopt one of the standards already in use by the insurance industry. There is no inherently right or wrong one. They are all more fair to some and less fair to others.

I'm still waiting to hear, maybe today is the day, where all of the money that people claim has resulted from huge premium increases is going.

Obscene insurance company profits?
New medical technology.

More Dr's all of a sudden?

All of the real costs now on the table?

A huge increase in disease and accidents?

Where?

 

[Bern80]

The elderly are on Medicare and that is completely unrelated.

When I worked, my company provided health care insurance. The rate that they paid was based on the health of their population.

But we were part of a community.

Others, in the same community, on the average were higher risk (the community risk was higher than our company risk), so paid higher rates.

The way that worked out was good for the company but at the expense of the community.

That could be called fair to the company but unfair to the community.

It has to be done one way or the other.

Obamacare chose community rating. If you are young, you boo, if not, you cheer.

It sounds like you want the young cheering and every one else booing.

That isn't unfair to the community. Paying more than someone else is not an inherently unfair situation. It's dependent on why they pay more and you just said it was because they were higher risk, so no it is not unfair that they pay more as a result.

What I want, if we're going to use an insurance based approach is one that is fair and makes sense. An inurance model that punishes healthy people for the sake of sick people can't work nor is it even moral. One thing you as a liberal really probably don't want to here is a lot of the illness in this country is self inflicted from our diets and lack of exercise. You have just removed the financial incentive for doing that. Not only are your rates not going to go up as a result of the choices you make, but someone else, a healthy person making good choices, is being forced to pay for someone elses bad choices.

Life is not fair. If it was, there would be no random illness.

All that the Obamacare community rating mandate does is to adopt one of the standards already in use by the insurance industry. There is no inherently right or wrong one. They are all more fair to some and less fair to others.

I'm still waiting to hear, maybe today is the day, where all of the money that people claim has resulted from huge premium increases is going.

Obscene insurance company profits?
New medical technology.

More Dr's all of a sudden?

All of the real costs now on the table?

A huge increase in disease and accidents?

Where?

Well at least your honest in thinking you have the right to obligate other people to your well being. You don't actually have the right, but again, thank you for being honest in thinking you do. Most liberals try to rationalize endlessly that isn't what they really believe. You're honest enough to at leat acknowledge the unfairness of the system, but are fine with it because it happens to be policy advocated by the left which you fall on politically.

As to where the money is going. That's been answered several times, but once more for the slow; the premium increases on the young and healthy are being used to subsidize the extra cost on the insurance company of having to cover the sick and older.

 

[PMZ]

That isn't unfair to the community. Paying more than someone else is not an inherently unfair situation. It's dependent on why they pay more and you just said it was because they were higher risk, so no it is not unfair that they pay more as a result.

What I want, if we're going to use an insurance based approach is one that is fair and makes sense. An inurance model that punishes healthy people for the sake of sick people can't work nor is it even moral. One thing you as a liberal really probably don't want to here is a lot of the illness in this country is self inflicted from our diets and lack of exercise. You have just removed the financial incentive for doing that. Not only are your rates not going to go up as a result of the choices you make, but someone else, a healthy person making good choices, is being forced to pay for someone elses bad choices.

Life is not fair. If it was, there would be no random illness.

All that the Obamacare community rating mandate does is to adopt one of the standards already in use by the insurance industry. There is no inherently right or wrong one. They are all more fair to some and less fair to others.

I'm still waiting to hear, maybe today is the day, where all of the money that people claim has resulted from huge premium increases is going.

Obscene insurance company profits?
New medical technology.

More Dr's all of a sudden?

All of the real costs now on the table?

A huge increase in disease and accidents?

Where?

Well at least your honest in thinking you have the right to obligate other people to your well being. You don't actually have the right, but again, thank you for being honest in thinking you do. Most liberals try to rationalize endlessly that isn't what they really believe.

As to where the money is going. That's been answered several times, but once more for the slow; the premium increases on the young and healthy are being used to subsidize the extra cost on the insurance company of having to cover the sick and older.

I am honest in recognizing that every law obligates people to be responsible. In the case of Obamacare it's to be responsible for the cost of their own health care.

If your explanation is correct, than whatever more the young and healthy are paying is offset by others paying less. No increase in total premiums.

 

[Bern80]

Life is not fair. If it was, there would be no random illness.

All that the Obamacare community rating mandate does is to adopt one of the standards already in use by the insurance industry. There is no inherently right or wrong one. They are all more fair to some and less fair to others.

I'm still waiting to hear, maybe today is the day, where all of the money that people claim has resulted from huge premium increases is going.

Obscene insurance company profits?
New medical technology.

More Dr's all of a sudden?

All of the real costs now on the table?

A huge increase in disease and accidents?

Where?

Well at least your honest in thinking you have the right to obligate other people to your well being. You don't actually have the right, but again, thank you for being honest in thinking you do. Most liberals try to rationalize endlessly that isn't what they really believe.

As to where the money is going. That's been answered several times, but once more for the slow; the premium increases on the young and healthy are being used to subsidize the extra cost on the insurance company of having to cover the sick and older.

I am honest in recognizing that every law obligates people to be responsible. In the case of Obamacare it's to be responsible for the cost of their own health care.

That's not true. Obamacare does not require people be responsible for themselves. It requires that young healthy people be responsible for the medical expenses of the elderly and sick.

If your explanation is correct, than whatever more the young and healthy are paying is offset by others paying less. No increase in total premiums.

Agreed, accept that isn't what we're talking about. We're not talking about what the avg premium cost is doing regardless of risk pool. And further who cares about no increase in average premiums (assuming that's even true, which you've provided no evidence to support). What is that a measure of? That when you averaged across everyone in the country that single number might be lower than the national premium average previously? You're having to generalize so much at this point that that is meaningless. It tells us nothing.

 

[PMZ]

Well at least your honest in thinking you have the right to obligate other people to your well being. You don't actually have the right, but again, thank you for being honest in thinking you do. Most liberals try to rationalize endlessly that isn't what they really believe.

As to where the money is going. That's been answered several times, but once more for the slow; the premium increases on the young and healthy are being used to subsidize the extra cost on the insurance company of having to cover the sick and older.

I am honest in recognizing that every law obligates people to be responsible. In the case of Obamacare it's to be responsible for the cost of their own health care.

If your explanation is correct, than whatever more the young and healthy are paying is offset by others paying less. No increase in total premiums.

Agreed, accept that isn't what we're talking about. We're not talking about the what the avg premium cost is doing regardless of risk pool. And further who cares about no increase in total premiums. What is that a measure of? That when you averaged across everyone in the country that single number might be lower than the national premium average previously? You're having to generalize so much at this point that that is meaningless. It tells us nothing.

Republicans, in an attempt to recover some of their lost relevance, are implying that Obamacare is costly to the nation rather than what it is. The measure of that would be total premium increase due to its mandates.

I think that on the short term the effects of it are economicly neutral and it's benefit is, over the long term, a necessary step to getting our completely out of control health care delivery system globally competitive.

Calling what you don't want to be true "meaningless" is not productive.

 

[Bern80]

I am honest in recognizing that every law obligates people to be responsible. In the case of Obamacare it's to be responsible for the cost of their own health care.

If your explanation is correct, than whatever more the young and healthy are paying is offset by others paying less. No increase in total premiums.

Agreed, accept that isn't what we're talking about. We're not talking about the what the avg premium cost is doing regardless of risk pool. And further who cares about no increase in total premiums. What is that a measure of? That when you averaged across everyone in the country that single number might be lower than the national premium average previously? You're having to generalize so much at this point that that is meaningless. It tells us nothing.

Republicans, in an attempt to recover some of their lost relevance, are implying that Obamacare is costly to the nation rather than what it is. The measure of that would be total premium increase due to its mandates.

I think that on the short term the effects of it are economicly neutral and it's benefit is, over the long term, a necessary step to getting our completely out of control health care delivery system globally competitive.

Calling what you don't want to be true "meaningless" is not productive.

It is meaningless. I for one have not contended it will be expensive to the nation (though it will be). I have maintained it's going to be costly to a lot of individuals and this has been proven. It's going to be costly to young, healthy individuals on the individual market. Obama lied about that. He sold this as healthcare being less expensive for everyone. We clearly see now that isn't going to be the case. It's just another example of stupid liberal problem solving. You reward the negative and punish the positive. You know that and again you're just trying to change the subject.

Globally competitive is anther vague, meanignless term. Competitive in what exactly? Because in terms of delivering health outcomes the U.S. is ranked at the top by the WHO. It's the cost that causes us to get ranked lower. But any one that understands a market should obviously see that superior quality is going to cost more.

 

[itfitzme]

You keep saying that yet can't seem to provide any evidence for it. Are the small business owner's I know seeing their raties nearly doubling lieing? Is the gentleman in the article PMZ posted simply mistaken about what will (see is) happening to the raties of the young and healthy. If so, I'm afraid simply saying I'm wrong doesn't cut it. At some point you have to show evidence for it.

Well, nothing you have presented is evidence of anything. Why should anyone else have to live up to a standard higher than the one you apply to yourself?

There is a funny story about two economics students. One announced his intent to switch majors to physics. His friend replies, “When you do, the average IQ for the physics department will go up and the average for the economics department will go down.” There is no “law of averages” that requires the average to be higher.

I've already provided my response to the presented article.

It is true that people whom would not have otherwise buy medical insurance will be paying more in terms of medical insurance. Not buying insurance doesn't have a direct insurance cost associated with it.

It is true that people that would not have purchased medical insurance and are lucky enough to not need substantial medical care will end up paying more than they might otherwise have, during the period of time for which they would not have otherwise purchased insurance.

Not purchasing health insurance and not getting sick or being in a sever accident doesn't have either insurance or medical costs associated with it.

The article sited doesn't definitively predict health care premiums. It does provide some insight into some of the effects that will affect health care premiums.

So, What evidence do you think can possibly be provided that will definitively predict prices in the future?

The community rating mandate does that. It perfectly predicts what will happen to the price of premiums. Again it's simply math. It's a mandate that requires insurance companies to avg. premiums across a given risk pool. Therefore some permiums MUST go up. That this regulation exists is your evidence that premiums are and must go up.

Oh billshit. You complain when others make statements without evidence, then you make a sweeping claim based on nothing except some unstated assumptions. Your math is simple, for sure. Unfortunately, it doesn't represent reality.

My question was, "what evidence do you think can possibly be provided that will definitively predict prices in the future?"

And your response makes it clear that evidence doesn't mean anything to you. You continue on this oversimplistic and inappropriately applied average.