What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Rover said:
But I will say the law accomplished what it set out to. 1) More people are covered. 2) The cost curve is lower than expectations had the law not being passed. In the discussions leading up to the law's passage, that was my criteria for judging success. Done and done.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

So my (now retired) English teacher from high school and I are still in contact via Facebook. He just posted this morning about his insurance premiums and I was shocked. He started out in the $700s/month for a high deductible plan. The next few years these premiums have jumped to over $1,100 and just short of $1,500 for next year.

I'm finally starting to see that this is more of a problem than I had thought. I didn't realize how good us working stiffs have it. For a $1,500/yr HD plan, I pay something like $80/mo and put another $80-$90/mo away in my HSA.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

dxmnkd316 said:
So my (now retired) English teacher from high school and I are still in contact via Facebook. He just posted this morning about his insurance premiums and I was shocked. He started out in the $700s/month for a high deductible plan. The next few years these premiums have jumped to over $1,100 and just short of $1,500 for next year.

I'm finally starting to see that this is more of a problem than I had thought. I didn't realize how good us working stiffs have it. For a $1,500/yr HD plan, I pay something like $80/mo and put another $80-$90/mo away in my HSA.
Click to expand...

Front page of the strib today.

http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-health-plans-seek-big-premium-jumps/392058421/

This law is a joke. And those who say employees are much better off, yeah sure, until your employer is of the smaller or non-public sector variety. Health Care in this country is a disaster. Largest Middle Class tax increase in history.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

ScoobyDoo said:
Front page of the strib today.

http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-health-plans-seek-big-premium-jumps/392058421/

This law is a joke. And those who say employees are much better off, yeah sure, until your employer is of the smaller or non-public sector variety. Health Care in this country is a disaster. Largest Middle Class tax increase in history.
Click to expand...

Weren't y'all hyping it just a few years ago? We warned you about this...
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

FlagDUDE08 said:
Weren't y'all hyping it just a few years ago? We warned you about this...
Click to expand...

Yeah. You warned us. The problem is the status quo was also totally ****ed up. Fact is this country doesn't solve problems anymore. Too much big money everywhere making money off of problems. As long as problems make people rich we'll never solve anything.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

I wasnt...I hated it from Day 1 for a bevy of reasons. It was stupid when Dole put it forth in the 1990s and it was stupid now.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

ScoobyDoo said:
Front page of the strib today.

http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-health-plans-seek-big-premium-jumps/392058421/

This law is a joke. And those who say employees are much better off, yeah sure, until your employer is of the smaller or non-public sector variety. Health Care in this country is a disaster. Largest Middle Class tax increase in history.
Click to expand...

5mn_major loves it, he's saving a ton by using the exchanges! Bwahahahaha! LOL, indeed. :D
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

St. Clown said:
5mn_major loves it, he's saving a ton by using the exchanges!
Click to expand...

The government does not set health insurance pricing and premiums.

Under the ACA, health care cost increases in 2015 were the lowest EVER MEASURED.

http://www.milliman.com/mmi/

Yet prices charged for health insurance are on their way up. Price hikes are all on the insurance companies. For the fifth time Clown, the government does NOT dictate insurance pricing.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

5mn_Major said:
The government does not set health insurance pricing and premiums.

Under the ACA, health care cost increases in 2015 were the lowest EVER MEASURED.

http://www.milliman.com/mmi/

Yet prices charged health insurance are on their way up. Price hikes are all on the insurance companies. For the fifth time Clown, the government does NOT dictate insurance pricing.
Click to expand...

Pricing requests are submitted by the insurance companies to the state government. The state government then either approves or rejects those pricing requests. How is the state not complicit in pricing the product?
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

St. Clown said:
Pricing requests are submitted by the insurance companies to the state government. The state government then either approves or rejects those pricing requests. How is the state not complicit in pricing the product?
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean they're directly dictating pricing.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

FlagDUDE08 said:
That doesn't mean they're directly dictating pricing.
Click to expand...

They have the power to reject pricing requests. The state receives the data from the companies as to why those companies believe their products should be priced as such. If the state's reviewers (auditors) believe that the company(ies) in question is looking for an egregious profit or should instead expect a loss, then they are bound by law to reject the proposed pricing changes.

My point isn't at all that any of this should be a surprise to anyone. It's that people actually expected the product to inherently change because the Feds grabbed more control of what the product does. The only way to control price increases the way the Obama administration promised while selling the PPACA to the public and politicians alike is for the Feds to increase the direct subsidies to the end consumers. Anyone who's studied economics will tell you that then this will relieve pricing discipline press from the supplier, and prices will further rise at unsustainable rates. Or you let the consumers suffer the pricing increases.

In essence, we're repeating exactly what we've done with college tuition assistance plans over the past three decades, only now we're applying it to a product that people consider more serious and with fewer legal options for the consumers to use.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

St. Clown said:
Pricing requests are submitted by the insurance companies to the state government. The state government then either approves or rejects those pricing requests. How is the state not complicit in pricing the product?
Click to expand...

Because all these price increases have gone through.

You've got this totally backwards. The government regulatory action's role would be to stop insurance prices from going up.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

St. Clown said:
In essence, we're repeating exactly what we've done with college tuition assistance plans over the past three decades, only now we're applying it to a product that people consider more serious and with fewer legal options for the consumers to use.
Click to expand...

Hmm. This is interesting. It's the first reasonable argument I've read from the anti- side.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

St. Clown said:
They have the power to reject pricing requests. The state receives the data from the companies as to why those companies believe their products should be priced as such. If the state's reviewers (auditors) believe that the company(ies) in question is looking for an egregious profit or should instead expect a loss, then they are bound by law to reject the proposed pricing changes.

My point isn't at all that any of this should be a surprise to anyone. It's that people actually expected the product to inherently change because the Feds grabbed more control of what the product does. The only way to control price increases the way the Obama administration promised while selling the PPACA to the public and politicians alike is for the Feds to increase the direct subsidies to the end consumers. Anyone who's studied economics will tell you that then this will relieve pricing discipline press from the supplier, and prices will further rise at unsustainable rates. Or you let the consumers suffer the pricing increases.

In essence, we're repeating exactly what we've done with college tuition assistance plans over the past three decades, only now we're applying it to a product that people consider more serious and with fewer legal options for the consumers to use.
Click to expand...

That still doesn't mean they're dictating a specific number, which is the point 5mn_major is trying to make. I'll definitely give you that subsidies will push up prices, just like college. One thing that must also be considered, especially in cronyist economics, is that lobbying and similar relations can have a large effect. Even if a viable alternative to EpiPen were to be approved by the FDA, states could still reject it based on Mylan's lobbying.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

5mn_Major said:
Because all these price increases have gone through.

You've got this totally backwards. The government regulatory action's role would be to stop insurance prices from going up.
Click to expand...

Assuming that's their goal...
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

5mn_Major said:
The government does not set health insurance pricing and premiums.

Under the ACA, health care cost increases in 2015 were the lowest EVER MEASURED.

http://www.milliman.com/mmi/

Yet prices charged for health insurance are on their way up. Price hikes are all on the insurance companies. For the fifth time Clown, the government does NOT dictate insurance pricing.
Click to expand...

In 2007, 2008, and 2009, etc. the cost increase was also the lowest EVER MEASURED and there was no ACA.

In fact the percentage increase in cost of medical services according to your link has basically been in linear decline since 2003. Roughly declining 2% in the six years before ACA and another 2% in the years since. This doesn't really seem to support a causal relationship between the ACA and a decline in the % of increase.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top