Study: Health law to raise claims cost 32 percent

  • Thread starter Thread starter SamH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SamH

Guest
WASHINGTON (AP) – A new study finds that insurance companies will have to pay out an average of 32 percent more for medical claims under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

What does that mean for you?

It could increase premiums for at least some Americans.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The estimates from the Society of Actuaries could turn into a political headache for the Obama administration at a time when much of the country remains skeptical of the Affordable Care Act.

The administration is questioning the study, saying it doesn’t give a full picture - and costs will go down.

Actuaries are financial risk professionals who conduct long-range cost estimates for pension plans, insurance companies and government programs.
Click to expand...
hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_COSTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-03-27-07-01-19
Click to expand...
Still waiting to see that $2500 cut in insurance costs Obama promised.
 
Mmmm. Bacon. (missed breakfast 🙂 )

Does this really come as a surprise to anybody? It certainly doesn’t to me.

–Jen
 
The premise for the claim of lowering costs was that by mandating insurance, the pool would increase in size dramatically (particularly by adding previously uninsured younger, often healthier people), and thus defraying outlays by insurers thus cut costs for customers on that end.

In practice however, as the article mentions by allowing anyone into the pool, theyre taking in huge variables and accordingly huge risks with people who really may be sicker than average, as these people likely have been uninsured or on Medicaid until now.

By putting them on the insured rolls, in the very volatile individually insured market no less, prices likely will rise even further in that segment.

Good intentions lead to the same place they always do.

Medical care was alot cheaper before managed care (be it private or government); something to consider. When looking at healthcare costs, ask, “who benefits?”
 
Geist said:
The premise for the claim of lowering costs was that by mandating insurance, the pool would increase in size dramatically (particularly by adding previously uninsured younger, often healthier people), and thus defraying outlays by insurers thus cut costs for customers on that end.

In practice however, as the article mentions by allowing anyone into the pool, theyre taking in huge variables and accordingly huge risks with people who really may be sicker than average, as these people likely have been uninsured or on Medicaid until now.

By putting them on the insured rolls, in the very volatile individually insured market no less, prices likely will rise even further in that segment.

Good intentions lead to the same place they always do.

Medical care was alot cheaper before managed care (be it private or government); something to consider. When looking at healthcare costs, ask, “who benefits?”
Click to expand...
Not to mention the fact that people will wait until they are sick before buying insurance. Why buy home owners insurance if you can get coverage while the house is on fire?
 
revert_jen said:
Mmmm. Bacon. (missed breakfast 🙂 )

Does this really come as a surprise to anybody? It certainly doesn’t to me.

–Jen
Click to expand...
not in the least, I said it long before obamacare passed. It was the only logical outcome.
 
Obamacare is really a nightmare to figure out. Among the unanswered questions are:
-Whether people who buy their own, either themselves or through their employment, are going to be underwritten at the “community rate”. Obamacare says the policies in the exchanges will be based on the “community rate”, but it doesn’t say how that rate might change or how community rate will be calculated in the future.

-Whether the exchange patrons will always be at the “community rate” no matter what it is. Because “community rate” is now a single thing, dividing the populace between the presumably better off who can pay and those less well off who are subsidized would presumably allow insurers to adopt a “two rate” approach. Since it appears insurers will NOT be forced to participate in exchange policies in order to insure at all, and since higher income people tend not to be as sick, the costs could end up “bottom loaded”, bloating the costs of the subsidized segment over those of the non-subsidized segment; a truly weird result.

or, alternatively, will insurers who do not participate in the exchanges be obliged by Obamacare to charge at rates higher than are actuarially indicated for their group. Initially, it was thought that they would be so obliged, which would effectively be one portion of the population additionally subsidizing another by paying unjustifiable rates. Now, it’s not so sure, as I understand it, leaving open the question whether there will be a bifurcation of underwriting.

The more I see of this, the more I think Pelosi was wrong. We couldn’t know what was in Obamacare just by passing it. I think it’s probably more like waterboarding; knowing what it is is not enough. You have to actually experience it to understand what it really is.
 
Ridgerunner said:
The more I see of this, the more I think Pelosi was wrong. We couldn’t know what was in Obamacare just by passing it. I think it’s probably more like waterboarding; knowing what it is is not enough. You have to actually experience it to understand what it really is.
Click to expand...
Seems like a very apt comparison. But unlike water boarding Obamacare will kill people and inflict lasting harm.
 
A similar study (with similar results) was done, I believe based out of a group in Manhattan. The study was called “Rhetoric vs. Reality” and had some good insight into the individual cost increases for health insurance, even estimating employee sponsored, family coverage cost be around $20K per year within 10 years…
 
SamH said:
Seems like a very apt comparison. But unlike water boarding Obamacare will kill people and inflict lasting harm.
Click to expand...
I agree with your sentiment, but waterboarding does induce long-term scars in some of its victims, in a similar vein to ptsd.
 
Geist said:
The premise for the claim of lowering costs was that by mandating insurance, the pool would increase in size dramatically (particularly by adding previously uninsured younger, often healthier people), and thus defraying outlays by insurers thus cut costs for customers on that end.

In practice however, as the article mentions by allowing anyone into the pool, theyre taking in huge variables and accordingly huge risks with people who really may be sicker than average, as these people likely have been uninsured or on Medicaid until now.

By putting them on the insured rolls, in the very volatile individually insured market no less, prices likely will rise even further in that segment.

Good intentions lead to the same place they always do.

Medical care was alot cheaper before managed care (be it private or government); something to consider. When looking at healthcare costs, ask, “who benefits?”
Click to expand...
Well, at least we now know how to make health care costs go down – revert to the status quo.
 
tomarin said:
Well, at least we now know how to make health care costs go down – revert to the status quo.
Click to expand...
Kind of. Look at the two sectors of the economy where prices only rise annually (often in double digits):

Healthcare and college.

This used to not be the case, because people used to pay out of their own pocket for everything. Hence there was a motivation to conserve resources and prices were kept low.

When someone else is paying people will gobble up what they dont even need (be it an MRI for a benign headache or a graduate degree program in a useless major).

Before networks doctors and hospitals also could compete on price; now its irrelevant since your co-pay/deductible/co-insurance is the same regardless of who you see.
 
revert_jen said:
Mmmm. Bacon. (missed breakfast 🙂 )

Does this really come as a surprise to anybody? It certainly doesn’t to me.

–Jen
Click to expand...
I don’t think it comes as a surprise to the majority on CAF. Unfortunately, there are a lot of poorly-informed folks out there who will be unpleasantly surprised. 😦
 
Where are the intelligent defenders of this great bill? It has already surpassed every cost expectation and it is still in its infancy. Great job.

Someone, please, defend this.
 
Yeah, when the leader pushing this debacle said publicly, “We have to pass this to know what’s in it.” it was very clear it was a disaster cobbled together by incompetent people.

If I ever gave my boss a contract making radical changes to the business to sign and told him I couldn’t tell him what the expected effects were until after he signed it, I would be out of a job and would never be able to find one doing the same sort of work ever again.
 
SamH said:
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Good one! 👍
Click to expand...
Don’t laugh - I saw a few taking pictures of the frozen lakes of hell from the backs of winged pigs just a few days ago. They were using the Abominable Snowman’s camera, too.
 
“**The study says claims costs will go up largely because sicker people will join the insurance pool. **That’s because the law forbids insurers from turning down those with pre-existing medical problems, effective Jan. 1. Everyone gets sick sooner or later, but sicker people also use more health care services.”

If I have to pay a little bit more for health insurance so people with preexisting conditions can actually get health insurance, so be it. I feel like that is the Christian mentality to have to be honest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top