quote:
President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) saved American consumers $1.5 billion on out-of-pocket health insurance premium costs in 2011, a study published Wednesday (PDF) claimed. Despite this, benefits of the law were not applied equally across all health insurance markets, leading the study’s authors to propose that stronger rules are needed.
Most of the savings cited by the report comes from the ACA’s requirement that medical loss ratios (MLR) stay at 80 percent, meaning 80 percent of all premium payments must be spent on actual health care. The goal of the requirement was to get premium costs down, but many of the law’s critics warned that it may not have that effect.
As 2011 was the first full year with the MLR rule in effect, health care advocacy group Commonwealth Fund looked at the annual financial reports of more than 2,000 insurance companies across the country, including a large proportion of organizations selling to policies to individual consumers. The study discovered that the MLR regulation forced insurers to pay $1.1 billion in rebates to their customers in 2011, while reducing their administrative costs by about $350 million to get profits within the approved range.
The biggest consumer benefits were seen in the individual market, where companies cut their overhead costs by about $66 per member, for a total of about $560 million in savings. An additional $394 million was sent back to customers who the law says overpaid on their premiums. Only one state, Rhode Island, saw an increase in administrative costs, while 39 states saw insurance companies slimming down and becoming more efficient in order to retain as much of their profits as possible.
The study said that consumers in Texas, New Mexico, Missouri, West Virginia and South Carolina saw the biggest benefits, where MLRs “improved 10 percentage points or more.” New Mexico saw the largest shift of all at 17.6 percent, followed by Missouri and West Virginia at 11.1 percent and Texas at 10.8 percent.
Raw Story (
http://s.tt/1w0hO)
My premiums went up 7% thanks to Obamacare. Thanks Obama.
BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.
My premiums went up 6%. So who is paying less?
(12-07-2012 01:18 PM)No Bull Wrote: [ -> ]My premiums went up 6%. So who is paying less?
My premium payment is the same, my company has decided to eat the additional premium charges for the last several years; however, my company stock has suffered due to the Obamacare changes. Why you ask? Because my company is employee owned (ESOP) and we self insure our healthcare. So in the end, I either pay for higher additional up front charges or pay on the back end out of my retirement plan.
My premium went up about 7% as well. Seeing as how my wife and I rarely use insurance I figure it cost us an additional $650 in 2011.
I guess it went down for all those people who weren't paying anything already...
I am glad my family suffers so that others may have health insurance... Dear Leader sees too us all. Forward.
(12-07-2012 11:39 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote: [ -> ]My premiums went up 7% thanks to Obamacare. Thanks Obama.
BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.
Same here. My out of pocket maximum also doubled. They also went from the co-pay option to everything is out of pocket for sick visits but yearly check ups and such are free. As someone with three kids this brings with it a huge additional cost out of pocket.
yep. My copay went up from $15 to $25. I have to kids so this is a huge price increase for me as well.
I trust Dear Leader though, I know he looks out for the good of all....
A study says cost went down. Real people are paying more. Darn those real people and their real world.
Got news for you, premiums would've gone up with or without the ACA. Probably the same amount.
(12-07-2012 02:56 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Got news for you, premiums would've gone up with or without the ACA. Probably the same amount.
yup. still a ****** law.
(12-07-2012 02:56 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Got news for you, premiums would've gone up with or without the ACA. Probably the same amount.
So the word "Affordable" is just window dressing?
The Redistributive Health Care Act.
When you drill down, the source of the "study" is the Commonwealth Fund. They self-describe themselves as essentially lobbyists for a single-payer system. Maybe a little bias in their methodology?
Take it a step further, they do periodic (more or less annual, but not every year) of a selected number of worldwide health care systems. It's usually UK, US, Canada and up to three more. They consistenly rank UK way higher than anyone else does, usually putting UK ahead of a couple of systems that UK finishes well behind in every other ranking. Maybe another hint of bias?
Interestingly, even they can't bias the numbers enough to make Canada look good. US annually finishes last. Canada annually finishes next to last, and really only slightly ahead of the US. Which makes things a little weird for their single-payer mission, since Canada has been the only true single-payer system in their studies. Bottom line--Canadian health care sucks, single-payer sucks, and that's where the Obamacare crowd wants to take us.
(12-07-2012 02:56 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Got news for you, premiums would've gone up with or without the ACA. Probably the same amount.
Yep. That is what I am thinking, because my health insurance premiums seem to go up every year. I have never known health insurance premiums to go down.
(12-07-2012 08:54 AM)dcCid Wrote: [ -> ]quote:
President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) saved American consumers $1.5 billion on out-of-pocket health insurance premium costs in 2011, a study published Wednesday (PDF) claimed. Despite this, benefits of the law were not applied equally across all health insurance markets, leading the study’s authors to propose that stronger rules are needed.
Most of the savings cited by the report comes from the ACA’s requirement that medical loss ratios (MLR) stay at 80 percent, meaning 80 percent of all premium payments must be spent on actual health care. The goal of the requirement was to get premium costs down, but many of the law’s critics warned that it may not have that effect.
As 2011 was the first full year with the MLR rule in effect, health care advocacy group Commonwealth Fund looked at the annual financial reports of more than 2,000 insurance companies across the country, including a large proportion of organizations selling to policies to individual consumers. The study discovered that the MLR regulation forced insurers to pay $1.1 billion in rebates to their customers in 2011, while reducing their administrative costs by about $350 million to get profits within the approved range.
The biggest consumer benefits were seen in the individual market, where companies cut their overhead costs by about $66 per member, for a total of about $560 million in savings. An additional $394 million was sent back to customers who the law says overpaid on their premiums. Only one state, Rhode Island, saw an increase in administrative costs, while 39 states saw insurance companies slimming down and becoming more efficient in order to retain as much of their profits as possible.
The study said that consumers in Texas, New Mexico, Missouri, West Virginia and South Carolina saw the biggest benefits, where MLRs “improved 10 percentage points or more.” New Mexico saw the largest shift of all at 17.6 percent, followed by Missouri and West Virginia at 11.1 percent and Texas at 10.8 percent.
Raw Story (http://s.tt/1w0hO)
So they fired a bunch of people to get their costs down? Maybe we need an Affordable Care Act for the U.S. government.... lol.
To save money, companies like Bank of America, Wells Fargo and others are going to insurance plans that cost employees more and offer reduced benefits. Not seeing any savings there. Is anyone tracking the BURDEN ON taxpayers Obamacare is imposing?
(12-08-2012 10:34 AM)blah Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2012 08:54 AM)dcCid Wrote: [ -> ]quote:
President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) saved American consumers $1.5 billion on out-of-pocket health insurance premium costs in 2011, a study published Wednesday (PDF) claimed. Despite this, benefits of the law were not applied equally across all health insurance markets, leading the study’s authors to propose that stronger rules are needed.
Most of the savings cited by the report comes from the ACA’s requirement that medical loss ratios (MLR) stay at 80 percent, meaning 80 percent of all premium payments must be spent on actual health care. The goal of the requirement was to get premium costs down, but many of the law’s critics warned that it may not have that effect.
As 2011 was the first full year with the MLR rule in effect, health care advocacy group Commonwealth Fund looked at the annual financial reports of more than 2,000 insurance companies across the country, including a large proportion of organizations selling to policies to individual consumers. The study discovered that the MLR regulation forced insurers to pay $1.1 billion in rebates to their customers in 2011, while reducing their administrative costs by about $350 million to get profits within the approved range.
The biggest consumer benefits were seen in the individual market, where companies cut their overhead costs by about $66 per member, for a total of about $560 million in savings. An additional $394 million was sent back to customers who the law says overpaid on their premiums. Only one state, Rhode Island, saw an increase in administrative costs, while 39 states saw insurance companies slimming down and becoming more efficient in order to retain as much of their profits as possible.
The study said that consumers in Texas, New Mexico, Missouri, West Virginia and South Carolina saw the biggest benefits, where MLRs “improved 10 percentage points or more.” New Mexico saw the largest shift of all at 17.6 percent, followed by Missouri and West Virginia at 11.1 percent and Texas at 10.8 percent.
Raw Story (http://s.tt/1w0hO)
So they fired a bunch of people to get their costs down? Maybe we need an Affordable Care Act for the U.S. government.... lol.
President Obama has already cut 900,000 government jobs unlike George W. Bush that added over 900K. But hey, who's keeping up with reality?
Being better than Bush isn't saying much. Bush was wrong to add those jobs.
One question, if we're cutting all these jobs, how come we're still spending all that money?