Let’s see. Free room and board, laundry, Healthcare. Life is good for the failure to launch bunch. They can go participate in the OWS protests without a care in the world. It may get a little old for the parents when the kid reaches 35 or so and is still at home.
Just curious if IJS will report how many working adults have moved from private insurers to govt ins. when BOcare takes over? I guess the spin will be look at how much better the govt choice is…. Then ultimately, the IJS spin on the bankruptcy of the USA will be look how much better the Chinese Yuan is!
Insurance is great, but its not a right. Improvements in some areas may well improve it overall. The Feds insuring 15 million illegals and requiring that I purchase is illegal!
Really? I’ve known many to be on medicaid. Is that not a public option? Foodstamps and wellfare, too. I’m tired of my tax dollars going to illegals for benefits that I would be denied if the shoe were on the other foot.
The President’s recent comments about Americans being lazy and unmotivated fit nicely on the Failure to Launch people who live as a leach off their parents getting all the freebies. Why would they ever have the gumption to get out and make something of themselves if they have paradise at home? The working folks out there have been supporting the ones who pay no taxes, get free healthcare, food stamps, housing and anything else they can get because the politicians cater to them. Then, they can go out and protest the 1% who have been successful. What an Obamanation.
I wonder why health insurance rates have gone up, oh yeah, 1 million more insureds. Looks like TOPOV can continue to live with his parents for another couple years.
Rates will continue to climb until everyone is forced to buy a policy in 2014. Then when everyone is insured and people like you stop leaching off the rest of us, the cost of health care should start to go down because hospitals will no longer have to overcharge to make up for the fact that so many patients are uninsured.
Stop complaining, take some personal responsbility and go get a health insurace policy and stop leaching off the rest of us.
I’m 48 years old, served our country as a Captain in the Field Artillery and have owned my own home since 1990.
I have never been uninsured, therefore, when I go to the emergency room, I am not passing my health care costs onto those who have health insurance.
People who think they shouldn’t have to purchase coverage because of some sick twisted notion about “freedom” are nothing but leaches on society. We’re sick and tired of carrying you. Go get a health insurance policy.
Part of coming up is not having health insurance and working hard to attain it. It is supposed to be hard to get any health care throughout college and especially when you graduate. At 22, I was graduated from a 4 year college, I owned a house and was married with a decent net worth. These days kids are lazy until they are 30 and look for someone to blame as to why. The sweetest thing about PPACA being overturned will be when the 30 and under crowd realizes life isn’t fair and not everybody is a winner.
I could be misremembering the provisions of the PPACA. As regards young adults, doesn’t it simply reduce restrictions on keeping your own children on your own family policy once they turn 18? Shouldn’t that mean that these 2.5m young people who gained coverage were voluntarily added and paid for by their parents?
As far as I know the PPACA doesn’t force parents to provide coverage for adult children. It simply allows them to. If you don’t care to provide health care for your kids, don’t.
Okay, lets see if I understand you, You put your kids on my plan and I don’t put my kids on then my premium will not go to pay for your kids medical bills? Sounds like Democratic rather than risk pooling logic I guess.
No. I don’t put my kids on your plan. I put my kids on my own plan and I pay a premium to put them on my plan. You choose not to put your kids on your own plan and you don’t pay a premium.
This isn’t rocket science. You get a choice. Keep your kids on your own plan if you want for an additional premium.
You have kids? I thought you usually move out before having kids!
December 16, 2011 at 5:29 pm
ktb says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Here we see one of the brightest and best.
December 19, 2011 at 10:13 am
Ratemaker says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It is objectionable because that is not the choice many group plans offer.
My choices (and those of many others) are “Single” or “Family” coverage. The family coverage rates are not differentiated by the size of the family in question. My rates went up in part because the average number of insureds on a family plan went up, even though the number of insureds on my particular coverage did not.
December 19, 2011 at 1:26 pm
ktb says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ratemaker, that is a great point. Do you think that this issue would be more palatable if pricing structures were changed to more finely discriminate between number of insureds on a family plan?
December 20, 2011 at 9:04 am
Ratemaker says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
to ktb: absolutely. If the pricing structures were generally fixed to account for the number of insureds in a family plan, allowing adult children to remain on a family plan simultaneously has more young, healthy people participating in the system while also collecting premium dollars from the correct people.
I have no children myself. I do not mind subsidizing those who do to some degree. That doesn’t mean I don’t mind when that degree increases.
December 16, 2011 at 5:27 pm
ktb says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It’s disgusting that somehow insurance concepts have become partisan.
Perhaps other people work at a companies where the average age and health condition of people participating in the group health care plan is better than that of the average 18-26 year old. I don’t.
Sorry for the succession of posts, I had a funny thought:
Bob, perhaps you should solicit your coworkers not to add their children to their health care plan. They surely must be sympathetic to your concerns. What reasonable person wouldn’t disadvantage their own family solely for the benefit you perceive it must bring you?
Ok, it appears that someone else named Bob has been posting since I decided it was pointless to debate on here…Interesting.
TOPOV:
I see a problem with your logic again. 2.5 million more are insured. Remind me how much premiums went up last year? Obama’s legislation was not by any means about managing costs. It was about moving forward to a public option in time (nothing happens over night), and or giving money to private insurers. If he really changed things for the better, 2.5 million out of the total 30 some million uninsured in a younger age group (lower health costs) would have made our costs go down. Not up. All he did was force you to buy a policy whether or not my above comment is accurate, and costs have not gone down, so he clearly did it wrong and messed up our system more (seeing as the 2.5 million added would pull down the risk pool and premiums managed to go up). I call that a failure.
I would simply love to know who could have down thumbed that last post.
Seriously. Who has the highest healthcare costs? 50+ or the 20’s? There’s a reason we wanted them insured. As Obama put it, it should pull down the risk pool cost for all.
If it hasn’t, he failed. End of story. He penciled it out wrong, or he did it deliberately. There are no other options. Since he’s a democrat, I go with deliberately.
It could mean a few things KTB. The company you work for got a new health plan last year with lower premiums, but your out-of-pocket costs have gone up. Or you shopped yourself for a lower plan since the one you had raised their rates. I was a healthcare agent for many years and no ones premium ever went down. Espeically if they used their insurance. File a claim, your rates go up. Same as auto and home insurance. I take that back, Assurant did lower their rates back in 2008, however, this year renewals are being increased by as much as 30% I am told. Good old OBcare sure made a big differnece.
I guess this is my point. There are many variables that govern whether rates go up or down. Bob is claiming that the PPACA was passed, rates went up, so the passage of the PPACA caused rates to go up. (I have no legal background: What is that? Ex post facto?)
My rates went down. You correctly point out that other variables could have caused that. In general rates went up (or so I gather). My point is that there are other factors that also influence the rate.
Can anyone say that rates would not have risen if the PPACA were never passed? If they would have risen without the PPACA (and it sounds like they had been doing that for some time), would they have risen less or more without the PPACA?
Proving whether or not they would have gone down without it isn’t the point.
All we need to know is that lower risk premiums being added should decrease premiums as a whole. If they maintained the same rate of increase as a whole (which they did) then the formula did not work and was horribly messed up.
Adding in the lower risk insureds will increase cost less than adding the high risk insureds. If adding the low did not have a substantial effect, then it was done incorrectly. There are no other options. Business is a formula for insurance. I have to ask, are you or are you not an agent. I am. I’ve been one a long while. Go ask an underwriter what I’m talking about. See what they say. Have you or have you not gone to insurance classes? They discuss this forumla I’m referring to and have since it was mentioned several years ago.
December 26, 2011 at 11:13 am
ktb says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You are missing the point. Health insurance premiums aren’t inherently stable. They have been increasing for years. It is necessary to know what they would have done in the absence of the PPACA because you cannot determine the effect of the law otherwise.
If health insurance premiums would have risen 10% without the PPACA but only rose 5% with the PPACA, then it would lend support to the idea that the law slowed the rate of increase of premiums. Which, in addition to making coverage better and more attainable, was one of the goals of the legislation.
But really, you vastly oversimplify the issue. There are a great number of other factors necessary to determine the effect of the PPACA. Moreover, rates aren’t set just on a single year of experience. Insurance companies don’t yet know what experience they had in 2011, and they won’t for some years to come.
But I suppose this isn’t the place for a lengthy discussion about ratemaking or reserve estimation. The point is that you are making far too direct a connection between the aggregate rate change for the year and the addition of one variable.
FYI, I am not an agent. I direct the actuarial department at my company. Admittedly my experience is on the property/casualty side of the industry. I am sure my life/health colleagues would be better informed about the nuances of individual health ratemaking. But your comments regarding the relationship between the rate change this year and the PPACA wouldn’t stand scrutiny in either field.
December 27, 2011 at 12:52 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
KTB:
I’m not missing the point at all.
If the premiums increased at the standard rate (which it did), while adding the lowest risk, the plan failed.
Again: I do not need to prove something unprovable to begin with (whether or not it would have increased without the act) all I have to do is compare the percentage increase to recent history. Premiums have always been going up. Correct. This act is supposed to stem that. If adding 2.5 million of 30 million of the uninsured in the lowest risk did not affect in a single year the amount of the increase (which the increase this last year is similar to other years) then the point is proven.
Did the increase go at the same rate? Yes. Did the risk go down? Yes. The plan failed.
End of story. I don’t need to prove what other factors are in this, as those same factors existed before this as well. You must find a change, find what the goal of the change is, the percentage of completion of that change, and map out the numbers. The best part of this plan and lowest cost section went through. It is the only possible part that could have lowered cost. It didn’t lower costs. And soon we’ll add in the higher risk insureds. You are grossly over complicating it. Either something works or it doesn’t. The numbers say this didn’t.
December 27, 2011 at 2:39 pm
ktb says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You’ve clearly got it all figured out.
December 27, 2011 at 2:57 pm
ktb says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I can’t understand what it is about the internet that makes me so rude sometimes. I would have never been so snide to your face. Bob, I apologize for that last comment.
Look, it seems like we’re not going to be able to come to an agreement here. I maintain that you are mistaken in your assertions about the effect of the PPACA, and you maintain that you are not mistaken.
This is a reasonable conclusion. I imagine that neither of us sets policy for the current administration, so we can both be as wrong as we’d like.
December 27, 2011 at 3:09 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
A side comment KTB:
I never said the PPACA caused rates to go up. I said that it failed in bringing rates down.
Seeing as rates as a whole have gone up at the same rate as before the PPACA, and the risk added to insurance companies went down substantially (the age group that increased by 2.5 million has the lowest cost) PPACA failed to do what it was intended to do, and has not, and will not, bring down costs. We now only have the higher risk insureds to add. There’s no imaginary effect that will suddenly make it more effective. Insurers do rate based on loss ratios for several years, again you are correct. Suffice it to say, they already have risk ratios for that age group. Do you really believe the 18-24 age group didn’t exist to them before? They already have the ratios for adding them, there’s no need to pause in the premium relief. This is especially true as the new laws limit how much premium dollars can be used for services. Given the regulations in place, they can’t just suddenly waste the money, and they can’t just suddenly change the ratios and rates for the lowest insureds. So adding them didn’t bring down the cost for another reason to these insurers and the answer is: They know how much the adding of the highest risk insureds will cost.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it’s a duck. You haven’t shown anything that shows this isn’t a duck.
I don’t know how much more simple I can make this.
Your point is just ridiculous to me. Where in the plan do you see the possibility for decrease?
Seeing as there actually was an increase, you can’t argue a concept that the plan worked because we can’t prove that it didn’t work (despite premium increases at the same rate). That is beyond irrational. So the burden of proof is actually on you to prove how it did work. You may not be able to undertstand that, but you’ll find that it’s true if you look into it enough.
How did the plan work? Did it affect the premiums? Did adding the lower risk insureds lower premiums for the whole group? This is not rocket science. You know what is true, but I imagine your political allegience is getting in the way of you connecting the dots.
December 27, 2011 at 3:11 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
That should read that it’s especially true since the new laws limits how much premium can be used for anything other than services. Investing has actually been limited…Which sadly enough is where private insurers get the ability to write your insurance for a lower amount…
December 20, 2011 at 9:44 am
Jacob S. says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Thank God the healthiest group among us now have access to health insurance through their parents. We sure dodged a bullet there. I mean who would of thought kids over 18 could have obtained a job and health insurance before they are 26…not me. That’s absurd. I think you should be able to be on your parents policy until you are at least 58. Whey stop at 26? Just because you have grand children doesn’t mean you should have to pay for your own insurance. I see no need to have any personal responsibility or bills whatsoever.
Seeing as this article says the 20’s age group changed and the others didn’t the 2.5 million is the LOWEST of the risk. This should bring down the risk poop the MOST. Premiums went UP. Do the math. He failed somehwere along the way that is not even debateable. If it was going to be successful, it would have started now with it’s lowest risk section intgrated in. If the LOWEST risk portion of the group didn’t LOWER premiums, then would the HIGHEST risk portion LOWER premiums? No. We are agents. Start acting like it.
(2.5 million * premiums) – (2.5 million * losses) = costs. I’m quite tired today.
Can you deny that 2.5 million * (low risk insureds 20’s) is less than 2.5 million * (high risk insureds 50+).
If premiums did not decline, then either something is messed up, or someone is profitting big time. So…Ooops on Obama’s part, or intentional screwing us. Which is it? There are no other options.
Just wait until the 2.5 million * (high risk insureds) are added in to the premium mix. If premiums didn’t go down and went up adding the 2.5 million * (low risk insureds) what do you believe will happen?
Downgrade my post all you want. The math is accurate.
And then wait for the rest of the 25 million on top of that.
Oooo boy.
Loss ratios, premiums, constant variables do not just suddenly change for the highest risk section of the group. If premiums raised for 10% of the total being added in a low risk, then premiums will increase even more by adding the rest. It’s highschoo math.
I wonder how many Bob’s are on this blog. Kind of hard to tell what is going on. Everybody keeps talking about adding the faiure to launch under 26 crowd being on the parent’s policy. Everyone should remember that Obamacare allows anyone to apply for coverage at any time and cannot be turned down due to Pre X’s. Healthy young people are not going to get coverage until the last minute when they realize they have a problem. They will pay the tax and be uncovered if they aren’t living at home covered by their brain dead parents policy. By all means, let’s not encourage personal responsibility here. The kid thinks everything will be handed to him on a silver platter due to what the government is feeding them.
Let’s see. Free room and board, laundry, Healthcare. Life is good for the failure to launch bunch. They can go participate in the OWS protests without a care in the world. It may get a little old for the parents when the kid reaches 35 or so and is still at home.
In households all over the country you will be seeing the Parents moving out and getting their own apartments!
Our generation will be known as the Double Launch Boomers!
Just curious if IJS will report how many working adults have moved from private insurers to govt ins. when BOcare takes over? I guess the spin will be look at how much better the govt choice is…. Then ultimately, the IJS spin on the bankruptcy of the USA will be look how much better the Chinese Yuan is!
Insurance is great, but its not a right. Improvements in some areas may well improve it overall. The Feds insuring 15 million illegals and requiring that I purchase is illegal!
Your comment demonstrates you don’t understand the PPACA. There is no public option.
Really? I’ve known many to be on medicaid. Is that not a public option? Foodstamps and wellfare, too. I’m tired of my tax dollars going to illegals for benefits that I would be denied if the shoe were on the other foot.
I agree… just another way this abomination in the white house is helping to spread the welfare state.
Communism here we come!
The President’s recent comments about Americans being lazy and unmotivated fit nicely on the Failure to Launch people who live as a leach off their parents getting all the freebies. Why would they ever have the gumption to get out and make something of themselves if they have paradise at home? The working folks out there have been supporting the ones who pay no taxes, get free healthcare, food stamps, housing and anything else they can get because the politicians cater to them. Then, they can go out and protest the 1% who have been successful. What an Obamanation.
I wonder why health insurance rates have gone up, oh yeah, 1 million more insureds. Looks like TOPOV can continue to live with his parents for another couple years.
Rates will continue to climb until everyone is forced to buy a policy in 2014. Then when everyone is insured and people like you stop leaching off the rest of us, the cost of health care should start to go down because hospitals will no longer have to overcharge to make up for the fact that so many patients are uninsured.
Stop complaining, take some personal responsbility and go get a health insurace policy and stop leaching off the rest of us.
Leaching?! I don’t think you should talk until you move out of the garage and get your own place TOPOV.
I’m 48 years old, served our country as a Captain in the Field Artillery and have owned my own home since 1990.
I have never been uninsured, therefore, when I go to the emergency room, I am not passing my health care costs onto those who have health insurance.
People who think they shouldn’t have to purchase coverage because of some sick twisted notion about “freedom” are nothing but leaches on society. We’re sick and tired of carrying you. Go get a health insurance policy.
Part of coming up is not having health insurance and working hard to attain it. It is supposed to be hard to get any health care throughout college and especially when you graduate. At 22, I was graduated from a 4 year college, I owned a house and was married with a decent net worth. These days kids are lazy until they are 30 and look for someone to blame as to why. The sweetest thing about PPACA being overturned will be when the 30 and under crowd realizes life isn’t fair and not everybody is a winner.
I could be misremembering the provisions of the PPACA. As regards young adults, doesn’t it simply reduce restrictions on keeping your own children on your own family policy once they turn 18? Shouldn’t that mean that these 2.5m young people who gained coverage were voluntarily added and paid for by their parents?
As far as I know the PPACA doesn’t force parents to provide coverage for adult children. It simply allows them to. If you don’t care to provide health care for your kids, don’t.
Exactly right ktb. Those that oppose this don’t like the fact that the PPACA gives them more choices.
Okay, lets see if I understand you, You put your kids on my plan and I don’t put my kids on then my premium will not go to pay for your kids medical bills? Sounds like Democratic rather than risk pooling logic I guess.
No. I don’t put my kids on your plan. I put my kids on my own plan and I pay a premium to put them on my plan. You choose not to put your kids on your own plan and you don’t pay a premium.
This isn’t rocket science. You get a choice. Keep your kids on your own plan if you want for an additional premium.
How in the world is that objectionable?
You have kids? I thought you usually move out before having kids!
Here we see one of the brightest and best.
It is objectionable because that is not the choice many group plans offer.
My choices (and those of many others) are “Single” or “Family” coverage. The family coverage rates are not differentiated by the size of the family in question. My rates went up in part because the average number of insureds on a family plan went up, even though the number of insureds on my particular coverage did not.
Ratemaker, that is a great point. Do you think that this issue would be more palatable if pricing structures were changed to more finely discriminate between number of insureds on a family plan?
to ktb: absolutely. If the pricing structures were generally fixed to account for the number of insureds in a family plan, allowing adult children to remain on a family plan simultaneously has more young, healthy people participating in the system while also collecting premium dollars from the correct people.
I have no children myself. I do not mind subsidizing those who do to some degree. That doesn’t mean I don’t mind when that degree increases.
It’s disgusting that somehow insurance concepts have become partisan.
Perhaps other people work at a companies where the average age and health condition of people participating in the group health care plan is better than that of the average 18-26 year old. I don’t.
Sorry for the succession of posts, I had a funny thought:
Bob, perhaps you should solicit your coworkers not to add their children to their health care plan. They surely must be sympathetic to your concerns. What reasonable person wouldn’t disadvantage their own family solely for the benefit you perceive it must bring you?
Ok, it appears that someone else named Bob has been posting since I decided it was pointless to debate on here…Interesting.
TOPOV:
I see a problem with your logic again. 2.5 million more are insured. Remind me how much premiums went up last year? Obama’s legislation was not by any means about managing costs. It was about moving forward to a public option in time (nothing happens over night), and or giving money to private insurers. If he really changed things for the better, 2.5 million out of the total 30 some million uninsured in a younger age group (lower health costs) would have made our costs go down. Not up. All he did was force you to buy a policy whether or not my above comment is accurate, and costs have not gone down, so he clearly did it wrong and messed up our system more (seeing as the 2.5 million added would pull down the risk pool and premiums managed to go up). I call that a failure.
Would you not?
I would simply love to know who could have down thumbed that last post.
Seriously. Who has the highest healthcare costs? 50+ or the 20’s? There’s a reason we wanted them insured. As Obama put it, it should pull down the risk pool cost for all.
If it hasn’t, he failed. End of story. He penciled it out wrong, or he did it deliberately. There are no other options. Since he’s a democrat, I go with deliberately.
My insurance rates actually did go down this year. Does that mean the PPACA was a success?
It could mean a few things KTB. The company you work for got a new health plan last year with lower premiums, but your out-of-pocket costs have gone up. Or you shopped yourself for a lower plan since the one you had raised their rates. I was a healthcare agent for many years and no ones premium ever went down. Espeically if they used their insurance. File a claim, your rates go up. Same as auto and home insurance. I take that back, Assurant did lower their rates back in 2008, however, this year renewals are being increased by as much as 30% I am told. Good old OBcare sure made a big differnece.
I guess this is my point. There are many variables that govern whether rates go up or down. Bob is claiming that the PPACA was passed, rates went up, so the passage of the PPACA caused rates to go up. (I have no legal background: What is that? Ex post facto?)
My rates went down. You correctly point out that other variables could have caused that. In general rates went up (or so I gather). My point is that there are other factors that also influence the rate.
Can anyone say that rates would not have risen if the PPACA were never passed? If they would have risen without the PPACA (and it sounds like they had been doing that for some time), would they have risen less or more without the PPACA?
Proving whether or not they would have gone down without it isn’t the point.
All we need to know is that lower risk premiums being added should decrease premiums as a whole. If they maintained the same rate of increase as a whole (which they did) then the formula did not work and was horribly messed up.
Adding in the lower risk insureds will increase cost less than adding the high risk insureds. If adding the low did not have a substantial effect, then it was done incorrectly. There are no other options. Business is a formula for insurance. I have to ask, are you or are you not an agent. I am. I’ve been one a long while. Go ask an underwriter what I’m talking about. See what they say. Have you or have you not gone to insurance classes? They discuss this forumla I’m referring to and have since it was mentioned several years ago.
You are missing the point. Health insurance premiums aren’t inherently stable. They have been increasing for years. It is necessary to know what they would have done in the absence of the PPACA because you cannot determine the effect of the law otherwise.
If health insurance premiums would have risen 10% without the PPACA but only rose 5% with the PPACA, then it would lend support to the idea that the law slowed the rate of increase of premiums. Which, in addition to making coverage better and more attainable, was one of the goals of the legislation.
But really, you vastly oversimplify the issue. There are a great number of other factors necessary to determine the effect of the PPACA. Moreover, rates aren’t set just on a single year of experience. Insurance companies don’t yet know what experience they had in 2011, and they won’t for some years to come.
But I suppose this isn’t the place for a lengthy discussion about ratemaking or reserve estimation. The point is that you are making far too direct a connection between the aggregate rate change for the year and the addition of one variable.
FYI, I am not an agent. I direct the actuarial department at my company. Admittedly my experience is on the property/casualty side of the industry. I am sure my life/health colleagues would be better informed about the nuances of individual health ratemaking. But your comments regarding the relationship between the rate change this year and the PPACA wouldn’t stand scrutiny in either field.
KTB:
I’m not missing the point at all.
If the premiums increased at the standard rate (which it did), while adding the lowest risk, the plan failed.
Again: I do not need to prove something unprovable to begin with (whether or not it would have increased without the act) all I have to do is compare the percentage increase to recent history. Premiums have always been going up. Correct. This act is supposed to stem that. If adding 2.5 million of 30 million of the uninsured in the lowest risk did not affect in a single year the amount of the increase (which the increase this last year is similar to other years) then the point is proven.
Did the increase go at the same rate? Yes. Did the risk go down? Yes. The plan failed.
End of story. I don’t need to prove what other factors are in this, as those same factors existed before this as well. You must find a change, find what the goal of the change is, the percentage of completion of that change, and map out the numbers. The best part of this plan and lowest cost section went through. It is the only possible part that could have lowered cost. It didn’t lower costs. And soon we’ll add in the higher risk insureds. You are grossly over complicating it. Either something works or it doesn’t. The numbers say this didn’t.
You’ve clearly got it all figured out.
I can’t understand what it is about the internet that makes me so rude sometimes. I would have never been so snide to your face. Bob, I apologize for that last comment.
Look, it seems like we’re not going to be able to come to an agreement here. I maintain that you are mistaken in your assertions about the effect of the PPACA, and you maintain that you are not mistaken.
This is a reasonable conclusion. I imagine that neither of us sets policy for the current administration, so we can both be as wrong as we’d like.
A side comment KTB:
I never said the PPACA caused rates to go up. I said that it failed in bringing rates down.
Seeing as rates as a whole have gone up at the same rate as before the PPACA, and the risk added to insurance companies went down substantially (the age group that increased by 2.5 million has the lowest cost) PPACA failed to do what it was intended to do, and has not, and will not, bring down costs. We now only have the higher risk insureds to add. There’s no imaginary effect that will suddenly make it more effective. Insurers do rate based on loss ratios for several years, again you are correct. Suffice it to say, they already have risk ratios for that age group. Do you really believe the 18-24 age group didn’t exist to them before? They already have the ratios for adding them, there’s no need to pause in the premium relief. This is especially true as the new laws limit how much premium dollars can be used for services. Given the regulations in place, they can’t just suddenly waste the money, and they can’t just suddenly change the ratios and rates for the lowest insureds. So adding them didn’t bring down the cost for another reason to these insurers and the answer is: They know how much the adding of the highest risk insureds will cost.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it’s a duck. You haven’t shown anything that shows this isn’t a duck.
I don’t know how much more simple I can make this.
Your point is just ridiculous to me. Where in the plan do you see the possibility for decrease?
Seeing as there actually was an increase, you can’t argue a concept that the plan worked because we can’t prove that it didn’t work (despite premium increases at the same rate). That is beyond irrational. So the burden of proof is actually on you to prove how it did work. You may not be able to undertstand that, but you’ll find that it’s true if you look into it enough.
How did the plan work? Did it affect the premiums? Did adding the lower risk insureds lower premiums for the whole group? This is not rocket science. You know what is true, but I imagine your political allegience is getting in the way of you connecting the dots.
That should read that it’s especially true since the new laws limits how much premium can be used for anything other than services. Investing has actually been limited…Which sadly enough is where private insurers get the ability to write your insurance for a lower amount…
Thank God the healthiest group among us now have access to health insurance through their parents. We sure dodged a bullet there. I mean who would of thought kids over 18 could have obtained a job and health insurance before they are 26…not me. That’s absurd. I think you should be able to be on your parents policy until you are at least 58. Whey stop at 26? Just because you have grand children doesn’t mean you should have to pay for your own insurance. I see no need to have any personal responsibility or bills whatsoever.
To those downgrading my posts:
2.5 million * losses * premium = cost
Seeing as this article says the 20’s age group changed and the others didn’t the 2.5 million is the LOWEST of the risk. This should bring down the risk poop the MOST. Premiums went UP. Do the math. He failed somehwere along the way that is not even debateable. If it was going to be successful, it would have started now with it’s lowest risk section intgrated in. If the LOWEST risk portion of the group didn’t LOWER premiums, then would the HIGHEST risk portion LOWER premiums? No. We are agents. Start acting like it.
It’s highschool math.
Bah Should read:
(2.5 million * premiums) – (2.5 million * losses) = costs. I’m quite tired today.
Can you deny that 2.5 million * (low risk insureds 20’s) is less than 2.5 million * (high risk insureds 50+).
If premiums did not decline, then either something is messed up, or someone is profitting big time. So…Ooops on Obama’s part, or intentional screwing us. Which is it? There are no other options.
Just wait until the 2.5 million * (high risk insureds) are added in to the premium mix. If premiums didn’t go down and went up adding the 2.5 million * (low risk insureds) what do you believe will happen?
Downgrade my post all you want. The math is accurate.
And then wait for the rest of the 25 million on top of that.
Oooo boy.
Loss ratios, premiums, constant variables do not just suddenly change for the highest risk section of the group. If premiums raised for 10% of the total being added in a low risk, then premiums will increase even more by adding the rest. It’s highschoo math.
I wonder how many Bob’s are on this blog. Kind of hard to tell what is going on. Everybody keeps talking about adding the faiure to launch under 26 crowd being on the parent’s policy. Everyone should remember that Obamacare allows anyone to apply for coverage at any time and cannot be turned down due to Pre X’s. Healthy young people are not going to get coverage until the last minute when they realize they have a problem. They will pay the tax and be uncovered if they aren’t living at home covered by their brain dead parents policy. By all means, let’s not encourage personal responsibility here. The kid thinks everything will be handed to him on a silver platter due to what the government is feeding them.