politicartoons | You Know Him! You Love Him! THUNDERDOME!

I don't know why it's happening; I just know that it is.

I'm not asking why; I'm saying I do not see it happening.
So my questions are how do you know it's happening, to whom is it happening to that can be verified, and who are your sources for this data? That will tell me why I am not seeing it happen.

There's a thing called "Google". You should try it sometime.

And when I Google, all I see are allegations that this going to happen, that blah-blah people are going to receive this. But I see no verifiable data that indicates yes, this WILL happen, and here are the numbers to prove it. Speculation? Yes. Evidence? No.

I'm compelled to wonder what, in your rigid, authoritarian worldview, would constitute "evidence" or "verifiable data" about the future. The best we can do is look at what has happened in analogous scenarios, examine current trends, and, yes... speculate. And the speculation ain't good.

I want a report that's been verified by both statisticians and economists, showing the exact amount premiums are going to rise and what in Obamacare is causing that rise, down to the cent, and the dates that will occur. It should not be that hard. I am able to provide similar cost analysis reports for my own department; there is no speculation involved.

I mean really, it seems to be such a problem to say "The Bling Rule in Obamacare will result in a 2.6% increase in paperwork, causing an additional cost of $230948.048 per quarter due to necessary productivity additions. This cost will be spread out among x clients causing an average rise of $BLAH per premium over BLAH period." It's easy enough to figure out.

"I am able to provide similar cost analysis reports for my own department . . ." Good for you. I'm not an economist, but I suspect that there are a few more variables involved in providing such an analysis for the entire country.

No, if you say health costs have doubled, you have made a math prediction. If health costs are going to double, you need to say why or it's a bullshit prediction. Whoever is saying that health costs are going to double needs to provide reasons and math as to why it's happening, or they're just pulling shit out of their ass and are therefore lying through their teeth. This isn't an issue of economics; it's an issue of accounting. If the premium is going from $150.00 to $300.00, more than a say-so needs to be provided to believe that will occur. We're able to tell why the price of gas or a drum of oil has risen. I can tell you exactly why all fees for all private legal services in the state of GA has risen [1] and how much they have risen by. So no, I don't buy that health premiums are going to double auto-magically from hand-waving and no one is able to explain it.

[1] State passed a law increasing the fee schedules at the courthouse. For instance, the amount charged for copied documents that are required by law to be made by the courthouse. Thus, an appeal on average costs $10K more than it previously did.

Well, that's pretty simple. Reason #1: insurance companies will be required to cover previously uninsurable people, and the rest of us will pay to cover them. Reason #2: The market for health care, which already wasn't much of a market because insurance companies intentionally conceal how much you're paying and for what, is even less of a market now that purchasing the product is mandatory. What little incentive there was to deliver a product that appealed to skeptical consumers has now been eliminated.

But these points are rather moot, because the fact that rates are going up is no longer pure speculation. Quotes on 2014 plans that would comply with the Obamacare mandate are already available from some companies, and they represent huge rate hikes for most people (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/07/01/wsj-health-insurance-rates-could-double-or-even-triple-for-healthy-consumers-in-obamacares-exchanges/).

Reason #1: insurance companies will be required to cover previously uninsurable people, and the rest of us will pay to cover them.

And the cost of covering those previously uninsurable people are? Dollars and cents.
And how is that cost spread among the existing insured? Dollars and cents.

Reason #2: The market for health care, which already wasn't much of a market because insurance companies intentionally conceal how much you're paying and for what, is even less of a market now that purchasing the product is mandatory. What little incentive there was to deliver a product that appealed to skeptical consumers has now been eliminated.

That still doesn't provide me with dollars and cents. Y'know, math.

But these points are rather moot, because the fact that rates are going up is no longer pure speculation. Quotes on 2014 plans that would comply with the Obamacare mandate are already available from some companies, and they represent huge rate hikes for most people.

But, the article you provide doesn't really do cost breakdowns. It's saying "2013 rates are lower than 2014 rates in these analyses I'm showing! Must be Obamacare!" That's a conclusion not yet supported by the evidence. By the information in the article, the reason for the increases might be "Because the execs needed more bonus money.", or "Titanium, a major medical industry metal, has seen a spike in price due to rarity." or "We lost our subsidies to make pills in India!", etc.

Nowhere yet have we seen the cost breakdown from the insurers, in black and white, and thus we are not able to assume that Obamacare is the real reason for the rate hike for some people in some places.

Ladies and gentlemen: the difference between an executive and a bean counter.

For instance, you can google articles where the Aetna CEO said back in 2012 that premiums were going to go up through the roof. But my HR keeps getting notices from Aetna specifically stating "We will not being raising premiums for you or for any other client we service. And when we re-up next November, the premiums aren't changing. And everyone else I know who has Aetna, privately or through an employer, has received the same assurance that premiums will not be raised.

So in that case, am I supposed to believe the 2012 googled articles? Or the official communications from Aetna? Which would you believe?

Well, considering how often you brag about your own company bending rules and lying to people...

That's my employer to clients. And hey, it's all legal.
But that still doesn't answer my question, because we're talking about Aetna, not my employer. So in that case, am I supposed to believe the 2012 googled articles? Or the official communications from Aetna?

Knowing what I know about the honesty and integrity of insurance companies, I'd say that what Aetna told you and what they said publicly should both be ignored. I mean, obviously one of those statements is a lie; which one is anyone's guess. What's left is independent analysis. And that analysis, though sparse, points to major rate increases.

Actually, I'll be going by what Aetna tells my employer, because the information they have provided is part of their contractual obligations with us. And insurance companies do not deliberately void contracts with Global 500 companies, not if they don't want to be eviscerated and become another Enron. So I already know which one is a lie.

You Know Him! You Love Him! THUNDERDOME!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject