I’m kind of busy today, but I just wanted to make the point that the subsidies in Obamacare are tied to income levels, so if the rates go up it is the government that pays more, not the consumer. Of course, this isn’t true for people who make too much money to qualify for subsidies. Still, the combination of rich people not wanting to pay more and the federal government not wanting to pay more means that the growth in insurance rates will probably be much lower than it has been historically.
The Republicans would do better to point out that people getting subsidies will see their raises erased by lower subsidy payments.
The Republicans would do better to point out that people getting subsidies will see their raises erased by lower subsidy payments.
That doesn’t work, because as we’ve just seen with the minimum wage filibuster, Republicans don’t want poor working people to get raises.
That’s good to know, but, if the insurance companies feel they can pass whatever increases they want on to the government, then that’s not so good either. I would think that most insurers would want to limit their increases and attract more consumers to what is likely their only growing share of the market.
They’re still required to spend 80% of premium dollars on health care delivery…there’s only so far they can increase premiums without cooking the books.
Bonuses for management. Fancy perks. Sales meetings in resorts. Catered food at business meetings. Business meetings in restaurants with wine and open bar. Sumptuous grounds and landscaping. More bonuses for management. Health club memberships. Theater tickets. There are lots of ways to have “costs”. I’ve seen all of the above. Many of them at Abbott Labs. I’m sure other pharma companies do them also. Come to think of it Allstate Headquarters is very nicely landscaped too.
As far as I know, none of those things can be claimed as “health care delivery,” and so must be squeezed out of the 20% administrative overhead allowed. This is one of the more lovely socialistic aspects of Obamacare.
80% benefits, 20% overhead. That leaves nothing for profit. Something must be wrong with your figures. I think maybe it’s 80% for “costs” and gross profit is limited to 20%.
Think about it like this. Take all the money that the health insurance company takes in in premiums and divide by 80%. That’s the amount of money they must actually spend on medical care.
With the remaining 20% they can do whatever they want. The more perqs they have, the less is left over for profits. Some of these companies have other revenue streams that aren’t subject to this rule, so their overall profits may be greater than envisioned in this example.
Multiply by 80%
I’m sure their accountants have found a way.
Yeah, that’s pretty much gonna put a crimp on their profits. They can’t pass that along to the government. And, since the government pays for some portion of about 80% of their new customers, that’s a client you don’t want to mess with.
Really, Boo? What regulator has teeth anymore? Hell, the GOP would rather hospitals go bankrupt and close then accept expanding Medicaid. And plenty of insurance companies would regard possible fines as the cost of doing business since they’ll make out better otherwise.
Regulators report up through the executive branch – it’s taken a few years for the Obama team to put their people in place but the regulators will have teeth now and believe me when I tell you that they are about to bite…
Since the medical loss ratio took effect, HHS has provided specific rules about what constitutes health care costs and they did not include marketing or any of the other bogus things. Health insurance companies have been issuing rebate checks.
The regulatory framework in the ACA is actually quite rigorous. Another reason to make sure that Democrats stay in office. Republicans would absolutely not keep this high standard.
One of the things I find interesting about the implementation is that there are a lot of people now accessing health care who have not had adequate health care for years so they are requiring more services. I fully expect this to be reflected in the first 4-5 years of the exchange pricing. This also means though that people entering Medicare will not have the same high degree of health needs so Medicare costs should reflect this as well. This is very good news for Medicare.
Because 20% of health insurance premium dollars for administrative costs and profits is so totally justified? Not in any other western country that uses private health insurance companies to manage the cash flows for their UHC systems. Not even close to what is spent under the traditional Medicare system.
In Massachusetts, if I recall correctly, it’s 90 percent. I got a rebate check the last year or two because my insurer met the federal requirements but not the state ones. As of February I’m on Medicare, so it’s no longer an issue for me.
Check that Medicare coverage. 20% of a hospital bill could ruin you. Get some sort of MediGap insurance.
Thanks for the warning, but not to worry. A few months before my birthday I began researching the whole topic and wound up finding a kickass Advantage plan with minimal costs and excellent coverage.
Have to say I am pretty pissed that my rates will go up and Obamacare offers me no direct help. We are just above the subsidy cut off and we get it through employer. Just one more reason single payer is better.
You can’t get subsidies if your employer offers you insurance anyway, even if you were below the cut-off. And rate increases likely have nothing to do with the law (although they could).
But yes, I agree with your sentiment. It also shows one more reason means testing of any benefit is dumb and stupid.
Exactly, the law screws us over (since we’re “young”) but helps us only indirectly. I recognize it’s better in general than the previous system though not for me personally (even prior to Obamacare premium increases were slowing IIRC), but I still feel betrayed.
Nonsense.
Your employer benefits from the slowing in healthcare premiums, too. Your employer can maintain more and better healthcare coverage for its employees, including you. Those benefits are tax free — a big subsidy already that you enjoy. Indeed, the PPACA will require (if it hasn’t already) your employer-provided coverage to actually provide coverage, not be something masquerading as “insurance.” For example, lifetime maximum caps are abolished, so if you get that horrible and expensive cancer, you’re not dead after getting your first dose of chemo because the second dose isn’t covered.
You are no longer tied to your employer for healthcare. You have the valuable insurance backstop of the community-rated, guaranteed-issue health insurance exchanges, with subsidies if you qualify. Unless you can guarantee that you’ll be working for the same employer and without employment interruption until age 65, you’re now much better off.
Your friends, neighbors, and community are also better off for these and other reasons, and that makes you better off. Do you want your kids sitting next to other kids who can’t afford to go to the doctor to take care of infectious diseases? Do you want your food served by restaurant workers unable to afford treatment? More and better coverage means more people around you have access to medical care, and since much of public health is inherently social, that’s good for you, too.
The employer in question is both super liberal and runs a company with far under the minimum employees required to fall under the mandate. The insurance is excellent for private insurance. As I pointed out it is far from certain health premiums are slowing because of Obamacare. As I have pointed out again and again I DO NOT qualify for subsidies and it angers me.
I am also never having kids and in fact dislike children generally though they like me. I dont eat for economic and medical reasons.
In my family consisting of 17 ants and uncles and their kids, no one has cancer. None
Except for your claim about tax free benefits ( and I don’t know if this is correct, but even so it might make the plan a Cadillac one and then we will have to pay taxes) everything you listed are hypotjeticals or indirect benefits which I already made a distinction about.
I love single payer and loathe Obamacare because under one I actually get direct help.
Should be don’t eat out.
Was wondering if you were trying to lose weight.
Its an unknown GI issue I’ve been dealing with for months. Makes me frequently nauseated so eating is a struggle. I’ve lost 30lbs since Feb. Medical science has totally failed me since according to every test I am fine.
I had a similar problem in 2009 but not nearly as bad and what worked then did not work this time. Incidently my pre Obamacare insurance and the one I have now in terms of costs its… The same in what I need to pay. No change.
Very sorry to hear this. Please keep trying doctors to find out what it is.
Single payer would definitely be better, but pre-Obamacare, rates went up just about every year anyway. Over the last three years that I had private health insurance before I qualified for blessed Socialist Medicare, my rates went up almost 300%.
Yes, ours go up every year too. This year it was smaller than normal but the Tea Partiers blamed it on – you guessed it – Obamacare.