jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (31 posts)

You can now call me Mystic Smiff

  1. innersmiff profile image70
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    http://benswann.com/is-your-health-insu … z2iAv7OKAE

    Recent polling suggests that 75.8% of those polled's health insurance premiums have risen since the ACA has been implemented.

    Not long ago I predicted that this would be the case.
    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/115334
    No, I haven't proven the existence of clairvoyance, I just made a prediction based on economic law.

    Now I shall make another prediction: Obama and others will blame the high prices on capitalism, the vicious insurance companies raising their prices because they're mean, or something, and then some upstart politician will propose a new system that gives the government even more power over healthcare. When that fails, rinse and repeat.

    1. profile image0
      Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Do you have any UK predictions?

    2. GA Anderson profile image84
      GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And once again you will seem prescient - because they will be right. The prices have and will continue to increase because of capitalism.

      But it will be government assisted capitalism, not free market capitalism.

      Hopefully, the Obamacare architects did not realize what their idealistic goal was giving the insurance companies. Because if they did, it is even worse than it already seems.

      Why is it that no Obamacare opponents wonder why the health insurance industry has spent $1 billion dollars supporting Obamacare?

      It is a gold mine for them - government mandated customers buying super profitable plans that let them off the hook for billions of dollars of typical health ins. costs, ie. unheard of deductible increases. Old $2500 deductible plans are now $8000 deductibles - at nearly the same premium costs as before.

      Tells us more Mystic Smiff

      ps. tell us how those upstart politicians you speak of will be crying that only a single-payer plan can fix this terrible situation.  Oops, haven't already heard that before?

      pss. who has heard of any 60/40 pre-Obamacare plans? The worst I ever heard of were 80/20, but now the most often quoted "cheap" plan - the Bronze plan, is 60/40 - they pay 60% you pay 40%, after your deductible is met,  - woo-hooo hurray for cheap healthcare.


      GA

      1. innersmiff profile image70
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I understand why the insurance industry funds Obamacare, as you say, it is a  gold-mine for them. It's crony capitalism and if we're being strong today, we could say that more accurately it is fascism. I'm actually more in line with those that believe they will propose a national heath service.

    3. profile image59
      AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Did you notice that they blamed the broken website on the Republicans in Congress?

      1. innersmiff profile image70
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not surprised. Republicans killed the dinosaurs, don't you know?

    4. Josak profile image62
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Well in the image is why healthcare costs rising as a prediction is about as risky a prediction as the sun will be hot tomorrow, healthcare costs have bee rising steadily forever. This year the Kaiser foundation and the CBO predict a 2.3 and 2.8% increase respectively. The average rise before the ACA? 4.4% so the cost of healthcare has gone up less than usual.

      HUH crazy.

      As for your "prediction on economic law" private care in the US costs slightly less than four times as much as public care in Australia or New Zealand and has a lower quality of care according to the UN and WHO. SO whatever economic rule you are using it's flat out wrong.

      Next the "proof" you are using is a really really flimsy and easily manipulable online poll. NOT CREDIBLE.

      Next polls show that most people are not yet fully aware of the subsidies for insurance. To put it simply if your family of four makes less than 85 000 yearly you are entitled to subsidies, most people meet this requirement. Once these area accounted for the cost is expected to fall, quite a bit. Obviously that money does not simply appear it is funded by the ACA taxes.

      Finally there is the issue that the insurance you have under the ACA is manifestly much better, for example unlike in the past there is no upper limit to necessary care. For example last year an estimated si thousand American died when their insurance limit was reached and they were kicked of their care (half a Chemo treatment for example).

      45 000 died from lack of insurance.

      SO really I am still deciding whether your post is an intentional joke or just really oblivious. Whichever it is awfully misinformed and misleading.
      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8453591_f248.jpg

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "Once these area accounted for the cost is expected to fall, quite a bit. Obviously that money does not simply appear it is funded by the ACA taxes."

        So the cost will fall but is made up by taxes.  Taxes that rise.

        Say that again, with a little explanation?  Tell us again how it is cheaper to pay with increased taxes?  Or how it is cheaper to shift costs to someone else while ultimately paying more?

        Better insurance my butt.  The only plan I can afford to purchase is worse than anything I've ever had from an employer and even after buying I can't afford the co-pays and deductibles.  Any major expense will bankrupt me, just as it will now, so why should I buy?  To subsidize someone else?

        1. Josak profile image62
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Cheaper to the consumer, obviously as I noted the taxes are indeed raised. These are raised on 200 000+ households and pharmaceutical companies.

          If that is the issue then argue that but don't claim healthcare is more expensive cos it ain't.

      2. innersmiff profile image70
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Why should we reference predictions when we have observed records? Two independent studies show without a shadow of a doubt that the ACA has made insurance more expensive, and at a considerably greater rate than previous increases.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca … for-women/
        http://www.heritage.org/research/report … rance-fare

        From this we can conclude we're looking at roughly 60% increase for younger individuals and 40% increase for older individuals. Is this vast increase worth it if the plans cover more, and on stuff people don't even want? Even if it is, you have to wonder why people weren't buying these plans in the first place.

        The study Forbes cites takes subsidies into account:
        "However, the overall results make clear that most people will not receive enough in subsidies to counteract the degree to which Obamacare drives premiums upward. Remember that nearly two-thirds of the uninsured are under the age of 40. And that young and healthy people are essential to Obamacare; unless these individuals are willing to pay more for health insurance to subsidize everyone else, the exchanges will not serve the goal of providing coverage to the uninsured."

        So if the poll I posted is manipulated, then it's an amazing coincidence that it has been manipulated in a way that mirrors real life results.

        It's no real surprise that this has happened. Think about it - how else would you expect prices to change if everyone is roped into a particular market? Describe the mechanism in which prices would not rise.

        Since the US healthcare system is the most regulated in the world (I'll re-post this link: http://mises.org/daily/1749), it follows that it would be the most expensive and keeps the poor from getting care, and vindicates belief in the economic law of: restrict supply, increase price.



        http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8455227_f248.jpg

        1. Josak profile image62
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The chart you posted does not account for subsidies and is funded by the Heritage Foundation so again just not credible as a source.

          As for your other link don;t make me laugh if you are seriously trying to claim that a system run by private companies with some regulation is less free market than systems entirely owned and run by the government then you are just sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo indoctrinated there is nothing to say.

          If you can really convince yourself of that... Christ.

          Oh and that Forbes report is citing Forbes itself and written by a Romney staffer...  Do you just have an issue with credible sources?

          We have zero complete data yet less than a month into release so yes predictions are far better.

          You'll note the statement they give about post subsidies has no figures at all, just an assertion it won't cover the rise.

          The ONLY complete state data release we have is New York. it shows an almost 50% cost reduction.

  2. tirelesstraveler profile image84
    tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago

    Well done Mystic Smiff.
    What I want to know,  why there are four or five states where the premiums have dropped.

    1. profile image59
      AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Because the states subsidized costs. In other words, rates went up, but they decided to charge people a different way so they wouldn't notice.

      1. profile image0
        Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You have 0 hubs, 0 followers and you're following 0 people... and your hubscore is 73.
        SEVENTY THREE!

  3. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    Capitalism produces high prices in health care.  That's why every other industrialized country has introduced government into the mix (though not all in the same way).

    I thought this was going to be something to do with religion tongue.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Government has raised the cost of everything it has ever touched - why would you think this time will be different?

      1. psycheskinner profile image79
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Because the USA pays 15% of GDP on healthcare, the highest in the world.

        Every socialized healthcare system in the world is cheaper than that.

        So unless the US government is also the most incompetent in the world, socialization should be cheaper. 

        If they are, that will need to be fixed first.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The US government may well be the most incompetent, at least of those countries that have socialized medicine. 

          OR, the healthcare that is given is the US is superior to that of other nations.  An example of what I refer to may be the wait time or cost for elective surgeries.  How long does it take to get a breast enlargement and is the cost included in socialist medicine (It sure is in ours).

          I think it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to compare our healthcare to other countries.  If nothing else the horror stories abound, on both sides of the fence - what do we believe?  Do rich Canadians really come to the US for care because it is unavailable or inferior in Canada?  Is there a significant number of rich Americans go to other countries?  I would believe poor Americans, and even middle of the road Americans, but rich ones looking for better care?

    2. innersmiff profile image70
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why would capitalist create high prices in health-care specifically? In a free-economy, competition in this high-demand market will bring prices down, if anything.

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That didn't happen.  Where's the proof of that?  Government didn't intervene until the market failed. 

        I had a personal finance teacher, who was conservative, who talked about what it was like before hospitals were required to accept anyone into an emergency room, how people would die outside the hospital if it was the type that refused service to those who couldn't pay.

        And, there's no way to get real insurance in a completely private system when you are old.  You are too expensive.

        1. GA Anderson profile image84
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Government has been intervening and regulating the health insurance industry almost from day 1. But it was state government, not federal government.

          50 states, 50 insurance regulators, and probably close to that many different policy coverage mandates.

          And since probably almost all successful health insurance companies were very large companies - I'm sure some regulation was needed. ie. scenarios such as your ER example.

          But I believe there is a big difference between some needed regulation and over-regulation. To keep it simple consider the states that mandated that a viagra prescription must be covered, (hopefully you won't want to argue that the ability to get an erection is a right).

          Or a more current Obamacare example; maternity coverage. It is my understanding that all exchange approved policies must include it. Is it rational to force an 18 year old single male to pay for maternity coverage?

          Your example of an older person's difficulty in getting coverage is also correct. But that is because health insurance companies are businesses - not charities.

          The current trend to see healthcare insurance coverage, (not healthcare), as a right is at the top of the problem list, (IMO)

          But... I am by no means defending the poor little innocent healhcare industry. I am merely saying that I think government mandates and over-regulation have as much, if not more impact on the high premium prices than the companies' greed does.

          GA

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Lol.  I don't think many would argue that getting an erection is a "right."

            I'd have to hear some arguments for why including maternity coverage on my plan is needed also.  Prima facie, it doesn't seem to be needed.

            But what are you supposed to do about the really sick, the really old, and the really poor (not necessarily mutually exclusive, but in some cases are)?  They can't be left out in the cold to die.

            1. innersmiff profile image70
              innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "Eighty years ago, Americans were also told that their nation was facing a health care crisis. Then, however, the complaint was that medical costs were too low, and that health insurance was too accessible."
              http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

              How medical boards nationalised healthcare
              http://mises.org/daily/1749

              1. GA Anderson profile image84
                GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                great comment.
                After reading your second link:

                How medical boards nationalised healthcare
                http://mises.org/daily/1749


                I was astonished at how little thought I had given to this issue - and how misinformed my thought processes on healthcare are.

                Even if you want to bash the article as one man's agenda-driven opinion, I think it will at least provide a prod for further research.

                This essay should be a must-read for anyone that wants to discuss US healthcare.

                Thanks,

                GA

                1. innersmiff profile image70
                  innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No worries. I think it helps if we understand how we got into this mess in the first place.

          2. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            18 year old single males never cause pregnancies in your country! Amazing.

          3. innersmiff profile image70
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I love it when other people say what I want to say for me.

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What, as competition in the high demand market of domestic power has brought prices down in the UK!

        Funny how capitalism has had the reverse effect then isn't it?

    3. innersmiff profile image70
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'll save my thread coming out as Taoist for another time wink

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'll look forward to it.

  4. brakel2 profile image85
    brakel2posted 3 years ago via iphone

    My sons premiums for a family of 4 just went up to 800$ monthly with $1500 deductible for each family member.  Premiums are so out of sight.  There are thousands of people with new high premiums. Federal healthcare with a board of non doctors will never work.

 
working