The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/24/unexpected-health-insurance-rate-shock-california-obamacare-insurance-exchange-announces-premium-rates/

Unexpected Health Insurance Rate Shock-California Obamacare Insurance Exchange Announces Premium Rates

Every now and again, a political pundit is required to stand up and admit to the world that he or she got it wrong. For me, this would be one of those moments. For quite some time, I have been predicting that Obamacare would likely mean higher insurance rates in the individual market for the "young immortals" and others under the age of 40.  At the same time, my expectation was that those who fall into the older age ranges would benefit greatly as their premium charges would be lowered thanks to the Affordable Care Act.

It is increasingly clear that I had it wrong. Yesterday, Covered California—the name given to the healthcare exchange created pursuant to the Affordable Care Act that will serve the largest population of insured citizens in the nation—released the premium rates submitted by participating health insurance companies for the three health insurance program categories (bronze, silver and gold) established by the Affordable Care Act, along with the catastrophic policy created for and available to those under the age of 30.

Upon reviewing the data, I was indeed shocked by the proposed premium rates—but not in the way you might expect.  The jolt that I was experiencing was not the result of the predicted out-of-control premium costs but the shock of rates far lower than what I expected—even at the lowest end of the age scale.

So, why the all too popular narrative that Obamacare would mean unaffordable healthcare premium costs for so many Americans?

Setting aside the never-ending nonsense peddled by the opponents of healthcare reform, everyone from the Congressional Budget Office to numerous private actuaries have warned that premium shock could be expected to set in once the public began to see the reality of what Obamacare would mean to their pocketbooks. And yet, the only real jolt to the system being felt by these public and private prognosticators today is utter amazement over just how reasonable the California prices have turned out to be.

How did the CBO and the actuaries get it so wrong? As Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic correctly points out—

"One reason for the misplaced expectations may be that actuaries have been making worst-case assumptions, even as insurers—eyeing the prospects of so many new customers—have been calculating that it's worth bidding low in order to gobble up market share. This would help explain why premium bids in several other states have proven similarly reasonable. "The premiums and participation in California, Oregon, Washington and other states show that insurers want to compete for the new enrollees in this market," Gary Claxton, a vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said via e-mail. "The premiums have not skyrocketed and the insurers that serve this market now are continuing.  The rates look like what we would expect for decent coverage offered to a standard population."

Cohn is saying that, despite the political naysayers, the healthcare exchange concept appears to be working very well indeed in states like California, Oregon and Washington—the first states to publish the expected health exchange prices for purchasing coverage. These are also states that are actually committed to seeing the program work as opposed to those states whose leaders have a vested political interest in seeing the Affordable Care Act fail.

Keep in mind that the entire idea of the exchanges is to require health insurance companies to compete openly with one another by offering identical coverage programs in the three created classes—each offering insurance coverage that actually delivers meaningful protection to customers—and then openly disclosing the price each insurance company will charge for that policy.  Thus, shoppers can clearly see which company has the best price on an apples-to-apples basis.

For all the negative chatter about how including older and sicker Americans in the health insurance pools would drive up the price for younger participants in the pool less likely to be ill, what we are now seeing in states like California is that the desire on the part of the health insurance companies to increase market share—thanks to the large influx of customers as a result of Obamacare—is driving prices downward.

That is precisely what the President said would happen. Sarah Kliff at The Washington Post reveals just far off the prognosticators have been.
"The Congressional Budget Office predicted back in November 2009 that a medium-cost plan on the health exchange – known as a "silver plan" – would have an annual premium of  $5,200. A separate report from actuarial firm Milliman projected that, in California, the average silver plan would have a $450 monthly premium."

The actual costs?

Kliff continues, "On average, the most affordable "silver plan" – which covers 70 percent of the average subscriber's medical costs – comes with a $276 monthly premium. For the 2.6 million Californians who will receive federal subsidies, the price is a good deal less expensive..."

As you can see, the actuaries missed by a huge percentage.

To see how younger Californians will make out when they shop on the public exchanges, take a look at the graphs Kliff provides here. You may be very surprised to learn that the meaningful insurance that you are now required to purchase is far more reasonably priced than you imagined.

There is a moral to this story for those open to receive the message.

If you are among the many Americans who have bought into the fear and loathing that has been the campaign against Obamacare, you just might wish to reconsider. With every passing day, the various myths, legends and lies put forward by those with a political axe to grind, TV or radio rating to be raised or vote to be purchased, are falling victim to the facts.

Of course, if you continue to find it more useful to hate the Affordable Care Act than to recognize the benefit of what this program offers to you and your family, nothing I can say is likely to change your mind.

But, accept it or not, the reality is that the early report card on Obamacare—at least in those states willing to give the law a chance to succeed—is looking pretty darn good. So good, in fact, that the data reveals that even a supporter such as myself was off the mark when predicting significantly higher rates for the youngest among us.

This is one time that I could not be happier to be proven wrong.

UPDATE: A number of readers have responded to this article by asking the question, "If the California exchange is so good, why have United Healthcare, Aetna AET -1.79% and Cigna CI -1.02% decided not to participate?"

It is true that these companies are not going to participate in the CA CA +0.2% healthcare exchange. And while this makes a great meme for the opponents of healthcare reform, there is something they are not telling you —these three companies have never been players in the California individual insurance market so there was never any expectation that they would participate. While each of these companies are a major factor in group health insurance-both large and small- their combined participation in the individual market in CA has not been more than 8 percent for a great many years. Meanwhile, the other large insurance companies that have participated in the individual policy business in California have comprised 85 percent of the market. Each of these insurers are participating on the exchange. So, things are not always as they may seem which is why it is so important to read beyond the headline.

Mary and I were talking about this last night.  If it holds true in Oklahoma, it may reduce some of our worries about retirement.

Quote from: Ed W on May 27, 2013, 05:41:44 PM
Mary and I were talking about this last night.  If it holds true in Oklahoma, it may reduce some of our worries about retirement.

Keep in mind that you will be on Medicare. Medicare is being "robbed" to support Medicaid.  Make sure you can find a physician who will accept Medicare or a supplement.  See my earlier posts about finding a new primary care physician for my mother.

Quote from: Red Arrow on May 27, 2013, 08:43:23 PM
Keep in mind that you will be on Medicare. Medicare is being "robbed" to support Medicaid.  Make sure you can find a physician who will accept Medicare or a supplement.  See my earlier posts about finding a new primary care physician for my mother.

Trust me, I pay attention to posts like that.  As it stands now, I couldn't afford health insurance for the two of us if I were to retire now.  COBRA could continue for 17 months, I think, but it would eat up fully half my monthly pension. I'm not averse to belt tightening. Starvation, on the other hand.......

Quote from: Ed W on May 27, 2013, 08:58:04 PM
Trust me, I pay attention to posts like that.  As it stands now, I couldn't afford health insurance for the two of us if I were to retire now.  COBRA could continue for 17 months, I think, but it would eat up fully half my monthly pension. I'm not averse to belt tightening. Starvation, on the other hand.......

Good luck to both of us, I hope.  It will keep me working for a few more years, if I am lucky.

I've been on COBRA twice.  It's not cheap but it does provide "continuous coverage" regarding pre-existing conditions.

This is a good sign, and let's hope after first year enrollment there's not a significant up-tick due to claims experience.  The author did leave me confused about the comment about an under 30 catastrophic coverage pool, so not certain if the lower cost is simply for those who are healthy and under 30 or if that is the same cost throughout the pool including older, higher risk insureds with pre-existing conditions.

One other thing I noticed about the silver plan the author was touting, is that it covers 70% of medical costs to the insured.  The gold plan covers 80% and platinum covers 90%.  The silver plan has a higher co-pay than most of us currently have as 80% has been pretty much the standard.  Obviously the higher your deductible or co-pay, the lower the premium is.  I would like to see co-pay and deductible limits on this particular silver plan to better analyze if it's really brought costs down or it's simply cheaper due to more risk being shared by the insured.

In other words, if initial premium increase estimates were based on the gold plan or platinum plan, then the author using the silver plan to tout a decrease in expected costs is a useless yardstick.  If silver level premiums actually did come in cheaper than originally expected, then yes, this is a very welcome sign and he did compare apples to apples.  That's one thing we do not know from the article or at least something I could not de-cipher from it.

One thing California has going for it is there's plenty of competition in the exchange, that's not something other states necessarily have to help lower the cost of entry into the program for consumers. 

QuoteObviously, California's smooth start does not mean implementation will be easy for the rest of the country. In some states — including Alabama, Hawaii, Michigan, Delaware, Alaska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Wyoming, and Nebraska — there is the problem of a lack of competition and monopolies.

Some states, including Florida and Texas, are not working as hard as California is to implement the law. But for Blumberg, California is the blueprint.

"It's going to continue to be a mix that's going to continue to play out across the states," Blumberg said. "We're going to see some that are pricing too well, and some that are pricing too high. But I think the dynamics in the market will then lead to changes after that, as you see in California."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-california-insurance-premiums-2013-5#ixzz2UbJ7eX00

And for anyone who is interested, here's the cost calculator from Covered California:

http://www.coveredca.com/calculating_the_cost.html

Here's the benefit comparison:

http://www.coveredca.com/PDFs/English/CoveredCA-HealthPlanBenefitsComparisonChart.pdf

No wonder it's a less expensive plan, but probably a good product for those with less chance of needing to use their healthcare policy.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 28, 2013, 10:52:03 AM
And for anyone who is interested, here's the cost calculator from Covered California:
http://www.coveredca.com/calculating_the_cost.html
Here's the benefit comparison:
http://www.coveredca.com/PDFs/English/CoveredCA-HealthPlanBenefitsComparisonChart.pdf
No wonder it's a less expensive plan, but probably a good product for those with less chance of needing to use their healthcare policy.

The Silver Plan has at least twice the out of pocket max as my present plan.  I believe the cost of the Silver Plan is more than my present plan, including my employer's share, but I need to check to be sure.

Short answer: The CA plan does not look like a bargain to me.

Edit:
I checked the total cost (not just my cost) of my health insurance, dental, vision, life insurance, and short and long term disability and they total significantly less that the CA Silver plan.  I am single, no dependents.  Your results may vary.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 28, 2013, 10:52:03 AM


No wonder it's a less expensive plan, but probably a good product for those with less chance of needing to use their healthcare policy.

So it's good insurance as long as you don't need it? So is have NO insurance.

It is no surprise that you guys work to find fault with any good news that doesn't fit your bias.

California rates are very high and ObamaCare has lowered rates for many. All insurance is a gamble...a gamble where you bet that you will lose.

I think my insurance guy and my bookie are the same guy. I pay them a little on a regular basis and if something good happens, the bookie pays. If something bad happens, the insurance pays.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 29, 2013, 06:50:56 AM
It is no surprise that you guys work to find fault with any good news that doesn't fit your bias.
California rates are very high and ObamaCare has lowered rates for many. All insurance is a gamble...a gamble where you bet that you will lose.
I think my insurance guy and my bookie are the same guy. I pay them a little on a regular basis and if something good happens, the bookie pays. If something bad happens, the insurance pays.

The good news is that insurance is available. 

The bad news is it is NOT a bunch less expensive.  I put my numbers into the calculator for the cost of the CA silver insurance and it came up more expensive by at least $1000 for the coverage with a higher maximum out of pocket by a factor of about two.  The CA silver coverage and my insurance are not directly comparable due to co-pays and deductibles so I am left with the maximum out of pocket as a comparison.  As I mentioned earlier, finding a new primary care physician for my mother was a chore as the reduction in Medicare payments seems to have made many physicians not want to deal with medicare.  So, yes I am biased by difficulty in finding a Primary Care Physician for my mom and the published cost of the plan in CA. 

I agree that all insurance is a gamble.  You are just paying some other entity to take a risk that you don't want to take or cannot afford to take.  If you have no claims, your wallet loses.  If you have a lot of claims, someone else's wallet loses.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 29, 2013, 06:50:56 AM
It is no surprise that you guys work to find fault with any good news that doesn't fit your bias.

California rates are very high and ObamaCare has lowered rates for many. All insurance is a gamble...a gamble where you bet that you will lose.

I think my insurance guy and my bookie are the same guy. I pay them a little on a regular basis and if something good happens, the bookie pays. If something bad happens, the insurance pays.

I'm not trying to find fault at all, nor do I have a bias against it.  If Obamacare makes health insurance more affordable for everyone, helps lower overall healthcare costs, and that ends up meaning healthier outcomes, I'm all for it.

Here's why I dug into this story: First, what passes for "reporting" these days is slipshod editorialism at best.  I have the tendency to check the veracity of a story whether it's coming from what would be considered a liberal or conservative angle as there are far too many filters in the media these days.  

A red flag went up when the author started touting a 70/30 plan.  Most health insurance plans are 80/20 or better coverage, especially employer-provided packages.  Of course the premium cost is lower when the insurance company has less exposure, that's true with your house, business, or car.  If the cost increases CBO used to advise of increases in premium costs was based on 80/20, 85/15, or 90/10 plans this is not an accurate comparison using the California Silver Plan to tout a decrease in premium cost.  If CBO used a 70/30 plan for comparison then it would be accurate.  Unfortunately, I don't think anyone can say for certain what CBO was using in their calculations, though I find it funny people who were supporting Obamacare prior to it's passage kept pointing to the infallibility of CBO's numbers, now there's a different chorus.  

The author of the article is, well, a writer.  My wife is an independent insurance agent, and I've been a licensed agent in the past.  My grasp on insurance concepts, as well as my knowledge of what is happening with our customer base is pretty solid.

As an economic reality, you simply cannot bring millions more into the private insurance claims pool without an overall increase in premiums.  Insurance companies will now start paying out claims for those who previously would have been a charge-off at the hospital we have all paid higher health care costs for in the first place.  It will simply shift the payment point for where those people's medical care comes from.  This was in no way an overhaul of the entire American health care system, this simply re-jiggers the payment mechanism for health care and puts the government those of us who pay taxes on the hook for a good deal of that expense.  

I'm all for everyone having access to good healthcare.  Instead of creating a convoluted quasi-government/private enterprise system didn't we just expand Medicaid and Medicare coverage since those are touted as being really efficient mechanisms for health care coverage?  The reality of Obamacare may be that there's healthy competition in heavily populated states like California or New York, but for states like Oklahoma, we've actually lost insurers from this marketplace since Obamacare was passed.

QuoteThe nation's largest health insurers are far from leaping at the chance to join new state health insurance exchanges under President Barack Obama's reform law, making it likely that some markets will have little or no competition next year.

These new insurance marketplaces are due to open their doors on Oct. 1 to enroll millions of Americans who have not been able to buy coverage on their own.

A key principle of Obama's health reform is that individuals will have a robust offering of insurance plans to choose from, and that competition for new customers in each state will help keep prices down for consumers.

But health insurers, some of whom fought the law before it was passed and continue to lobby to reverse parts of it, are wary. In recent days, executives at the four largest U.S. health insurers say they are likely to sell insurance plans on less than a third of the exchanges, reluctant to venture out beyond the states where they already offer coverage.

The Department of Health and Human Services did not provide a comment.

There are a number of reasons for caution, company executives say. These include a lack of clarity about the kind of prices they can charge and the number of plans they can sell on each exchange, the expectation that the program is only expected to reach about 7 million people nationwide in its first year and uncertainty over whether all of the exchanges will be ready in time.

As a result, heavily populated states where many insurers already sell plans now, such as California and New York, will have competing products for the exchanges when health reform takes full effect on Jan. 1. But states whose existing insurance markets have little or no competition, like Alabama and Alaska, may not see much of a difference, healthcare analysts say.

"We do think the uptake may be slower than maybe people thought six months ago or a year ago in terms of what is going on in the first year with the exchanges," Aetna Chief Financial Officer Shawn Guerin said in an interview.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100701009

As far as better outcomes, that will never change until more Americans take a more proactive approach to their health.  Unfortunately many maladies people suffer from are self-inflicted.

As usual, the media was being mislead in a coordinated fashion. 

They were provided with a misleading comparison: "He was comparing apples—the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market—and oranges—the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical." Instead of comparing equal plans today with the same plans in the future.

Here is what the actual comparison showed:
If you're a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare's exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month. (That's the median monthly premium across California's 19 insurance rating regions.)

The next cheapest plan, the "bronze" comprehensive plan, costs $205 a month. But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com (NASDAQ:EHTH), the average cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92. In other words, for the average 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.

Under Obamacare, only people under the age of 30 can participate in the slightly cheaper catastrophic plan. So if you're 40, your cheapest option is the bronze plan. In California, the median price of a bronze plan for a 40-year-old male non-smoker will be $261. But on eHealthInsurance, the average cost of the five cheapest plans was $121. That is, Obamacare will increase individual-market premiums by an average of 116 percent.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2013/05/rate-shock-in-californiathe-new-health.html

Quote from: Gaspar on May 30, 2013, 02:16:08 PM
As usual, the media was being mislead in a coordinated fashion. 

They were provided with a misleading comparison: "He was comparing apples—the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market—and oranges—the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical." Instead of comparing equal plans today with the same plans in the future.

Here is what the actual comparison showed:
If you're a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare's exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month. (That's the median monthly premium across California's 19 insurance rating regions.)

The next cheapest plan, the "bronze" comprehensive plan, costs $205 a month. But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com (NASDAQ:EHTH), the average cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92. In other words, for the average 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.

Under Obamacare, only people under the age of 30 can participate in the slightly cheaper catastrophic plan. So if you're 40, your cheapest option is the bronze plan. In California, the median price of a bronze plan for a 40-year-old male non-smoker will be $261. But on eHealthInsurance, the average cost of the five cheapest plans was $121. That is, Obamacare will increase individual-market premiums by an average of 116 percent.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2013/05/rate-shock-in-californiathe-new-health.html

Well...it appears someone got a couple of flat tires on the victory lap. Interesting it seems it wasn't just a mis-informed blogger who understands little about insurance.  Seems like a coordinated nose stretch from the top down in rolling out this sh!t sandwich.

QuoteHow did Lee and his colleagues explain the sleight-of-hand they used to make it seem like they were bringing prices down, instead of up? "It is difficult to make a direct comparison of these rates to existing premiums in the commercial individual market," Covered California explained in last week's press release, "because in 2014, there will be new standard benefit designs under the Affordable Care Act." That's a polite way of saying that Obamacare's mandates and regulations will drive up the cost of premiums in the individual market for health insurance.

But rather than acknowledge that truth, the agency decided to ignore it completely, instead comparing Obamacare-based insurance to a completely different type of insurance product, that bears no relevance to the actual costs that actual Californians face when they shop for coverage today. Peter Lee calls it a "home run." It's more like hitting into a triple play.

Obama attacked insurers in 2010 for much smaller increases

That Obamacare more than doubles insurance premiums for many Californians is especially ironic, given the political posturing of the President and his administration in 2010. In February of that year, Anthem Blue Cross announced that some groups (but not the majority) would face premium increases of as much as 39 percent. The White House and its allies in the blogosphere, cynically, claimed that these increases were due to greedy profiteering by the insurers, instead of changes in the underlying costs of the insured population.

"These extraordinary increases are up to 15 times faster than inflation and threaten to make health care unaffordable for hundreds of thousands of Californians, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet in a difficult economy," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "[Anthem's] strong financial position makes these rate increases even more difficult to understand." The then-Democratic Congress called hearings. Even California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, a Republican running for governor, decided to launch an investigation.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N8Cu4k4ZqWs/UAGz5tijGFI/AAAAAAAABUA/cgJXRo8YIYU/s1600/ObamaPinocchio.png)

RM and ED, please read Gaspar's link and pick up the white courtesy phone...

The unintended, but well forecasted consequence is a whole new wave of people dependent on government.  Young, healthy, employed people will now be responsible for medical insurance expenses that in many cases will exceed their car payments.  Not to mention the ultimate decline in quality of care as a result of patient load and healthcare provider scarcity.  

For old people, the mass clinic atmosphere will replace the personal physician as the government strives to create a FAIR care structure to compensate for reduced physician willingness to participate in the declining reimbursement structure of medicare and Obamacare (we are actually already witnessing this).  Ultimately HHS will have to develop a structure of review for the purpose of directing services based on FAIRNESS instead of willingness or ability to pay.  We already see this in GB.  Currently insurance companies and medicare require physicians to code procedures, diagnosis, and treatment under 18,000 codes in the current codebook.  Obamacare increases that to 122,000 individual codes, and as every physician knows, if you apply an incorrect or unapproved code, you don't get reimbursed, and typically the labor the government requires for a review is not worth the collection effort for the physician, so they take the write-off.  

As a physician Rand Paul reviewed the new codebook and had this to say:

"Included among these codes," the senator continued, "will be 312 new codes for injuries from animals; 72 new codes for injuries just from birds; 9 new codes for 'injuries from the macaw."'

"The macaw?" he asked. "I've asked physicians all over the country, 'Have you ever seen an injury from a macaw?"'

He continued, adding that he had found "two new injury codes under Obamacare for 'injuries sustained from a turtle."'

"Now, you might say, 'Well, turtles are dangerous' — but why do you have to have two codes?" he asked.  "Your doctor has to inform the government whether you've been struck by a turtle or bitten by a turtle."

He added:  "There is a new code for ... walking into a lamppost. There's also a code for 'walking into a lamppost, subsequent encounter.'"

"I guess that's if you don't learn," he added. "[T]here is [also] a code ... for 'injuries sustained from burning water skis."'

We are witnessing the final swing of the pendulum, when government creates a degree of complexity so intense that the very market they are attempting to regulate and control collapses on itself.  

Final Obamacare regulation released today.  You won't hear this reported gleefully on MSNBC or Huffpoo.  Cost of a family plan under the exchange in 2016 according to the IRS(H)s own estimate (family of 4 with total income of $90,000):

$20,000/yr

http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf
Page 56.

That is almost 4X what I am paying for a family of 4.

Single?  No dependents?  Want minimum self only coverage under the exchange (classified as "Minimal Essential Coverage" under Obamacare regs)?

$5,000/yr

Gets better. . .Married, filing jointly with two children and an income of under $50,000?  Good news, you are eligible for CHIP for each child at only $1,000 each.  The standard plan is still $20,000 but, because of your income, and the fact that your children can go on CHIP, you are eligible for the "Silver Plan" for you and your partner.  So your total out of pocket yearly medical plan is only:

$12,500/yr

Awesome!  That's only twice what I pay now for my "Cadillac" insurance.

The good news is that the older folks will still have medicare.  It will just have less money because it is being re-directed to finance the new bureaucracy.
I think this is probably the final nail for the worst piece of legislation ever to receive a presidential signature.

(http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/medium/images/SEBELIUS-OBAMA-PELOS-WH%20PETE%20SOUZA-CROP.jpg)

I don't think you understand how examples in IRS documents work.

Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 03, 2013, 03:23:28 PM
I don't think you understand how examples in IRS documents work.

Please, by all means, enlighten us.

Quote from: Gaspar on June 03, 2013, 03:33:06 PM
Please, by all means, enlighten us.

They create examples with hypothetical amounts in order to explain how the tax code is implimented in different situations.  An example is not an estimate.  Consider yourself enlightened.

Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 03, 2013, 03:42:17 PM
They create examples with hypothetical amounts in order to explain how the tax code is implimented in different situations.  An example is not an estimate.  Consider yourself enlightened.

The CBO developed a very similar number in 2010 for the bronze plan (lowest tier).
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10884/01-11-premiums_for_bronze_plan.pdf
Still twice what I pay now.

I'm willing to bet the real number lies somewhere in-between.

We already know that the first state to release their exchange rate estimates, California, is seeing an increase between 100 and 123 percent, so it would naturally follow that other estimates would be similar.  I'm willing to bet that's what the IRS is basing their "arbitrary" numbers on.

Also, don't you think it would be a bit irresponsible for the IRS to publish a document implying such an extreme increase unless there was some basis for it?  Their goal is to illustrate penalties, so why inflate the estimate of cost?

Quote from: Gaspar on June 03, 2013, 03:44:31 PM
The CBO developed a very similar number in 2010 for the bronze plan (lowest tier).
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10884/01-11-premiums_for_bronze_plan.pdf
Still twice what I pay now.

I'm willing to bet the real number lies somewhere in-between.

" between $12,000 and $12,500 for family policies."
So $12,500 is about $20,000?

http://coveredca.com/calculating_the_cost.html
For a silver plan California estimates your premiums making 200k a year with both parents 40 years old and two kids under 21 as $880 a month or $10,560 a year.  There is still bronze below that.

Don't confuse gaspar as someone who is good at math.

Real numbers don't interest him. They don't fit his preconceived bias.

Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 03, 2013, 03:56:56 PM
" between $12,000 and $12,500 for family policies."
So $12,500 is about $20,000?

http://coveredca.com/calculating_the_cost.html
For a silver plan California estimates your premiums making 200k a year with both parents 40 years old and two kids under 21 as $880 a month or $10,560 a year.  There is still bronze below that.

That woud be accurate.  Current California quotes for zipcode 90210, for a family of 4 with a typical deductible are currently half that.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7434/8940586221_5cb6f9b937.jpg)

So if the argument is "will it make my rates go up 400% or will it make them go up only 100%" I will concede to you and we can agree that it may only make rates go up 100%.

Quote from: Gaspar on June 03, 2013, 03:49:25 PM
We already know that the first state to release their exchange rate estimates, California, is seeing an increase between 100 and 123 percent, so it would naturally follow that other estimates would be similar.  I'm willing to bet that's what the IRS is basing their "arbitrary" numbers on.

Also, don't you think it would be a bit irresponsible for the IRS to publish a document implying such an extreme increase unless there was some basis for it?  Their goal is to illustrate penalties, so why inflate the estimate of cost?

No.. I don't think its irresonsible for the IRS to publish ficticious numbers to show how the tax code works.  

Here are the numbers from California but they leave off kids..
http://www.coveredca.com/news/PDFs/CC_Health_Plans_Booklet.pdf

If you had 4 adults that were 40 years old (since they don't show cost for children).  It would cost $236 per month per adult (3rd most affordable).  That would be $11,328 for 4 40 year olds to get the third least expensive bronze plan.

Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 03, 2013, 04:07:08 PM

No.. I don't think its irresonsible for the IRS to publish ficticious numbers to show how the tax code works.  

Here are the numbers from California but they leave off kids..
http://www.coveredca.com/news/PDFs/CC_Health_Plans_Booklet.pdf

If you had 4 adults that were 40 years old (since they don't show cost for children).  It would cost $236 per month per adult (3rd most affordable).  That would be $11,328 for 4 40 year olds to get the third least expensive bronze plan.

That is correct.  The same plan today with a smaller deductible and lower co-pay is $117 per person.  
Here are the other out of pocket expenses based on the exchange plan.
http://coveredca.com/PDFs/English/CoveredCA-HealthPlanBenefitsComparisonChart.pdf

So it seems we are in agreement that the plan, at least in California, essentially doubles the cost of health insurance and increases out of pocket expenses.

Quote from: Gaspar on June 03, 2013, 04:06:22 PM
That woud be accurate.  Current California quotes for zipcode 90210, for a family of 4 with a typical deductible are currently half that.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7434/8940586221_5cb6f9b937.jpg)

So if the argument is "will it make my rates go up 400% or will it make them go up only 100%" I will concede to you and we can agree that it may only make rates go up 100%.

Those are 50% and 40% copay different plans.  Also if you can get insurance cheaper you just buy that then.  Then your rates go up 0%.  Just because somebody sells a car that costs $200k doesn't mean thats what my car costs.

Quote from: Gaspar on June 03, 2013, 04:11:48 PM
That is correct.  The same plan today with a smaller deductible and lower co-pay is $117 per person.  
Here are the other out of pocket expenses based on the exchange plan.
http://coveredca.com/PDFs/English/CoveredCA-HealthPlanBenefitsComparisonChart.pdf

So it seems we are in agreement that the plan, at least in California, essentially doubles the cost of health insurance and increases out of pocket expenses.

In agreement?  Show me that the health care costs you just quoted doubled because of the exchange?  It used to be $200 a month?  You are making these huge claims that because there is an exchange that it "doubles the cost of health insurance and increases out of pocket expenses".  First, get an equivalent cost comparions with at least close to the same coinsurance/deductibles.

Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 03, 2013, 04:13:11 PM
Those are 50% and 40% copay different plans.  Also if you can get insurance cheaper you just buy that then.  Then your rates go up 0%.  Just because somebody sells a car that costs $200k doesn't mean thats what my car costs.

If the government creates an exchange that sells a plan for $12,500, you can damn well be sure that the insurance companies will make sure that the next cheapest plan is only a few bucks short of that.  This is the prime example of what happens with government price-fixing.

If the government says the Dodge Avenger is worth $200k, and sells it for such, you can bet Chris Nichols and all of the other Dodge dealerships will want to fill that profit gap, yet still compete by selling it for $150K.  Hell of a deal!

Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 03, 2013, 04:16:08 PM
In agreement?  Show me that the health care costs you just quoted doubled because of the exchange?  It used to be $200 a month?

Not because of the exchange. . .according to the exchange!

Hell if I know of any reason they should double except I am willing to bet they were calculated that way to compensate for the construction, and management of the new bureaucracy.

Quote from: Gaspar on June 03, 2013, 04:21:09 PM
If the government creates an exchange that sells a plan for $12,500, you can damn well be sure that the insurance companies will make sure that the next cheapest plan is only a few bucks short of that.  This is the prime example of what happens with government price-fixing.

If the government says the Dodge Avenger is worth $200k, and sells it for such, you can bet Chris Nichols and all of the other Dodge dealerships will want to fill that profit gap, yet still compete by selling it for $150K.  Hell of a deal!

Ok, when in history has this happened?

Quote from: Gaspar on June 03, 2013, 04:24:04 PM
Not because of the exchange. . .according to the exchange!

Hell if I know of any reason they should double except I am willing to bet they were calculated that way to compensate for the construction, and management of the new bureaucracy.

You seem making a claim that the insurance plans you printed will cease to exist after Jan 1 2014.  This is not an accurate statement.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 03, 2013, 04:00:09 PM
Don't confuse gaspar as someone who is good at math.

Real numbers don't interest him. They don't fit his preconceived bias.

Are you FREAKIN SERIOUS? Did you forget who started THIS thread with a bullsmile story about insurance rates, and you are criticizing someone else about "real" numbers?

Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 03, 2013, 04:27:36 PM
You seem making a claim that the insurance plans you printed will cease to exist after Jan 1 2014.  This is not an accurate statement.

I am not making that claim at all.  I am making the claim that they will become much more expensive because the market will become artificially inflated through the pricing of the government exchange negotiated plans.  

Look at this chart again.  The Platinum plan on this chart offers far less coverage than a typical plan and has far higher out of pocket expenses.  Maximum family out of pocket of $8,000?  My current plan is less than half what this costs and my total family out of pocket is capped at $3,000.  These are really shitty plans!

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3727/8940848359_b9835cd5a0_c.jpg)

Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 03, 2013, 04:27:36 PM
You seem making a claim that the insurance plans you printed will cease to exist after Jan 1 2014.  This is not an accurate statement.

According to the seminar my wife attended which was put on by BCBS a couple of months ago, they will cease to exist as we know them.

Quote from: Conan71 on June 04, 2013, 09:08:41 AM
According to the seminar my wife attended which was put on by BCBS a couple of months ago, they will cease to exist as we know them.

I just came back from a seminar for the National Sporting Goods Association in Florida where two insurance companies basically said the same thing, and a consultant for a company called Willis Global gave some interesting insight.  Independently they won't be able to operate under the new "pre-existing conditions" mandate, but the exchanges offer them the ability to deliver a scaled down product for a higher profit margin.  That's the main reason most of the mega-insurers were such supporters of the plan--goodbye competition, and heavy marketing budgets.  Outside of the system, these companies will also offer high end plans and supplement products at a premium. 

From what the consultant said though, there is a very high likelihood that nothing will change for several years, because no one seems to be able to get a handle on how to manage the new requirements.  Unfortunately costs will continue to skyrocket as they try to meet compliance requirements, but even the hospitals and docs don't know how they are going to tackle the new coding and billing requirements or the purchase of new software and systems to aid in that. It is quite the cluster.

Quote from: Gaspar on June 04, 2013, 11:15:49 AM
I just came back from a seminar for the National Sporting Goods Association in Florida where two insurance companies basically said the same thing, and a consultant for a company called Willis Global gave some interesting insight.  Independently they won't be able to operate under the new "pre-existing conditions" mandate, but the exchanges offer them the ability to deliver a scaled down product for a higher profit margin.  That's the main reason most of the mega-insurers were such supporters of the plan--goodbye competition, and heavy marketing budgets.  Outside of the system, these companies will also offer high end plans and supplement products at a premium.  

From what the consultant said though, there is a very high likelihood that nothing will change for several years, because no one seems to be able to get a handle on how to manage the new requirements.  Unfortunately costs will continue to skyrocket as they try to meet compliance requirements, but even the hospitals and docs don't know how they are going to tackle the new coding and billing requirements or the purchase of new software and systems to aid in that. It is quite the cluster.

Now, now Gaspar, these insurance consultants, actuaries, and plan offerers are just haters.  They know nothing about Obamacare and are just raising rates to stick their finger in Obama's.

Personally, I'll listen to people in the industry, not journalist's spin-up of it.

With the requirement that at least a set % of premiums must be used to pay medical expenses where is this extra profit coming from?

Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 04, 2013, 03:46:43 PMWith the requirement that at least a set % of premiums must be used to pay medical expenses where is this extra profit coming from?

UH. . .The price increase?  15% of $800 is more than 20% of $450.

LOL! You were bamboozled. You should read it. . .

The language of the bill says they are required to spend somewhere between 80-85% on "medical claims and quality improvement activities."  It purposefully makes that so vague that it can literally mean anything, yet sounds great in a campaign.

If BCBS builds a new 30 Million dollar executive training center, I guarantee they are doing it as a quality improvement activity. If they hire a new CEO for 80 million dollars it is because he is going to improve quality.

Regardless, many companies simply find it easier to bank the gap funds and then issue rebates at the end of the year.  

The new medical loss ratio requirement (MLR) does nothing to address the real driver of premium increases: the underlying cost of medical care.  The coverage disruptions and other unintended consequences of imposing a new arbitrary federal cap on health plan administrative costs are likely to outweigh any benefit these rebates will provide to consumers.  Moreover, the taxes, benefit mandates, and other regulations included in the health care reform law will cause premium increases that far exceed the value of prospective rebates.

So if BCBS is currently making a 20% income over expense on the $450 I pay a month, they still increase their profitability by making only 15% on the more than $800 I will be paying under Obamacare.  Or they could just keep the cash and pay me a rebate of the amount at the end of the year after they have enjoyed the intrest.

There will be allowable expense and ones that aren't.  Same as capital expenditures.  So far what you have said is that because there is a 1 to 1 insurance company comparison now the prices are going to go up on all insurance premiums.  Why? because they are all going to be expensive that they can raise their prices.   But you also have said that insurance outside of the state exchanges won't be able to survive.  I guess your thought process is that the exchanges are so expensive a company outside the exchange can't compete?  The way you talk about these insurance companies we should have socialized the whole thing if they aren't going to compete.

Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 04, 2013, 05:58:13 PM
  The way you talk about these insurance companies we should have socialized the whole thing if they aren't going to compete.

You do realize that was the end-game from the start, right? 

Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 04, 2013, 05:58:13 PM
There will be allowable expense and ones that aren't.  Same as capital expenditures.  So far what you have said is that because there is a 1 to 1 insurance company comparison now the prices are going to go up on all insurance premiums.  Why? because they are all going to be expensive that they can raise their prices.   But you also have said that insurance outside of the state exchanges won't be able to survive.  I guess your thought process is that the exchanges are so expensive a company outside the exchange can't compete?  The way you talk about these insurance companies we should have socialized the whole thing if they aren't going to compete.

I assume you already know that was the goal?

The insurance companies understand that there may be little chance of avoiding what will ultimately become a single payer platform.  Fortunately, in this country it will not work as it did (used to) in Canada or GB, because we have provisions in our constitution that won't allow government to imprison people for seeking other options.  If single payer becomes reality, there will be two tiers of medicine and the insurance companies will be at the heart of that.  You will be able to (or companies will be able to offer) expensive private plans with private physicians, or you will go to the Gubment nurse.

I see two possible scenarios in the next several years.

1. The fed cannot implement Obamacare on-time because of the expense, the hospitals and physicians cannot re-tool to meet regulations, and public support for the concept continues to erode until it's elimination becomes the primary issue for all candidates.

2. A bill for the expansion of medicare coverage for all is offered to replace Obamacare and the new promise for a single payer system is introduced.  We get a two tier system with most of us striving to escape the gubment system for the more attractive private offerings.  If barriers and regulations are erected that make this more difficult we will see a medical "black market" arise.

Unfortunately the third, and only intelligent option, is already off the table, because it does not serve politicians on either side.

3. Allow health insurance companies to compete nationwide without collusion through individual state regulation.  This competition will drop individual prices to compete with group policies, and companies will be able to offer employees options from multiple insurance suppliers to fit individual needs instead of one-size-fits-all-according-to-contract deals.

You see Mr. Sheen, the concept is amazingly simple. . .free markets (like nature) always work the same way unless some interference is introduced, and when that happens, the producers always struggle to maintain margin, and the consumer to satisfy desire.  In free markets both parties win, because the consumer will not buy something unless he/she values that something more than the money/labor necessary to purchase it.  When you introduce mandates, regulations, and controls, someone must win and someone must lose, and because of that, you introduce a struggle to overcome that loss.  We see this in the constant necessity for government to "reform" every failing social program.  

Government control gives rise to fraud, suppression of Truth, intensification of the black market and artificial scarcity. Above all, it unmans the people and deprives them of initiative, it undoes the teaching of self-help... – Gandhi

Ha free markets always work the same way?  Why is the deregulated power cost more than the regulated power?  They just got a $1.1 billion LCD price fixing settlement.  Why should we remove the regulation to allow things like that to be legal?  Oh because when companies price fix because they don't have regulations it makes it cheaper for us.  Because free markets always work the same way.  Ha 

Quote from: Gaspar on June 05, 2013, 07:46:37 AM
I assume you already know that was the goal?

The insurance companies understand that there may be little chance of avoiding what will ultimately become a single payer platform.  Fortunately, in this country it will not work as it did (used to) in Canada or GB, because we have provisions in our constitution that won't allow government to imprison people for seeking other options.  If single payer becomes reality, there will be two tiers of medicine and the insurance companies will be at the heart of that.  You will be able to (or companies will be able to offer) expensive private plans with private physicians, or you will go to the Gubment nurse.

I see two possible scenarios in the next several years.

1. The fed cannot implement Obamacare on-time because of the expense, the hospitals and physicians cannot re-tool to meet regulations, and public support for the concept continues to erode until it's elimination becomes the primary issue for all candidates.

2. A bill for the expansion of medicare coverage for all is offered to replace Obamacare and the new promise for a single payer system is introduced.  We get a two tier system with most of us striving to escape the gubment system for the more attractive private offerings.  If barriers and regulations are erected that make this more difficult we will see a medical "black market" arise.

Unfortunately the third, and only intelligent option, is already off the table, because it does not serve politicians on either side.

3. Allow health insurance companies to compete nationwide without collusion through individual state regulation.  This competition will drop individual prices to compete with group policies, and companies will be able to offer employees options from multiple insurance suppliers to fit individual needs instead of one-size-fits-all-according-to-contract deals.

You see Mr. Sheen, the concept is amazingly simple. . .free markets (like nature) always work the same way unless some interference is introduced, and when that happens, the producers always struggle to maintain margin, and the consumer to satisfy desire.  In free markets both parties win, because the consumer will not buy something unless he/she values that something more than the money/labor necessary to purchase it.  When you introduce mandates, regulations, and controls, someone must win and someone must lose, and because of that, you introduce a struggle to overcome that loss.  We see this in the constant necessity for government to "reform" every failing social program.  

Government control gives rise to fraud, suppression of Truth, intensification of the black market and artificial scarcity. Above all, it unmans the people and deprives them of initiative, it undoes the teaching of self-help... – Gandhi

Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 05, 2013, 10:40:34 AM
Ha free markets always work the same way?  Why is the deregulated power cost more than the regulated power?  They just got a $1.1 billion LCD price fixing settlement.  Why should we remove the regulation to allow things like that to be legal?  Oh because when companies price fix because they don't have regulations it makes it cheaper for us.  Because free markets always work the same way.  Ha 

Is your beef with free markets or profiteers?  I think you have some displacement here, or perhaps you do not.  ???
Your example is an example of an externality-- or an additional cost levied on the technology market by the profiteering of a few companies engaged in a trust situation.

There will always be individuals, companies, and even industries that attempt to betray their consumers by manipulating the market.  Ultimately they will pay the price by losing market share.  To subscribe to the idea that government regulation is the answer, is to ignore the overwhelming effect on the market.

You have to understand that prices are ultimately set by the consumer, not the producer of a product.  If you value a 48" LCD TV more than the $800 you have in your bank account, you have set the price through your purchase of that product.  Even if you find out that the product was actually available for $600, that does not change the fact that you VALUED the product at $800.
 
Sure, it sounds unsavory that an industry would inflate their prices to the consumer, however they are only free to do so as long as they do not violate the VALUE placed on that product by the consumer, or create an externality that increases the cost of their product beyond that VALUE.

All you need is a monopoly and then there is no more competition to drive the cost down.  It's cheaper to sue a competitor uut of existence or buy them out than to allow them to drop the price of the product.  Profiteering is the natural result of no regulation. The point of a business is to make as much money possible without breaking the law (maybe just getting caught breaking the law).  Oil would be easiest example of monopoly/profiteering due to 0 regulation.  You have to buy it and only a few companies produce/import/export.  So sure.. You can ride your bike everywhere and not buy oil.  But oil is a finite resource.  Just raise and wait.  I wish we could do an experiment and tell the Oil companies they are free to fix prices become every larger monopolies and see what happens.  That is the end game.

What is the value of a heart surgery?  How long are you going to shop around for life saving surgery after you have had a heart attack?  You are not in a position to negotiate that price and just because you paid $200,000 for the surgery doesn't mean that is the value.

Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 05, 2013, 03:29:16 PM
All you need is a monopoly and then there is no more competition to drive the cost down.  It's cheaper to sue a competitor uut of existence or buy them out than to allow them to drop the price of the product.  Profiteering is the natural result of no regulation. The point of a business is to make as much money possible without breaking the law (maybe just getting caught breaking the law).  Oil would be easiest example of monopoly/profiteering due to 0 regulation.  You have to buy it and only a few companies produce/import/export.  So sure.. You can ride your bike everywhere and not buy oil.  But oil is a finite resource.  Just raise and wait.  I wish we could do an experiment and tell the Oil companies they are free to fix prices become every larger monopolies and see what happens.  That is the end game.

What is the value of a heart surgery?  How long are you going to shop around for life saving surgery after you have had a heart attack?  You are not in a position to negotiate that price and just because you paid $200,000 for the surgery doesn't mean that is the value.

Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 05, 2013, 03:29:16 PM
All you need is a monopoly and then there is no more competition to drive the cost down.  
Monopolies owe their very existence on regulation, and restricted market entry as a result
Manufacturing and commercial monopolies owe their origin not to a tendency imminent in a capitalist economy but to governmental interventionist policy directed against free trade and laissez faire. – Ludwig Mises

It's cheaper to sue a competitor uut of existence or buy them out than to allow them to drop the price of the product.  
No it is not. It is cheaper to compete.  Otherwise we would live in a very different world, without a pharmacy or gas station on every corner.  ;)
Competition is the act of "outpleasing" your competitors to win over the consumers. – Walter Williams

Profiteering is the natural result of no regulation.
No, Profiteering is the act of making a profit via unethical means.  Using government regulation to limit competition is a form of profiteering, therefore at the heart of profiteering is lobbying.  Creating artificial scarcity is another form of profiteering.
The economic miracle that has been the United States was not produced by socialized enterprises, by government-unon-industry cartels or by centralized economic planning. It was produced by private enterprises in a profit-and-loss system. And losses were at least as important in weeding out failures, as profits in fostering successes. Let government succor failures, and we shall be headed for stagnation and decline. – Milton Friedman

The desire of businessmen for profits is what drives prices down unless forcibly prevented from engaging in price competition, usually by governmental activity. – Thomas Sowell

The point of a business is to make as much money possible without breaking the law (maybe just getting caught breaking the law).  Oil would be easiest example of monopoly/profiteering due to 0 regulation.  
There are currently thousands of regulations on the oil industry from dozens of government agencies.  It may be the most regulated industry in the world. You should try to get a permit to drill a well sometime.  ;)
The Ten Commandments contain 297 words. The Bill of Rights is stated in 463 words. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address contains 266 words. A recent federal directive to regulate the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words. – The Atlanta Journal

He who regulates everything by laws, is more likely to arouse vices than reform them. – Spinoza

You have to buy it and only a few companies produce/import/export.  So sure.. You can ride your bike everywhere and not buy oil.  But oil is a finite resource.  Just raise and wait.  I wish we could do an experiment and tell the Oil companies they are free to fix prices become every larger monopolies and see what happens.  That is the end game.
It seems that would be the push the green energy industry needs?  However you are wrong.  50 years ago. . .when there was far less regulation on the oil industry there were far more producers.  The product was far cheaper, and much more scarce (there was limited technology to pull up, refine and transport the product).  Today the industry is heavily regulated, employs hundreds of lobbyists, and as a result competitive entry is almost non-existant.

What is the value of a heart surgery?  How long are you going to shop around for life saving surgery after you have had a heart attack?  You are not in a position to negotiate that price and just because you paid $200,000 for the surgery doesn't mean that is the value.
A physician to exploits his patients won't have patients for very long.

We live in very different worlds.

It seems you confuse profiteering with profit. Lets look at another example.  Something simpler.  Lets look at the entertainment industry, in particular, licensing.

Say a company in china makes a 7" plastic doll for Mattel.  It costs Mattel .06 for each doll.  They are one of 6 companies licensed by Marvel Comics to manufacture that doll.  Mattel agrees to pay Marvel a licensing fee for each doll.  Mattel also agrees to set a minimum retail price for that doll of $26, and only produce 88,000 units.  With packaging, marketing and merchandising, Mattel is poised to make a profit of over 1000%.  That is not profiteering.

Now, Mattel has competition, but Marvel has an agreement with them as well that states all 7" figures of the same character must carry a minimum retail price of $26.  So Marvel has established a baseline price for this particular figure across an industry, not based on cost, but based on what they perceve as market value.  This also is not profiteering.

Now say my son walks into Toys R' Us with his Christmas money, excited because he has waited all year to buy the new Man of Steel Superman action figure, only to find that they are completely sold out of their allotted stock of the doll, not because of demand, but because of a few individuals engaging in a form of profiteering called arbitrage profiteering (similar to scalping).  This is where a person or group of people purchase a scarce product or resource for the purpose of resale on a secondary market at a profit without adding any value to the transaction.  If my son wants to buy the doll he has to purchase it on Craig's List for $100. This is profiteering.

Hopefully that offers a clearer explanation.

I like your concept that when you are taken to the hospital unconscious due to X issue.  you get to choose which surgeon operates on you and negotiate price.  Good luck on that.

Also profiteering is gouging of required items like gas/electricity/food/water.  Obviously your son doesn't need a toy to survive.  It has the value in which people pay for it.  If that's $100 the too bad your son doesn't deserve to have it or should earn more money.  He also needs to put more work into trying to buy o e for the price he wants to pay.  What should happen is the toy store raise their price to $100.

I can see some regulation causing monopolies.  It really comes down to cash you can spend to bury people.

Meh. I see we are spinning our wheels here.  Good luck in your world.

Quote from: Gaspar on June 05, 2013, 07:46:37 AM
I assume you already know that was the goal?

The insurance companies understand that there may be little chance of avoiding what will ultimately become a single payer platform.  Fortunately, in this country it will not work as it did (used to) in Canada or GB, because we have provisions in our constitution that won't allow government to imprison people for seeking other options.  If single payer becomes reality, there will be two tiers of medicine and the insurance companies will be at the heart of that.  You will be able to (or companies will be able to offer) expensive private plans with private physicians, or you will go to the Gubment nurse.

I see two possible scenarios in the next several years.

1. The fed cannot implement Obamacare on-time because of the expense, the hospitals and physicians cannot re-tool to meet regulations, and public support for the concept continues to erode until it's elimination becomes the primary issue for all candidates.

2. A bill for the expansion of medicare coverage for all is offered to replace Obamacare and the new promise for a single payer system is introduced.  We get a two tier system with most of us striving to escape the gubment system for the more attractive private offerings.  If barriers and regulations are erected that make this more difficult we will see a medical "black market" arise.

Unfortunately the third, and only intelligent option, is already off the table, because it does not serve politicians on either side.

3. Allow health insurance companies to compete nationwide without collusion through individual state regulation.  This competition will drop individual prices to compete with group policies, and companies will be able to offer employees options from multiple insurance suppliers to fit individual needs instead of one-size-fits-all-according-to-contract deals.

You see Mr. Sheen, the concept is amazingly simple. . .free markets (like nature) always work the same way unless some interference is introduced, and when that happens, the producers always struggle to maintain margin, and the consumer to satisfy desire.  In free markets both parties win, because the consumer will not buy something unless he/she values that something more than the money/labor necessary to purchase it.  When you introduce mandates, regulations, and controls, someone must win and someone must lose, and because of that, you introduce a struggle to overcome that loss.  We see this in the constant necessity for government to "reform" every failing social program.  

Government control gives rise to fraud, suppression of Truth, intensification of the black market and artificial scarcity. Above all, it unmans the people and deprives them of initiative, it undoes the teaching of self-help... – Gandhi

So back to reality, it looks like perhaps my first scenario is becoming more likely.  I think we will start to see a growing number of politicians on both the left and the right running on a platform that includes the elimination of Obamacare, but only if they are interested in votes.  :-\

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/06/18781204-health-care-laws-unpopularity-reaches-new-highs?lite

Quote from: Gaspar on June 06, 2013, 09:57:11 AM
So back to reality, it looks like perhaps my first scenario is becoming more likely.  I think we will start to see a growing number of politicians on both the left and the right running on a platform that includes the elimination of Obamacare, but only if they are interested in votes.  :-\

Wow, now quoting your own posts.

::)

This is not good.

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/upiUPI-20130614-235806-4920


But this is good:

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/upiUPI-20130614-235806-4920