You are distorting the discussion rather than addressing my actual statement. I never said rates are decreasing. And your own post of an overall 4% increase proves that increases have decreased under the ACA. The Washinton times article clearly states that their increase numbers do not include subsidies so it is irrelevant and who knows what the source of the " Obama care facts" article is.
True, the articles and studies are all over the place, as I would expect from a highly politicized issue as obamacare. That's why I made this thread using my company's actual insurance rates. Since the model employee has remained constant over the entire period, and the plan has been almost unchanged over that period, the rates reflect the changes in the health care and insurance environment. ANd the biggest change by far is the introduction of obamacare in 2009, which correlates nicely with the rate increases. And since the company's employee run health benefits committee communicates with other companies, we know other companies are in the exact same situation us we are in. Some of those other companies are self-insured, and they are struggling with obamacare requirements. Becoming self-insured is one option our company is looking into, but it s not clear what that actually means these days. obamacare requirements are not exactly well defined, there is a lot of uncertainty. Certainly its anecdotal, but its real numbers.
No, I said "... I find the 'requirement' requirement to be illegal....". Forgive me , I should have prefaced it as IMO.
I am also an employer who pays 100% of my employees health care premiums. Because we have only 5 employees plus my family insured under our small business group plan, we pay much higher monthly premiums. Obama Care, PPACA, tax credits have helped us zero because we already take the deduction of the premiums 100% as a business expense. Right? It would be less costly to just stop providing group health and force our employees to purchase insurance through the exchange, legally we wouldn't even be obligated to increase their salary in the amount of the premiums we would no longer pay. And, we wouldn't pay a "tax/really a fine" because we employee too few employees. But, because our employees have been with us, each for an avg of 15 years we choose not to do this. However, we are thinking about letting them decide if they want their salary to increase in an amount equal to the premiums we were paying or for us to keep the group coverage. And to top it off, we are a Podiatric Surgical Practice, sole proprietor with 2 locations. So we get the double whammy of the PPACA. Lower reimbursements meaning lower profits and less earnings to raise wages AND higher cost medical health insurance. Plus, we see first hand the destruction "Exchange"(non-payment) policies are causing to providing people the care they need.
So why do you believe your companies experience is so much worse than the average. Required new coverages, employer changing employee contribution?
I do not believe our company is experiencing anything worse than the average, based on input from other companies we exchange insurance information with we are typical. From the input we had from Blue Cross, we actually seem to be in a better position than the average for companies in this state. You have to be careful about what is claimed as "average". The reports I saw spoke about a generic "average", they did not break down the rates into classes such as large business, small business, self-insured business, individuals, etc. or they only spoke of certain states. I don't think the big picture is available, or is too muddled to be presented clearly, and I do believe there are some who intentionally muddy the view for political reasons. As I have answered other people, the beauty of the company's situation is that the plan has not changed in any meaningful way, the company pays 100% of the premium and always has, its a very good plan, there has been 100% employee participation for the past 16 years, the demographics have not changed significantly. As I posted previously, the insurance rate was almost unchanged for 2005-2009, then it skyrocketed after obamacare was passed.
Go ahead and post the input you received from Blue Cross. Here is an article in Forbes about average cost increases by state. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...t-and-you-wont-believe-whats-going-to-happen/
As I wrote, I am not going to scan and post any documents. I posted the numbers and enough detail to present the issue. If its a credibility issue, than its not going to be resolved. Any one can fake a quote if they take the time, the only way to truly be above question is to reveal my identity and the company, and I'm not going to do that. The link you provided has been provided in this thread before. It talks about exchanges, not the impact of obamacare on employer provided insurance. And the data provided for the report is preliminary, and provided by the state exchange organizations themselves. Those organizations have a vested interest in making the system look good. Given the politicization of obamacare, I looked up McKinsey & Company. Definite "progressive" leanings. The group has a lot of position papers outlining a green economy, changes in society required to solve global warming, some of its key people are Democrats and served in Democrat administrations. Its papers in 2009 show it supports health care reform and (from my cursory look) seems to want govt intervention in health care.
You shouldn't have to post anything, Battle. I believe you. Most do. We all know what a travesty Obamacare is.
While the ACA hasn't doubled the premium for all individuals and small business group plans, it is only because some individuals and their families qualify for taxpayer premium subsidies. So where the number of uninsured emergency rooms visits may have decreased, they savings will not be realized as taxpayer subsidy will cost much more and there will still be thousands of uninsured people, including illegals seeking emergency room care. No cost reduction there. And as far as the claim that health care costs have declined; another misrepresentation of fact. The cost of "providing health care" to patients has risen. The amount providers are paid for that care has been reduced. You can claim the cost has gone done but when the Governments cost/expense for Medicare has decreased only by paying less for the care provided, it hardly truthful to claim medical costs have gone down. When all that has occurred is denying more reimbursements, reducing the amount paid by requiring "free post surgical" followup for 6 months rather than 1 month. Denying payment for services/care provided. While in reality due to increased costly regulations providers must comply have increased as have business operating costs such as rent, electric, and the like. They cost of "providing health care has continued to increase and significantly more after the passage of PPACA.
There are a lot of things wrong with Obama care, but a mandate is an important part of lowering healthcare cost. The reason why your hospital charges you and your insurance $3000 for a simple er visit is something called cost shifting. It's done to offset loses from uninsured patients who will either need assistance or will be unable to pay the bill at all. Lots of things should've been addressed with aca that weren't, there should've been a public option, and states that didn't expand Medicaid are just shooting themselves in the foot. What people don't realize is when poor people without insurance use the hospitals for mundane illnesses and then can't pay the bill the government has to pick up the tab. Expanding Medicaid makes primary care available to those people which is substantially cheaper. ACA does indeed cost the taxpayer less. But there is a big problem with expensive premiums and high deductibles still, but they were already inflating before Obama care, they just sped up since then.
You make a good case, but for me , not good enough. Government forced purchase for health ins is first... what's next?
You're also forced to purchase car insurance, and with good reason. You are a liability. With no health insurance, you're a liability too. If you have a heart attack and open heart surgery, somebody has to pay that Bill, and if you don't have insurance, even if you do pay the bill that comes in the mail, it won't be all you. Ever been to a hospital without insurance and received a bill in the mail that says "uninsured discount"? There's your cost shifting. Another issue that needs to be addressed is the actual market value of services. Like it or not America is not numero uno in healthcare. Just average of the developed world. It makes absolutely no sense why certain things cost what they do. Prices are way inflated. Healthcare consumes more of our GDP then any other developed country in the world, and it keeps going up. Poverty and lack of insurance helps drive it up. Secondly, I do side with republicans on the fact we absolutely need a medical malpractice damages cap, but it has to be done intelligently, not just some random number cap that fits all. Medicare also needs to be able to negotiate costs. There is also a lot of waste. One thing Obama care did was made it so that if a hospital discharges , and you end up readmitted, they get a big fine. I've already seen this inaction with my roommate who has health issues. They won't discharge her without a treatment plan where they used to do so before. Either way, Obama care fell short. Practically every other developed nation has managed to take control of healthcare and reign it in. Unfortunately, liberal or conservative, we don't have a very competent government.
that is on the condition that I own a car. I have a choice. for ACA I have no choice. next example please?
Social Security, yeah I know you have a choice to work but then with mandatory health insurance you have a choice to leave the country. If we isn't passed a law prohibiting hospitals from treating people who couldn't pay we wouldn't need mandatory insurance but so far nobody has come up with a better solution. The previous solution where the taxpayers footed the bill wasn't actually working very well and even though the ACA has problems they will get ironed out once the Republicans stop just saying NO and start trying to come up with solutions.
Hmmm lemmie think.... Obama's 'solution' was to (*)(*)(*)(*) up the entire process. So maybe the first step to a solution would be to NOT (*)(*)(*)(*) up the entire process in the first place?
Unfortunatly for your position healthcare in the United States was a total mess prior to the ACA as evidenced by the higher cost and poorer results than most of the developed world. The only plan the Republicans ever had was to do nothing and they still haven't come up with any plans that the Republican Party has been willing to adopt.
Right, and your position is, it is better to (*)(*)(*)(*) it all up, than to NOT (*)(*)(*)(*) it all up. Did I get that right?
You can't screw something up that is all ready totally screwed up. And the evidence is pretty solid that the ACA is working. Nobody argues anymore that there are less uninsured and the rate of healthcare cost increases is declining. Not saying the overall cost of healthcare is down, only that the long term rate of increase is improving. More needs to be done but going back to the pre ACA system isn't going to accomplish anything.
right... so the premium that I had that almost doubled.. and the deductible that could wipe out 3 months salary... and my 30mile drive to a needed specialist... is just me being silly... sorry, but it's all bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
that response from you had absolutely no value whatsoever. You don;t know squat about why my coverage was changed, I do, given the letter from the employer that stated specifically it was to comply with ACA. My policy was what i needed for my family. So get off your Obamawheel kidswheel and join the world of reality. I've always paid more than half of the cost for my healthcare coverage. My policy was not phony sir. Typical, you will defend ACA no matter what. words cannot describe how much you make me want to puke. Condescending.... insulting.... pure Obamaspeak.
The overall cost of healthcare is not down. The governments claim that the cost of health care is down is only regarding Medicare costs. And if those costs are down it is only due to deny more payments for treatment to providers, paying providers less, period. The overall cost of "Providing" health care are up as providers must comply with costly new regulations and are being paid less for their services. Paying providers less, thereby lowering the Governments out of pocket Medicare costs does not equate to lowering the cost of health care. And, if lowering amounts of reimbursements and denial of treatment types continues there will be very few providers willing to treat Medicare patients. And with the Federal Governments "contract" with private insurance companies to offer health insurance through "Exchanges", more physicians will refuse to sign on to these plans and require the patient pay cash up front or sign payment plans, because payments under these insurance plans pay substandard reimbursements for service. The ACA is not working. Even for those getting Subsidy to lower their cost of insurance isn't working. Because, once these insured's attempt to use their "subsidized insurance", they are finding their care is not covered, their doctor or hospital or clinic is not covered and their deductible and out of pocket is unaffordable.
Unfortunately the ACA has done very little in regards to "Cost shifting", for one there are still non-citizen/illegals who are uninsured and continue to seek ER treatment. The individual mandate only required individuals to purchase A health insurance policy meeting HHS mandated essential coverage. ACA didn't regulate premiums for like coverage, or deductibles or out of pocket or co-payment for like coverage. It still allowed Private Insurance Companies discretion in what they would cover and pay for, the providers and hospitals and clinics they would pay, the deductible, regardless of premium cost, out of pocket, regardless of premium cost. In other words, little was regulated by ACA but the minimum essential benefits every "exchange" policy must provide, full coverage of preventative tests and coverage of those with pre-existing conditions regardless whether the applicant has diagnosed cancer, liver disease, heart disease, aids, diabetes. Therefore, the mandate they cover those with high cost pre-existing conditions leads to even higher "COST SHIFTING". It was cheaper for the taxpayer/those with health insurance to pay slightly higher premiums to cover the care of the non-insured's seeking ER treatment because now the taxpayer is still paying higher premiums to cover the uninsured illegals and those that refuse to apply for Medicaid and aren't mandated by ACA to do so and taxpayers are now paying for subsidy of premiums for millions. And, taxpayers are paying higher deductibles, out of pocket and co-pays for their insurance and paying higher premiums for benefits they will never need such as maternity and newborn care where the couple is beyond childbearing age. Maternity and newborn care benefits are some of the highest cost benefits that traditionally raise premiums.
So basically your costs increased to comply with the requirements of the ACA which means that prior to the increase you had an inadequate policy. Thanks for proving my point. Now maybe you can post what was not covered before and what is covered now.
