REPORT: 30% of companies to drop health coverage because of Obamacare...

[infoiltrator]

Other countries do not: a) allow insurance companies and complex payment administration (and law firms) to add to medical costs, b) insane medical insurance premiums charged to doctors because law suits are so profitable; for lawyers.
Free medical converage for politicians and their extended family and staffs.
The richest people can afford the best coverage, its discounted..

 

[Craig234]

Other countries do not: a) allow insurance companies and complex payment administration (and law firms) to add to medical costs, b) insane medical insurance premiums charged to doctors because law suits are so profitable; for lawyers.
Free medical converage for politicians and their extended family and staffs.
The richest people can afford the best coverage, its discounted..

To clarify, I've seen estimates that the inefficiencies created by the private insurance companies making each provided deal with hundreds of different claim forms and rules, and the excessive denials they do trying to cut their expenses causing a lot more paperwork, add 30% overhead to costs; while estimates of even strong reduction in the rights to sue are that less than 2% of the costs are from that.

'Medical malpractice tort reform' seems to me to be an issue hyped by the right and by the insurance industry for a couple reasons.

One, cutting it - however much it denies people wronged access to justice - cuts their costs, increasing their profits.

Second, the legal industry is a large donor more for Democrats (since the insurance companies are major donors for Republicans).

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Other countries do not: a) allow insurance companies and complex payment administration (and law firms) to add to medical costs, b) insane medical insurance premiums charged to doctors because law suits are so profitable; for lawyers.

I'm pretty sure it's been shown that the legal costs add up to less than 2% and that it serves as a knee-jerk distraction for people who hate the legal industry.

What do you propose we do to reform the medical malpractice torts system? If we eliminate medial malpractice, who will pay the costs for medical negligence? Legitimately injured people? Will it also increase the amount of medical negligence and injuries? (What many people don't realize is that the threat of medical malpractice has a way of reducing the amount of "mistakes" and minimizing overall costs.)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

'Medical malpractice tort reform' seems to me to be an issue hyped by the right and by the insurance industry for a couple reasons.

One, cutting it - however much it denies people wronged access to justice - cuts their costs, increasing their profits.

Ironically, the general public is unaware that it would probably result in a net increase of costs as a result of increased medical negligence. The difference is that the costs would be shifted onto the backs of the victims.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Righties? Surely you jest. That's scary business- something they've trained themselves to avoid at all costs. Their authoritarian natures crave certainty, and they'll engage in remarkable mental gymnastics to maintain it, something their leadership understands and panders to in truly cruel fashion.

That "check your premises" bit was aimed at fans of Ayn Rand who like to think that they use reason and question their ideas when often they end up adopting philosophical premises like dogma. Rand used to encourage people to "check their premises", which is why it's ironic that many of her fans seem to treat her ideas with such certainty and moral righteousness that it comes off looking like dogma.

 

[Fern]

To clarify, I've seen estimates that the inefficiencies created by the private insurance companies making each provided deal with hundreds of different claim forms and rules, and the excessive denials they do trying to cut their expenses causing a lot more paperwork, add 30% overhead to costs...
-snip-

If you think that's bad you should familiarize yourself with Medicare/Medicaid billing.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

By the way, anyone noticed that they refuse to release the methodology on this survey, and publicly admit that it wouldn't pass peer review?

But yeah, aren't we all glad that Pro-Jo put it up here as being equivalent to real studies? And people wonder why conservatives can't be taken seriously.

 

[ProfJohn]

Really now??

Considering the record the CBO has should we take anything they post seriously?

How much has the cost of Obamacare changed since the bill was passed?

 

[Jhhnn]

By the way, anyone noticed that they refuse to release the methodology on this survey, and publicly admit that it wouldn't pass peer review?

But yeah, aren't we all glad that Pro-Jo put it up here as being equivalent to real studies? And people wonder why conservatives can't be taken seriously.

I figure that the "study" was undertaken by the marketing guys as a way to sell their company's services. Honest researchers lay it out on the table- pitchmen don't.

Really now??

Considering the record the CBO has should we take anything they post seriously?

How much has the cost of Obamacare changed since the bill was passed?

Attacking the CBO doesn't justify McKinsey's conclusions. It's just a variant of the false equivalency theme so common on the Right.

 

[cutforscience]

socialize education, privatize health care

 

[BarneyFife]

You people are stupid if you believed it when a politician said government run health care would save you money!

The government is the problem, not the solution!

Cant Fix Stupid!

Yeah another genius. Lets allow Exxon, Aetna, Goldman Sachs to take over. Oops they already have. Thats why all of us are broke.

 

[Sbeacher]

In the long run once when all the whistles, bells, kinks, and grunts are ironed out and fine tuned, and everyone has adjusted this and that, and there will be more jobs, created here, in medical technology, the system will be running efficiently. More people who normally run around without insurance because they're in college, or in a small job at the time and can't afford it, but not too poor for medicaid will have it. In the long run the premiums will go down. We can get taxes going, after we can put the conservatives in the corner, and this will leave us ever prosperous, and lovely. We can't operate without real money. ObamaCare will be a good thing.

 

[sactoking]

In the long run the premiums will go down.

No, no, no, no, no. In the long run premiums for the chronically sick will be lower, but premiums for the remainder of the population will be higher.

Insurance is a risk-transfer mechanism. Through insurance those who are at risk of an adverse event happening in the future transfer a portion or all of that risk to a disinterested party in exchange for payment to compensate for the risk assumed. The key is that while both parties know the general probabilities of the adverse event happening, neither party knows certainly that the adverse event will occur to the transferor. By this mechanism an insurer can accept risk from enough people to make the occurrence a near-certainty and still remain profitable.

Example: Let's say the population is subject to a 1:1000 chance of contracting skin cancer. I, as a member of that risk group, know that treatment for the cancer runs about $100,000. My expected probable cost is $100 ($100,000/1000). I decide that I would be willing to pay $100 to an insurer for $100,000 in skin cancer coverage. The insurer can accept risk from 1000 people and still remain profitable because, while each individual risk is 1:1000 having 1000 risks does not guarantee a 100% chance of one person getting skin cancer.

Under current insurance laws, the insurer is allowed to price discriminate based on statistically-proven factors such as age, gender, race, lifestyle, family history, etc. This allows them to price coverage relative to the risk accepted.

Example 2: Let's say the population is subject to a 1:1000 chance of contracting skin cancer and treatment still costs $100,000. Furthermore, let's say that the population is split evenly into two sub-populations: those who tan regularly and those who don't. Those who tan are subject to a risk of 1:10 while those who don't are subject to a risk of 1:100,000. The pure expected premium for those who tan is $10,000 and for those who don't is $1.

Under "Obamacare" laws, the insurer is not allowed to price discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. Under this scenario there is no risk transfer; the 'patient' already has the averse condition, their risk is 1:1. The insurer is not allowed to charge a different price based on that fact and must price the coverage based on the other factors like age, race, sex, etc. This has the effect of obliterating risk-based insurance markets.

Example 3: Let's say the population is subject to a 1:1000 chance of contracting skin cancer and treatment still costs $100,000. Furthermore, let's say that the population is split evenly into two sub-populations: those who tan regularly and those who don't. Those who tan are subject to a risk of 1:10 while those who don't are subject to a risk of 1:100,000. The pure expected premium for those who tan is $10,000 and for those who don't is $1. All members of the population elect not to purchase insurance knowing that if they contract skin cancer they cannot be denied coverage. A person does contract skin cancer and they do not tan, so if they apply the insurer is legally obligated to charge them $1. The 'patient', knowing they gambled and lost, elects the skin cancer coverage, pays their $1 and gets $100,000 of treatment. Net loss to the insurer is $99,999.

"Obamacare" gets around this by mandating that everyone purchase insurance. Those who do not purchase insurance are subject to fines. Employers with 50 or more employees must offer group coverage or be subject to fines of $2,000 per employee. In many cases it is in the employees best interest to pay the fine as the annual fine is equal to only a month or two of insurance premium. If a relatively healthy person can go three months w/o needing health care they save money by paying the fine and only purchasing insurance when needed, then letting it lapse when treatment is complete.

Of course, when you mandate that everyone purchases insurance you no longer have a valid risk-based scenario. All of your statistics become true population statistics and probabilities become certainties, from the insurer's viewpoint. At that time the only way to remain profitable is to charge a premium in excess of the pure premium. When you do that, the premium exceeds the probable cost of loss, which encourages people to not buy coverage and if the fine is low enough they will elect to pay that. That leads to adverse selection in the risk portfolio of the insurer which leads to insolvency.

Of course, when you mandate that everyone purchases insurance you no longer have a valid risk-based scenario. All of your statistics become true population statistics and probabilities become certainties, from the insurer's viewpoint. At that time there is no shared risk by the insurer, you no linger have an insurance product, and what you effectively have is a pure tax upon the healthy to subsidize the unhealthy.

Another provision of "Obamacare" is that States must establish health "insurance" exchanges to provide coverage for those risks that insurers are unwilling to accept. There are two problems:
1) Insurers are still subject to adverse selection which will lead to insolvencies.
2) Beginning in 2014 and running through 2018 the Federal government will saddle the health insurance industry with $58.8 billion in taxes, just for the hell of it. Those taxes will be passed along through higher premiums. That will make "insurance" premiums offered through the exchanges (which are provided by private insurers) just as uncompetitive as group premiums.

In the end "Obamacare" does nothing to reduce the overall cost of insurance premiums.

 

[theeedude]

The best way to make premiums go down is eliminate the middle man taking 20%.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Or, some can get waivers - like Pelosi's crew,... about 25 of them.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

McKinsey are a bunch of hacks...everybody knows this. Promising survey confidentiality and not designing the survey in a way that would allow it to be peer review published or cited academically...well there's your proof by golly.

Average cost of coverage per employee is $9,500...the fine for not providing coverage is $2,000...yeah, the CBO estimate of 7% opting to take the $2k fine is like money in the bank...money in the bank circa 1928 that is.