Look Tom and Transistor...
Insurance is really simple. It's not rocket science, but math. There is no magic formula by which you put $100 in and get $1000 in benefits out. You get out (cumulatively) what you put in less a small administrative/finance fee. That's all. We're adding "expensive" people to the rolls, and then countering that somewhat by adding "cheap" people to the rolls... but the "cheap" people weren't really using the services to begin with, and now they will... so they aren't really "cheap" now are they? Not to mention that their premium WAS ZERO, as was their cost. Now their premium goes up by infinity, and their cost goes up as well. It's not as if medicare/medicaid premiums are going away.
If the "cost" of something goes up by 88%, then the "price" must also go up by 88%. Sure, perhaps it only goes up by 85%, but it could ALSO go up by 90. I'll admit that the "price" for the currently uninsured goes down, but not the cost. They're simply getting something (funded by other people) that they weren't getting (funded by themselves) before. What is happening (a basic example) is that you have a high risk person with a proposed premium of $2000 (because they are expected to use more) who passes on insurance and 9 low risk people who had it for $1200 (because they are expected to use less). The premium for the low risk people goes up to $1700 which generates $4500 in additional revenue... $300 of which goes to the high risk person and he "saves" $300 (not really as he had nothing before, but for the sake of the argument) and the remaining $4200 goes to pay for healthcare for 3 indigent people. Now, rather than 9 insured people and a pretty full doctors waiting room, you have 13 insured people in that same waiting room, one of whom is expected to use way more than average, and no additional doctors. In order to keep PRICES from rising by 88%, the government will cut reimbursements so the doctors will either go somewhere else (like to a large facility where they can practice "factory-like" medicine as opposed to suburban/rural healthcare) or to a place where they can charge premiums for access (concierge services).... or where much of your healthcare is delivered by a $35/hr nurse as opposed to a $100/hr doctor (as if you really spend much time with the doctor anyway... now it will be even less)
(06-11-2013 02:02 PM)WMD Owl Wrote: I seem to recall something in ObamaCare that insurance rate increases have to be approved by HHS.
All that will happe is that insurers will withdraw from the market, just like in Texas for windstorm coverage.
Yep. That is (imo) the plan.
(06-11-2013 03:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: No, its apples and oranges. Nowhere in the actual report from the Ohio Department of Insurance does it say your individual premiums are going to go up by around 88%. In fact, it says the number is not known yet and that the 88% figure is still being reviewed.
Well of course it doesn't. We won't know until it actually happens and by then it will be too late... but we certainly know that we were told costs wouldn't go up for most Americans, and that certainly appears to be a lie by any measure. When the CBOE says something is deficit neutral, that isn't a "fact" either.
The government and its stooges keep talking about competition pushing prices... but they've got it all wrong. We're increasing demand without increasing supply, or even the incentive for supply (increased reimbursement)... which makes the COMPETITION between patients for doctors... and not doctors for patients. Hmmmm... How would a patient incentivize a doctor to take HIS case rather than someone elses? a) extra money which favors the rich, no? or b) taking the $50 reimubursement for multiple 23hour observations as opposed to $50 for the admit and $35 for the subsequent days visit. The incentive is to put sick people out more quickly and/or treat less severe patients which is pretty much right back where we started.
/
Obamacare to raise premiums in Ohio by nearly 88%
