6 ms·

Health insurance has been increasing by ~9% a year since the late 1990s. Obamacare is predicted by the CBO to bend the cost curve in the right direction but it

by jbooth 13y ago

Health insurance has been increasing by ~9% a year since the late 1990s. Obamacare is predicted by the CBO to bend the cost curve in the right direction but it's not going to 0% or sub-inflation anytime soon. Anybody blaming their cost structure on Obamacare is just being opportunistic, although I guess I can't blame them. Getting a multi-billion dollar media machine pushing a message makes it persuasive.

torkins 13y ago
premiums rose by 4% for 2013, so that's the right direction, even sub 5% edit: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/21/business/survey-finds-modest-rise-in-health-insurance-premiums.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/21/business/survey-finds-mode...
- protomyth 13y ago
  Your pointing to an article based on a Kaiser Family Foundation survey of employers for 2013 without any guidance on 2014 when the ACA changes occur for businesses. A study about a year that the ACA doesn't affect the group being studied is not very informative. study: http://kff.org/private-insurance/report/2013-employer-health-benefits/ http://kff.org/private-insurance/report/2013-employer-health...
  - jbooth 13y ago
    Is the national review less biased? http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353475/slowdown-health-care-inflation-here-stay-veronique-de-rugy http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353475/slowdown-health-...
    - protomyth 13y ago
      Its not the bias, its the timing - you are using numbers under one system to prove numbers under a future different system. If anything, these numbers show that the ACA wasn't needed as it came into effect years after in passed. Look at the implementation dates to ACA and see what years the data in the graph is for. Also, article points to same http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/assessing-the-effects-of-the-economy-on-the-recent-slowdown-in-health-spending-2/ http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/assessing-the-effect... - same group
Aloha 13y ago
Yes, exactly. It's not really the insurers that are causing the cost rise, its the systemic imbalances and cost shifting - by taking cost shifting out, we can reduce the cost for each person who is actually paying.
ohashi 13y ago
I've seen you say this twice in this thread. Care to provide some evidence supporting this statement?
- jbooth 13y ago
  Apparently the national numbers aren't as bad as I thought, closer to 9%. I've edited my post upthread. Related to the topic of Obamacare, cost inflation has actually slowed down the last few years. So that makes basically everyone complaining about Obamacare costs a big fat liar. Here's a conservative blog for a source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353475/slowdown-health-care-inflation-here-stay-veronique-de-rugy http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353475/slowdown-health-...
  - protomyth 13y ago
    Note that the start of the decline predates ACA and levels before ACA takes affect. http://c9.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/cYL1.jpg http://c9.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/cYL1.jpg
    - jbooth 13y ago
      Sure, that's entirely valid. However, would you be making the same point if the numbers were different? Fox News would be having a field day. What about this jackass Armstrong's reasoning, in light of the current numbers? How about Papa John?
      - protomyth 13y ago
        Once again, the system that the numbers were dropping under is changing and going by the law and trend from the individual plans, we are going to see a big increase. Papa John's lawyers already looked at the numbers and are doing what other businesses are doing. This is a national trend. Armstrong is an ass, but that goes well beyond the whole health care thing and his excuse is foolish. "However, would you be making the same point if the numbers were different? Fox News would be having a field day." Well, no, I couldn't make the point if the numbers were different as my point relies on the actual numbers and not some made up crap. I don't watch Fox News nor MSNBC or CNN as I am not fond of pundit television, so I have no opinion or trend on what they are saying.

by jbooth 13y ago

torkins 13y ago

premiums rose by 4% for 2013, so that's the right direction, even sub 5% edit: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/21/business/survey-finds-modest-rise-in-health-insurance-premiums.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/21/business/survey-finds-mode...

protomyth 13y ago
Your pointing to an article based on a Kaiser Family Foundation survey of employers for 2013 without any guidance on 2014 when the ACA changes occur for businesses. A study about a year that the ACA doesn't affect the group being studied is not very informative. study: http://kff.org/private-insurance/report/2013-employer-health-benefits/ http://kff.org/private-insurance/report/2013-employer-health...
- jbooth 13y ago
  Is the national review less biased? http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353475/slowdown-health-care-inflation-here-stay-veronique-de-rugy http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353475/slowdown-health-...
  - protomyth 13y ago
    Its not the bias, its the timing - you are using numbers under one system to prove numbers under a future different system. If anything, these numbers show that the ACA wasn't needed as it came into effect years after in passed. Look at the implementation dates to ACA and see what years the data in the graph is for. Also, article points to same http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/assessing-the-effects-of-the-economy-on-the-recent-slowdown-in-health-spending-2/ http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/assessing-the-effect... - same group

Aloha 13y ago

Yes, exactly. It's not really the insurers that are causing the cost rise, its the systemic imbalances and cost shifting - by taking cost shifting out, we can reduce the cost for each person who is actually paying.

ohashi 13y ago

I've seen you say this twice in this thread. Care to provide some evidence supporting this statement?

jbooth 13y ago
Apparently the national numbers aren't as bad as I thought, closer to 9%. I've edited my post upthread. Related to the topic of Obamacare, cost inflation has actually slowed down the last few years. So that makes basically everyone complaining about Obamacare costs a big fat liar. Here's a conservative blog for a source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353475/slowdown-health-care-inflation-here-stay-veronique-de-rugy http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353475/slowdown-health-...
- protomyth 13y ago
  Note that the start of the decline predates ACA and levels before ACA takes affect. http://c9.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/cYL1.jpg http://c9.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/cYL1.jpg
  - jbooth 13y ago
    Sure, that's entirely valid. However, would you be making the same point if the numbers were different? Fox News would be having a field day. What about this jackass Armstrong's reasoning, in light of the current numbers? How about Papa John?
    - protomyth 13y ago
      Once again, the system that the numbers were dropping under is changing and going by the law and trend from the individual plans, we are going to see a big increase. Papa John's lawyers already looked at the numbers and are doing what other businesses are doing. This is a national trend. Armstrong is an ass, but that goes well beyond the whole health care thing and his excuse is foolish. "However, would you be making the same point if the numbers were different? Fox News would be having a field day." Well, no, I couldn't make the point if the numbers were different as my point relies on the actual numbers and not some made up crap. I don't watch Fox News nor MSNBC or CNN as I am not fond of pundit television, so I have no opinion or trend on what they are saying.