Obamacare not responsible for premium increases, study says

[Thebobo]

because Rush told me it was!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

From the Commonwealth web page overview:


1) Note: "renewals"
2) Note: "mid-2013 through mid-2014"

In other words, while this might be the time period that had the most accessible data, it's also the time period that is least likely to be affected by the ACA market reforms.

Many, many large and small group plans early renewed in Q4 2013 just so they could avoid the market reforms. Their "ACA related" increases won't be effective until they renewed in Q4 2014, which is outside of the sample period. Of course, that's assuming that they're in a state that didn't take advantage of the President's "if you like it you can keep it" transitional plan.

Individuals faced the same thing: most renewals in mid- to late-2014 avoid the market reforms. Most renewals in early- and mid- 2015 would be either grandfathered plans or transitional plans, in either instance not subject to the market reforms.

What about the new enrollees? Due to the way CCIIO defined things very few of them were "renewals." In effect, pretty much all ACA compliant plans were new plans for 2014 and thus can't legally be considered renewals.

It's worth mentioning too that even early renewals into non-compliant, non-grandfathered plans had ACA-related taxes built in to premiums, since the taxes had to be prorated across the entire 2014 calendar year for the purposes of NAIC statutory reporting.

So, the statement that renewals didn't cite market reforms as driving costs but medical inflation and ACA taxes is, intentionally or unintentionally, misleading since they created a sample parameter that effectively guaranteed that they wouldn't sample any rate filings with market reform costs.

You righty!!!! Blah Blah Blah.

Obamacare is the major subject where people go off their nut. If one has reservations or wants something other that it to be accepted in the best possible light somehow that's wrong. It's like an old hymn- "trust and obey". Perhaps "give me that old time Religion- er, Obamacare".

It may be that the Obamacare is as the OP has claimed, but I decided to look at the site. I found an article about US healthcare vs the world it referred to shorter lifespan being a criteria against us. Well anyone with a brain and knowledge of the topic who wasn't a cheerleader would (or should) realize that our demographics and culture aren't something a physician can change. Inner city crime skews statistics sharply. Some dopes could look at the lifespans of black males and say "see the system doesn't care about blacks!"

Well if they knew as much as they think they would realize that violent crime affects black males under about 30 years of age greatly. Once past that age there's less participation in dangerous behaviors and the difference between white and black males becomes about the same. In other words if an individual male who is black lives through those dangerous years he's going to live as long as a white male. Of course when taking the effects of poverty, crime and lifestyle choices into account we live a shorter time on average, and statistics tossed out are worse than damned lies.

Anyway, if those who sell things falsely say something I'll wait and see. If that makes me a heretic so be it, but that also makes the Faithful on the opposite side dopes. I'll play iconoclast, thank you.

 

[Subyman]

Ironically, you quibble about the "1/3 of the increases" versus "less than 1/4" of the increase, as if that doesn't make any difference. I claim that the imprecision of my thread title is LESS than the imprecision with which you summarized what the Yahoo article said. Yet you're blowing off YOUR greater falsehood. Interesting.

Nope, YOU quibble. It doesn't matter if its 100% or 1% for my argument to be correct. I didn't have to go far to prove your title wrong, its right in your article. I am absolutely, 100% correct. No falsehood. Its funny seeing you spin though. I think its funny that you went out of your way to show its 1/4, not 1/3 even though both prove your title false lol.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's going to be a "train wreck," I tell ya. And not only the politicians said that. If we go back and look at what all the righties were saying two years ago on this forum, you'd read "Obamacare disaster" and "train wreck" over and over and over again.

Isn't it interesting that the same righties who continually made those wild pronouncements right here on ATPN aren't owning up to their completely inaccurate statements?

You know that I remember two years ago when you were crying that anyone who wanted something better than Obamacare, like real healthcare reform, a "righty". You seized onto it and plugged your ears and shouted "I can't hear you". If you weren't so obsessed you would have realized that those who aren't a fan of Obamacare aren't all alike and that some of us don't think it was ever the right approach. We need health care reform. You cried for insurance reform instead and like 6 day creationists would not stop to consider any fault in your thinking. Two years when we could have committed to fixing the underpinnings. Nope. "YOU JUST WANT THE SAME OLD SYSTEM."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nope, YOU quibble. It doesn't matter if its 100% or 1% for my argument to be correct. I didn't have to go far to prove your title wrong, its right in your article. I am absolutely, 100% correct. No falsehood. Its funny seeing you spin though. I think its funny that you went out of your way to show its 1/4, not 1/3 even though both prove your title false lol.

Dcal has his NK. He has Obamacare. Go figure.

 

[werepossum]

From the Commonwealth web page overview:


1) Note: "renewals"
2) Note: "mid-2013 through mid-2014"

In other words, while this might be the time period that had the most accessible data, it's also the time period that is least likely to be affected by the ACA market reforms.

Many, many large and small group plans early renewed in Q4 2013 just so they could avoid the market reforms. Their "ACA related" increases won't be effective until they renewed in Q4 2014, which is outside of the sample period. Of course, that's assuming that they're in a state that didn't take advantage of the President's "if you like it you can keep it" transitional plan.

Individuals faced the same thing: most renewals in mid- to late-2014 avoid the market reforms. Most renewals in early- and mid- 2015 would be either grandfathered plans or transitional plans, in either instance not subject to the market reforms.

What about the new enrollees? Due to the way CCIIO defined things very few of them were "renewals." In effect, pretty much all ACA compliant plans were new plans for 2014 and thus can't legally be considered renewals.

It's worth mentioning too that even early renewals into non-compliant, non-grandfathered plans had ACA-related taxes built in to premiums, since the taxes had to be prorated across the entire 2014 calendar year for the purposes of NAIC statutory reporting.

So, the statement that renewals didn't cite market reforms as driving costs but medical inflation and ACA taxes is, intentionally or unintentionally, misleading since they created a sample parameter that effectively guaranteed that they wouldn't sample any rate filings with market reform costs.

Thanks for your rational analysis. As is the custom today, this study seems driven by its conclusion. Another salient point which Cabri pointed out is that these policies now usually cover less and/or have larger deductibles, so we're paying just a little bit more but also getting less.

Which only makes sense. Only the foamiest idiot would truly believe we were going to cover a lot more people for a lot more things for less money. Rather than citing studies designed to drive an ideological view obscuring the truth, I'd suggest two questions.
(1) Are we as a society getting what we need from this law at an acceptable price increase?
(2) Is this the best way to do it?

 

[wetech]

Can we get the title changed to "Obamacare responsible for 0% of premium increases 30% of the time"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjvQFtlNQ-M

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I see. And while you and other righties have "waited" (and continue to wait) for a reputable study that finds Obamacare to be a significant driver of premium increases, none of you have been starting and contributing to threads blaming Obamacare for signficant premium increases?

But who needs stinking studies? If the ACA "feels" bad, it must be bad. It's the whole truthy thing all over again.

http://think-tanks.findthebest.com/l/357/Commonwealth-Fund

Political Orientation: Liberal

 

[Mxylplyx]

Oh, I forgot, we're just supposed to take a "study" by some biased group with a pre-determined conclusion as gospel.

Regardless, the study shows that medical costs are going up as they always have (ie, obummercare didn't fix anything or reduce costs -- one of it's selling points), and it shows that in addition to those costs going up, there is another layer of obummercare driven costs on top of it. So as consumers, we got the usual increases we saw in the past, plus we get a nice helping of additional costs driven by obummercare. But hey, they do mention those additional costs will decrease over time. Wonderful.

Keep in mind this is only looking at the costs as reported by some insurers, it doesn't take into account the additional costs caused by obummercare regulations that are borne by employers, and all the other ancillary problems.

So basically complete fail, as expected and as usual.

Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you refer to the law as "obummercare"? You sound like an idiot.

 

[zinfamous]

Oh, I forgot, we're just supposed to take a "study" by some biased group with a pre-determined conclusion as gospel.

well, it works for most of you guys whenever the NRA opens its mouth. :whiste:

 

[werepossum]

http://think-tanks.findthebest.com/l/357/Commonwealth-Fund

All right, you! Stop looking at the man behind the curtain!

 

[shortylickens]

In another study:

"Obamacare responsible for lowering of costs."


Liberal intellectuals need to get together and agree on their lies. If the lies were at least consistent I might believe them.

 

[Fern]

ACA opposition is generally unfounded, anecdotal and late;
- Death Panels
-snip-

According to Jonathan Gruber, the MIT professor who was the architect of Obamacare, they're on their way here:

"The real substance of cost control is all about a single thing: telling patients they can’t have something they want.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2414941&highlight=

(I personally think the term "death panel" is needlessly dramatic, but it sufficiently communicates the concept.)

Fern

 

[Fern]

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

According to Jonathan Gruber, the MIT professor who was the architect of Obamacare, they're on their way here:



http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2414941&highlight=

(I personally think the term "death panel" is needlessly dramatic, but it sufficiently communicates the concept.)

Fern

It actually communicates the subject in no way.

Palin said it was based on how useful the government thought a person was.

Actual boards base it on how useful a treatment is.

Duped again, no?

 

[Fern]

It actually communicates the subject in no way.

Palin said it was based on how useful the government thought a person was.

Actual boards base it on how useful a treatment is.

Duped again, no?

I don't get my definitions from Palin. After some checking it appears you misrepresent her remark.

From Wiki:

she charged that the proposed legislation would create a "death panel" of bureaucrats who would decide whether Americans—such as her elderly parents or children with Down syndrome—were "worthy of medical care".

Deciding you're not worthy of treatment due to old age or low probability of success describe "death panel". I see nothing there that says "how useful the government thought a person was".

You've distorted her remarks.

Fern

 

[zinfamous]

"The real substance of cost control is all about a single thing: telling patients they can’t have something they want.

Are you suggesting there is something inherently wrong with this policy? Because there isn't. Costs can and do run amok when you run test after needless test after needless test on a patient simply because they want it, and don't agree with the earlier tests (hypochondriacs).

Aren't conservatives always trying to hammer into humanity the difference between "need" and "want," and how only one of those concepts tracks with responsibility?
:hmm:

Or maybe I'm losing my mind again...

 

[zinfamous]

I don't get my definitions from Palin. After some checking it appears you misrepresent her remark.

From Wiki:



Deciding you're not worthy of treatment due to old age or low probability of success describe "death panel". I see nothing there that says "how useful the government thought a person was".

You've distorted her remarks.

Fern

Uh no. If she meant it another way, then she rather soundly distorted her own remarks, because her sentence structure clearly argues that the value is based on individual, not the treatment.

That is her statement. If you want to interpret it another way, then you are doing so against the intent of her statement.

Yes, you've been duped.

she charged that the proposed legislation would create a "death panel" of bureaucrats who would decide whether Americans—such as her elderly parents or children with Down syndrome—were "worthy of medical care".

Notice that in the very same quote you picked, she value is placed on the individual. whether the individual is valueable enough for treatment--that is precisely what she says.

Two parts to her statement:

part 1 bolded: "whether americans were worthy of medical care." Here, value is only place on the individual. There is no other option here with which to assign value.

part 2: the "heart strings part": "death panel of bureaucrats!" OoooH! Big scary words like Death Panel and government! Teabagger house of fears checked off? got it. "her eldery parents or Children with down syndrome." see--they want to kill these sick people! Oh wait! she didn't say anything about sick people, but she implied that anyone who is old could be killed because..they are old, apparently. And we know how conservatives love the elderly--just ask them what they think about medicare and social security. And Down Syndrome--a genetic disorder that is inherently untreatable but leads to some very serious conditions (mostly heart related). She is actually trying to suggest that evil government will kill off people because they look funny. Forget that these are diseases that we understand quite well and know how to treat, we'll just decide to start killing them though because they look funny and because, government?

yeah. she pulls in the TeaBagger dumbasses quite easily.

I know your thing is numbers, so I give you the pass with reading subtext and sentence structure. But honestly, you can't think she was ever placing value on treatment, and not on people, unless you simply want to believe something about her that isn't true.

 

[Fern]

Are you suggesting there is something inherently wrong with this policy? Because there isn't. Costs can and do run amok when you run test after needless test after needless test on a patient simply because they want it, and don't agree with the earlier tests (hypochondriacs).

Aren't conservatives always trying to hammer into humanity the difference between "need" and "want," and how only one of those concepts tracks with responsibility?
:hmm:

Or maybe I'm losing my mind again...

Yep, you've lost it.

Since the whole issue came up I've repeatedly endorsed and posted about the AMA and NE Journal of Medicine report that recommends professional standards of care. These standards result in a form of 'you get what you need, not what you want'.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Are you suggesting there is something inherently wrong with this policy? Because there isn't. Costs can and do run amok when you run test after needless test after needless test on a patient simply because they want it, and don't agree with the earlier tests (hypochondriacs).

Aren't conservatives always trying to hammer into humanity the difference between "need" and "want," and how only one of those concepts tracks with responsibility?
:hmm:

Or maybe I'm losing my mind again...

I'd say it's necessary. Before Obamacare, insurance companies had lifetime limits; now they don't. It's distasteful to us as humans and Americans, but once health care became socialized (way before Obamacare) there has to be some mechanism to shut down extreme health care spending. Those nations with full socialized health care systems already have it, as witnessed in babies born severely premature or birth defective simply being recorded as stillborn and not automatically taking heroic measures to save someone basically dying of old age.

 

[Fern]

Uh no. If she meant it another way, then she rather soundly distorted her own remarks, because her sentence structure clearly argues that the value is based on individual, not the treatment.

That is her statement. If you want to interpret it another way, then you are doing so against the intent of her statement.

Yes, you've been duped.

I don't see where I've said anything differently.

'You're to old, you don't get treatment'. That IS based on the individual.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Off topic, but - did you guys know Palin has her own channel on Roku? No CNN, no CNN Headlines News, but an honest to goodness Palin channel? Not NakedPalin.com but an actual Roku channel where she gives her opions on political issues and plays videos of her doing stuff (fully clothed, presumably) with other people.

 

[zinfamous]

Yep, you've lost it.

Since the whole issue came up I've repeatedly endorsed and posted about the AMA and NE Journal of Medicine report that recommends professional standards of care. These standards result in a form of 'you get what you need, not what you want'.

Fern

yes, so what is wrong with that, again?

Or are you agreeing with that?

 

[highland145]

yes, so what is wrong with that, again?

Or are you agreeing with that?

I don't but people with lawyers do so everyone's covering their butts. Drives up costs.

 

[highland145]

dp