Remember when I said the mandatory health insurance provision in the ACA was bad news?

[Zalatix]

Well, people's health insurance premiums are going up as much as 10% now.

Deductibles are also going nuts.

This ain't like driving a car, where you can stop and ride the bus. People are now being forced to pay higher insurance premiums just for being alive in America. And it's going to get worse, just like I said!

[Surya Gayatri]

1. Link?

[NightWatcher]

2. 74% of statistics on the internet are made up on the spot.

[Surya Gayatri]

3. +1!

[Zalatix]

5. You done sneering yet?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1375940

[Bradical79]

12. You're making claims based on a sample size of 6 or 7 people?

And of those people it looks like 3 went up, 1 went down, another may have gone down and 2 stayed the same. Maybe you're right, but 50% or more of your laughably insignificant sample either did not see a rise in premiums or saw a drop. So, do you have a real source for your claims? And a comparison to how it compares to rising rates before the law was enacted?

And yes, I'm perfectly aware that a universal health care system (not health insurance reform) is a far superior goal. It's also politically unrealistic at this moment.

[Zalatix]

29. A real source? Aside from someone who testified right here?

I didn't say everyone's rates went up 10%. But for those that did, the system is failing them, and I knew this was going to happen.

The insurance companies WILL find a way to game this system to make the most out of that mandate. And if not them, the GOP in Congress will. It is going to be disastrous. The fact that 1 person on here saw a 10% jump means there are more, and that's just not right.

Yes, I know others have seen 25% or higher jumps in the years before the ACA. Can we move past that before it gets brought up? I know that. The problem is that the health insurance industry can get along just fine with a Government-enforced ZERO percent increase across the board.

[snooper2]

47. LOL, you should be an investigative reporter

You missed your calling


What do you do for a living?

[Zalatix]

51. Are you implying the DUer who made the post I'm referring to, was lying?

[snooper2]

70. I don't know where you pulled that from, not even left field- out in parking lot C maybe?

LOL..

No, I was commenting on your mad skills in investigative journalism! You have a background that lends itself to this or?
I think you should get some more browsers open and do a full seven page story on ACA and various mandates within it! You just have to believe in yourself!

[Zalatix]

73. Your post utterly lacks coherence.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

91. Dude...

You're trying to use an internet discussion thread with 9-10 respondents to bolster a claim that insurance premium rates are skyrocketing. The sample you're using doesn't even rise to the level of "anecdotal evidence" far less any factual proof that there's a trend out there.

Jesus Christ, are you in the eighth grade or something?

[Zalatix]

92. No, but your arguments and your insults are at kindergarten level.

[CreekDog]

95. Your understanding of the law you're criticizing lacks...

understanding.

[Zalatix]

97. You mean a mandatory purchase law that originally was proposed by the Heritage Foundation

and which will REQUIRE you to purchase health insurance on pain of paying a tax penalty?

What part did I fail to understand?

Oh wait, I know, you just made that up because you don't appreciate someone criticizing a Hertiage Foundation brainchild clause that Mitt Romney was the first to pass, or you're still confusing criticism of the individual mandate as criticism of the entire ACA.

[CreekDog]

98. tell us what the tax penalty is for not having insurance on September 19, 2012?

tell us O' Wise One.

tell us what the penalty is for not buying insurance in 2012 is.

here, i'll help you.

ZERO.

[Zalatix]

102. "Shoot before you aim" derpishness is not becoming of you.

I said, "and which will REQUIRE you to purchase health insurance on pain of paying a tax penalty?"

You do know what will means, right?

Corporations are making the most of their rate increases right now, in response to the law being upheld in court. That's why at least one DUer got screwed by them. And it's going to REALLY get ugly when the law goes into force.

You can see ahead of time what will go wrong by reading post #14 and #55.

[CreekDog]

104. but you said the effects are happening now

how can something that hasn't taken effect produce results now?

and don't use that word "derp".

you're making it too easy.

[Zalatix]

107. I'll repeat for you, since you missed it...

Corporations are making the most of their rate increases right now, in response to the law being upheld in court. That's why at least one DUer got screwed by them. And it's going to REALLY get ugly when the law goes into force.

[CreekDog]

109. yeah but the limits on their rate of profit took effect

so they aren't allowed windfall profits as you are stating. that's why so many got rebate checks.

[Zalatix]

114. Yes, some got rebate checks, at least one got dinged 10% instead. I am willing to bet

that more than one got hit like that.

We need to talk about how to fix that.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

105. Yeah. That Part.

That's the part you don't understand. And your non-sequitur trying to conflate a few random comments about insurance premiums and the overall effects of the ACA pretty much cements the notion that you have no clue as to what you're talking about.

Let me explain it to you, Skippy. When only a handful of people are in the insurance pool, risks are allocated to a smaller number of people and cost of premiums can increase dramatically. When EVERYBODY is in the insurance pool, including healthy people who don't want insurance because they don't think they'll EVER get hit by a car or get cancer, then the premiums go up, but they do so at a slower rare.

[Zalatix]

113. Okay, Sparky, let me explain this to you.

You have a point about large groups, but you just made a clear case for why people in small groups will suffer the WORST when they are forced to get insurance coverage. Where YOU don't know what you're talking about is that not everyone can get in a large group. Say, a two-person business like my wife and I. We can afford the (relatively) high premiums we pay for our age, but take some poor schmuck who, say, sells stuff on Zazzle and makes $28k a year via 1099? They're good and hosed when the mandate fully kicks in. It's a two person group, and in some states they don't even have exchanges. That includes places like Texas.

And remember that Supreme Court ruling which said states couldn't be forced to increase Medicaid coverage by threatening to withhold Federal funding? That's going to bite people on the ass, too... particularly those in, you guessed it, Texas.

Oh, did I mention things are going to get really ugly for the 40+ crowd, due to age-based increases?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

128. Jesus Christ, just read the fucking law, would you?

You're so massively uninformed as to how the ACA works, I don't even know where to begin.

[Zalatix]

137. Apparently you read, but do not comprehend. Hence the fit you're throwing.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

141. Yes. That''s it precisely....

Hint: Under the ACA, if you live in a state without an exchange, you're eligible to participate in a federally-sponsored exchange.

Just one....ONE....of the half-dozen misstatements of fact in your previous post.

As I said. Read the fucking law before you much a (further) damned fool of yourself.

[Zalatix]

145. Again, you read "the fucking law" but you just don't comprehend. Let's see if you comprehend math?

Let's put in a 30something person making 28K a year as I said in the previous post. Using this non-partisan site:

http://healthreform.kff.org/Subsidycalculator.aspx

We get:
Actual person/family required premium payment = $2,189

For someone who didn't have insurance and couldn't afford insurance, that's a $2,189 added yearly expense in their life. Time to pack up and move to a cheaper apartment, or sell your car, or turn off cable and go without entertainment. Your standard of living just went DOWN by over $2,000.

DO YOU GET IT YET? Are you done throwing your anger fits?

And then there's the problem of states who won't expand Medicaid, too:
http://prospect.org/article/if-texas-doesnt-expand-medicaid-two-million-will-be-without-options

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

150. Oh for shit's sake, are you really this dense?

So it's more important to have cable TV rather than have health insurance? What kind of ignorant dumb ass thinks that way?

What happens if you're in a car accident? Are stricken with cancer? Your choice is about $50 per paycheck or bankruptcy.

Whether it's universal payer (where everyone pays higher taxes) or this plan (where everybody pays insurance premiums) EVERYBODY HAS TO BE IN THE POOL IN ORDER FOR IT TO WORK. Don't like it? Then move to some non-industrialized nation that doesn't have a system of national health care.

Jesus, are you just fucking with people or are you really this clueless?

[karynnj]

142. People in small groups will benefit the most

people in large groups already benefit from some amount of competition to get the company's policy. Small groups are also hit badly when one of the small group becomes very ill or injured. Small businesses will buy into what are essentially big group policies on the exchanges.

The federal government will have an exchange for the people in states where the state fails to create one. Not to mention the people you hypothesize making $28,000 will get subsidies to help with the payments. I assume that now they have no health insurance - what do they do if they fall ill?

[1StrongBlackMan]

127. Completely unrelated to the post you were responding to ... Really ...

I heard that my brother's bartender's girl-friend's softball coach's sister read that someone who lived somewhere out west had their insurance rates quadruple and their personnel office clerk said it was because of Obamacare's mandatory purchase requirement.

Really, I did! So I have to not only agree with it; but I'm duty bound to pass on the fact ... even though my deductibles and level of coverage has stayed the same and I got $3.18 added to my paycheck because my insurance provider failed to meet the medical loss numbers.

[Zalatix]

138. So the poster I cited was lying. Did you make sure to tell them that in their thread?

[1StrongBlackMan]

147. No, I'm saying ...

I heard that my brother's bartender's girl-friend's softball coach's sister read that someone who lived somewhere out west had their insurance rates quadruple and their personnel office clerk said it was because of Obamacare's mandatory purchase requirement.

Really, I did! So I have to not only agree with it; but I'm duty bound to pass on the fact ... even though my deductibles and level of coverage has stayed the same and I got $3.18 added to my paycheck because my insurance provider failed to meet the medical loss numbers.

IOW, just because something is posted to the intertubes (at whatever site):

1) Doesn't make it true; and,
2) Doesn't mine that that post applies to anything other than that poster's circumstance

So one should not pass on what one reads as truth, or true, or applicable the whole.

Understand?

[Zalatix]

148. You just refuse to come out straight and say you think a DUer is lying.

"I heard that my brother's bartender's girl-friend's softball coach's sister read that someone who lived somewhere out west had their insurance rates quadruple and their personnel office clerk said it was because of Obamacare's mandatory purchase requirement. "

There is no possible interpretation of this beyond saying that the person I cited was lying. At least be honest enough with your satire to admit you're accusing a DUer of lying about their circumstances. Really.

And regarding point #2, I never said that their situation applies to your situation.

[1StrongBlackMan]

158. Okay ...

[tosh]

61. What is the logical reason that we should "move past that"?

Why do you deem this point not valid to the argument?

[Zalatix]

63. Run with it if you want.

I say 10% is too high. 4% is too high. An enforced ZERO percent health insurance rate increase for the next 5 years should be the law. It won't hurt the corporations.

[cr8tvlde]

106. I don't think that is within the bounds of Executive Privilege.

Obama got passed what he could, and that with the Evil Eyes all around. I think everyone here would like to see single payer, but until our "enlightened" cretins in Congress ... and their apologists ... get over "that's so European", this is the best we can do.

One thing I will tell you, that COBRA MANDATORY insurance rates have plummeted. My sister, when she got laid off, was forced to pay (borrow) $600 a month which included a $1500 deductible. That was more than half of her former take-home. Why forced? Because at that time, if you did not have insurance, you could not get insurance if you lucked out and got another job. They made gazillions during the economic hard times.

Oh, and neither will a 4% increase hurt people who already have insurance. Maybe they'll get energized and help us vote in those who give a sh&& about health care and get single payer. Until then, go to work and elect Democrats, rather than sitting around bitching.

[Surya Gayatri]

22. Anecdotal evidence of 1? Enough said...

[Zalatix]

31. It's just one, eh? So screw 'em, right?

This mandatory purchase law shouldn't have existed at all - but with that abomination being the law of the land, a hard cap of 0% health insurance premium increases for all corporations should have accompanied it. ZERO. For at least 10 years.

[LanternWaste]

110. I think we often rely on logical fallacies to better validate our faith in a position

I think we often rely on logical fallacies to better validate our faith in a position, and then rationalize criticisms of that fallacy as an insult to ourselves rather than a counter to our position (or maybe we simply see the position as extension of ourselves, as perceive rejection of the argument as a refection of our-self?).


"Without an adequate number of respondents, the ability to break down the data and make meaningful conclusions is compromised."
(Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language, by Robert Gula)

[Hutzpa]

40. You're not even funny

producing a link within DU of a claim made by another...

Maybe now you'll go find someone to write a quick blog about this bogus claim too....

[Zalatix]

50. You're saying that DUer was lying?

[Hutzpa]

57. No

I'm saying you're using one claim from a DUer as statistics that shows health insurance are going up.

[Zalatix]

60. Well they ARE going up. I didn't say they were going up for everyone.

Let me guess, when you hear someone say that their rate went up 10%, your approach is to tell 'em "but mine went down!" and not even care to DISCUSS the problem with a system that keeps letting their rate go up 10%...

[Hutzpa]

74. Isn't that another issue?

your case brought forward was suppose to express how healthcare has not work or is not going to work? I don't see this
system that you speak off, I am neither denying nor acknowledging the statement of the DU'er whom posted that claim.

[Zalatix]

77. My case, as stated in the OP, is that the **individual mandate** is not going to work.

[Hutzpa]

82. And you came to that conclusion by reading ONE experience from another DUer. nt

[Zalatix]

83. Where there's one, there's bound to be more.

And the worst is yet to come. See Post #14 and #55.

[Hutzpa]

131. I'm sorry

I would love to continue this conversation with you, but you have not provided any evidence that will convince me of
the claim you made in your OP.

[CreekDog]

93. the insurance mandate did not cause that increase

you fail.

the insurance mandate has not taken effect yet.

[KamaAina]

136. Perhaps that poster happens to have a particularly greedy insurance company

like Anthem Blue Cross here in CA, where double-digit increases are not the exception but the rule, and have been for years before the ACA.

[patrice]

154. You're making a selective error in logic that you'd probably not make in other situations e.g.

If 6-7 people told you that they just bought cars and all of those cars happened to be blue, would you claim that ALL cars are blue?

No, you wouldn't, not based on 6-7 cars, not based on 60-70 cars, not based on 600-700 cars, not based on 6000-7000 cars.

So WHY are you making the same sort of error in logic about insurance premiums?

I would really like to see your answer to this question.

[Wounded Bear]

26. No.......56% are made up on the spot....

a further 18% are copied, pasted, and then modified and edited later, 50% of those more than once..

[riderinthestorm]

88. Here's one link to a NY Times story last week (but there are many others if you google)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/business/health-care-premiums-rise-modestly-report-says.html?_r=0

A family with employer-provided health insurance now pays just under $16,000 in annual premiums, an increase of about 4 percent over a year ago, according to a study released Tuesday by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

[Romulox]

4. Mandatory private health insurance will solve this problem. For-profit care is the law! nt

[BOG PERSON]

124. the should just rename Congress to "Rentseekers Anonymous"

o brave new world

[Sanddancer]

6. I got money back a few months ago.

So i'm thinking they may find it a little harder to up this years premium by anything other than the super inflation index the insurance companies seem to use.

"Ain't like driving a car where you can stop and ride a bus." Poor analogy but to run with it were you not dismayed at all those you passed on the road walking and trying to thumb a lift?

[Zalatix]

14. It's not a poor analogy.

You are now required to buy insurance just for being alive. You don't have to actually do anything, like drive a car or own a home, to be forced to buy insurance.

This is the world's biggest corporate giveaway and the corporations are going to find a way around that 20% overhead cap (which dictates 80% of premiums must be used to pay benefits)... which, mind you, the GOP will also stop at nothing to eliminate. Oh and did I forget to mention that accountants are wizards who do magical things to numbers that would make Voldemort look amateurish? That's probably why one DUer's rate went up 10% in a year. And that "super inflation index"? Other bean counters will be working on gaming that to help the insurance companies.

I haven't even begun to count all the ways around that 80-20 rule.

In short: you got lucky this year. Others? Not so much.

[randome]

27. Having a tax penalty imposed is not the same as being 'forced' to buy insurance.

[Zalatix]

32. Buy or pay a penalty is not force? You have a strange definition of the word 'penalty'.

What do you think 'tax penalty' is? A phantom slap on the wrist? Someone wagging their finger at you and saying "naughty, naughty"?

You go ahead and refuse to pay that penalty and see what happens.

[sabrina 1]

129. So Democrats were wrong all these years when they opposed it? The President was wrong

when HE opposed it, stating that if 'forcing people to buy HC was a solution for those who could not afford it, we could solve Homelessness by forcing people to buy houses'?? That was one of several reasons why I supported him over Hillary.

[Sanddancer]

59. If i don't own a car i don't need car insurance.

Likewise, if i don't own a home i don't need to insure it. My health unfortunately is with with me "'til death us do part" and because of that I should insure it so that others don't end up paying for it. Although if i'm really really ill others do, but then that's how insurance works.

[Zalatix]

65. So the only way out of being shaken down for money for corporate welfare is to die. Gotcha.

Now you understand the words 'corporate giveaway'.

Bashing corporate giveaways and laws that ensure people pay money to corporations under pain of a tax penalty... downthread this corporation-bashing message has been called a Republican talking point.

[Sanddancer]

79. Yes. As long as healthcare in the US remains a business.

It should never be about making money. Never.

[CreekDog]

96. You are *not* *now* required to buy insurance, stop lying about ACA

When then time comes that one is required to purchase insurance (not yet), other parts of the law will kick in so that we'll all be paying the community rate for our age bracket.

That has not happened yet and you aren't required to buy anything.

And if you're going to talk about a law with any authority, you can't misrepresent it as you are doing here.

Instead you seem hell-bent on tricking people into believing false things about ACA.

And you've done that before.

[sabrina 1]

130. All you have to do is look at Romneycare to find out what happens when it IS

implemented.

For the first year, premiums went down, but over the past several years, premiums have been rising every year. The Mandate has NOT stopped premiums in Mass. from rising.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

132. Only people in the exchanges will be paying community rates

The way I understand it, employer based insurance rates won't be community based.

[CreekDog]

157. outside the exchanges will require community rating

there are some exceptions for "grandfathered" plans or self-insured plans, but if they turned out to be more expensive than community rating, businesses would likely buy the community rated option.

i have to say, i get frustrated when i hear erroneous criticism of the law.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

160. I'm not criticizing the law

just wasn't sure about the community rating part.

I looked it up, and it says community rating applies only to the individual market (inside or outside of exchanges) and small groups. So, large employer plans will not have to abide by community rating.

[CreekDog]

100. No, it's not a poor analogy at all, just the assertions are false

and the numbers are made up.

but other than that it's just super!



(this has been tried on us for a decade here, we aren't stupid...you have to up your game if you want this to work)

[anarch]

7. I've gotta say, one thing that truly irritates me

is the fact that I have insurance, which yes indeed keeps getting more expensive, but despite (or partly because of?) the steady increase in monthly costs I can't afford to go to the doctor because the deductible is also still so much. It's good to know the insurance is there in case of catastrophic illness or injury and all, but it just seems like, as a society, we're doing it wrong.

[MrDiaz]

13. you think its bad now

wait until bernanke starts putting 40 billion added dollars into our economy, it will dilute the dollar even more, and then all prices will go up! GOTTA LOVE IT

[coalition_unwilling]

28. FAIL! When there is 8% structural unemployment, monetary stimulus by itself

will not create any significant inflationary pressures.

At best, said FED monetary stimulus might goose aggregate demand a bit and thereby reduce unemployment at the margins. But you can't push on a string and sloshing additional money into the system without distributing it to those who will spend it is like pushing on a string.

MacroEconomics 101.

[MrDiaz]

84. okay my friend

what ever you say

[Nye Bevan]

8. We want everyone in this country to have health insurance. Don't we?

And there are two ways to achieve this. First, a UK-style system where the Government effectively collects your premiums through the tax system. And second, a system where everyone is mandated to buy private insurance. While many would prefer the UK type system, it was not and is not politically achievable. The individual mandate, accompanied by not allowing discrimination against pre-existing conditions, may not be your first choice but it is better than nothing.

[Romulox]

10. No. We want people to have Health CARE. "Insurance" is a corporate, for-profit concern. nt

[Zalatix]

16. +1!

[Nye Bevan]

18. Do you agree that the ACA is preferable to doing nothing? (nt)

[Zalatix]

21. Yes, but the mandate is poisonous.

[Nye Bevan]

24. The mandate is needed for the requirement that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions.

Just as with a single payer system we would not allow healthy people to opt out and pay reduced taxes.

I'm not sure that with less than 50 days before the election this is the best time for Democrats to be trashing one of President Obama's signature achievements.

[Zalatix]

54. Taxes on the rich could have funded that.

[Romulox]

119. No. Making the insurance industry part of the government will have disastrous consequences. nt

[stevenleser]

133. That is actually what single payer is. The government becomes the insurer. nt

[Romulox]

159. Um, no. Single Payer does not include guaranteed profit margins for private insurers. nt

[stevenleser]

161. I didnt say that it did. I said the way you phrased it = single payer. nt

[NCTraveler]

108. The mandate does not provide everyone in the country with health insurance. nt

[dawg]

9. This is their last gasp before the ACA goes into full effect and they know it.

They might very well find themselves being forced to refund lots of these premium increases - depending on the election results and the actual amount of medical care they are forced to provide.

[SidDithers]

11. No, I don't. Can you provide a link to where you said that?...nt

Sid

[DevonRex]

17. Yes, I'd like to see it too. And DUers'

responses to it. I have a feeling it didn't go over well.

[Zalatix]

20. Right here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002868469#post314

Your rate may not have gone up 10% but at least one DUer's rate just did.

[CreekDog]

101. community rating, which hasn't taken effect yet (nor has the mandate)

will mean that everybody's rates are the same as their community and their age bracket.

so in a community, everyone's increase will be the same.

again, i'm getting weary of your continued attempts to lie about the law.

your lies must mean that you don't believe you can convince us of your point by telling the truth.

hmmmm.

[sinkingfeeling]

15. So? Health care premiums have been doing that for decades. 2012 national

average increase is 4%.




http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/story/health-care-premiums-rise-5-year-increase-131-decade





http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/business/health-care-premiums-rise-modestly-report-says.html?_r=0

Individual policies purchased through an employer rose even less, increasing just 3 percent from last year to an average of $5,615, the study said.

[bhikkhu]

25. Exponential growth doesn't just keep going, in the real world

...anyone can extrapolate a growth figure from past data and project it forward, but that doesn't make it so.

The whole structure of the rotten healthcare system we have, which has ballooned over the past 15 years to consume 15% of the nations GDP, is being changed now. The type of structure which is being implemented has, in every single working example, much lower costs than we have now.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. The OP made a specific assertion of fact, has no data to back it up, and this

data presented here (and by me also downthread) falsifies the OP's baseless assertion.

The OP has presented republican talking points at the height of the campaign season here on DU. The OP should be ashamed.

[Zalatix]

53. See Post #5, are you saying that DUer whose post I cited was lying?

If not then YOU need to walk back your "baseless assertion" nonsense.

[auburngrad82]

19. My health insurance went up on average 25% every year when Dubya was pResident.

My health insurance stayed the same this year.

[hughee99]

103. You're insurance cost 6 times more in 2008 than in 2000?

Same job, same insurance plan?

[auburngrad82]

122. Actually it doubled over the first four years

then we switched to my wife's plan, which was a much better plan since she worked for a very large company as opposed to the small family owned business I work for. So from 2000- 2004 my premiums went from about $35 per month to about $82 per month.

Then I got married in 2005 and cancelled my insurance and went on my wife's plan.

When she lost her job at the beginning of this year we went back on my plan, where the individual monthly premium is $120. So, no, not six times the original rate, but around 3 times the original rate, which is what you would expect with than annual increase of 25%.

Of course, I'm paying a lot more than the individual rate now, because I'm carrying my wife, but to compare apples to apples, I'm using the individual rates.

[DevonRex]

23. Use your head. This is step one.

It's going to be a very long and difficult process that will eventually get us to nonprofit health care.

Did you think that a capitalist health care system would stop raising rates overnight out of the goodness of their hearts? Some will raise certain fees here and there just like they always have.

But at the end of the year if they are found to have used less than 80% of their fees on actual health care then they must issue refunds. So there is a check on their rate-raising.

[DinahMoeHum]

30. +1

n/t

[Zalatix]

33. Use YOUR head. Republicans will game the system. See #14

[Nye Bevan]

58. If it's so easy for them to "game the system", why are they desperate to overturn the ACA? (nt)

[Zalatix]

116. They'll keep the individual mandate. Corporations LOVE that.

I'm not sure if you recall, but Mitt Romney did pass the individual mandate when he was governor of Massachusetts. I don't get how anyone could forget that.

[rsweets]

34. Thank you n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

35. Your OP is baseless.

MENLO PARK, Calif. – Annual premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage reached $15,745 this year, up 4 percent from last year, with workers on average paying $4,316 toward the cost of their coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Educational Trust (HRET) 2012 Employer Health Benefits Survey released today.

This year’s premium increase is moderate by historical standards, but outpaced the growth in workers’ wages (1.7 percent) and general inflation (2.3 percent). Since 2002, premiums have increased 97 percent, three times as fast as wages (33 percent) and inflation (28 percent).

http://www.kff.org/insurance/ehbs091112nr.cfm

Consider a self delete.

[Zalatix]

36. See post #5.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. So your claim is that anecdotal evidence, the statements of a few people on the internets

trumps an actual reputable survey done by the Kaiser Institute?

Seriously?

Have you no shame?

[Zalatix]

43. First of all, I don't think the poster was a liar.

Second of all, you think we can't even have a conversation about those whose rates DID go up that much?

Trust me, I have more shame than you have a heart.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. As soon as you walk back your implication that ACA is making things worse

we can have a discussion. Until then you are spewing republican talking points on DU.

[Zalatix]

49. I didn't say the ACA is making things worse. I said the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE is making things worse.

Before we can have a discussion, you need to stop accusing me of things I didn't even imply.

[jberryhill]

152. The individual mandate is not on effect

You are saying that an as-yet inoperative feature of the ACA is making things worse than they otherwise would be?

[coalition_unwilling]

38. The OP said only that premiums were going up by 'as much as 10 percent'. I have to

dsagree with your suggestion that the OP self-delete, as the quote you cite has the money shot: premiums this year increased at twice the rate of wage increases. Don't you think that statistic is worthy of study and critique?

Edtied for my shitty math skills without enough coffee this morning

[Warren Stupidity]

42. The OP blames "obamacare" for - BELOW AVERAGE INCREASES.

The OP is a republican talking point. The squirmy wiggle room in "as much as" is the 'tell'.

[coalition_unwilling]

44. Please see my edited post. I think the 'tell' is that insurance premiums

increased at slightly more than twice the rate of workers' wages. That surely merits discussion and critique.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. They have been doing that and worse for a long time.

And the ACA doesnt take full effect until 2014. So this whole discussion is a bunch of republican bullshit.

[Zalatix]

46. A Republican talking point? The individual mandate was Mitt Romney's brainchild.

No, wait, it was the Heritage Foundation's brainchild.

[brush]

41. I doubt that

Maybe you don't know but the ACA provides for annual FREE wellness visits to your doctor, it also fills the prescription donut hole so seniors don't have to cough up that money under the Bush prescription plan. There are also no life-time coverage limits anymore imposed by insurance companies, no bans on coverage because of pre-existing conditions, and young adults who maybe haven't found a job yet and didn't have their own coverage before can remain on their parents policy now. Also many individuals and businesses have gotten sizable refund checks from their insurance companies who spent too much of premium money on administrative expenses instead of actual care. And all of the rest of the benefits of the ACA don't go into effect until 2014, so go sell you crap somewhere else.

[Lil Missy]

52. Balony. The ACA is not what is driving costs up.

Costs have increased at an obnoxious state for several years.

[alc]

55. guaranteed customers is bad

It could work like the Republicans explain the free market and companies compete for customers on price/service/etc. But, with guaranteed customers and difficulty for new alternatives to the few companies, they may be happier to split up the market and make more off of their chunk.

The medical loss ratio is worse for premiums. By one reading, they have to spend about 80% of premiums on medical cost. Another interpretation is that their profit is about 20% more than medical costs (10-15% after admin costs). So, the best (and only) way to increase profit is to raise medical costs and raise premiums. They politely returned the extra profits this year. But I'd bet they will jack up medical costs, then use their good behavior this year to argue that they "need" to up premiums every year from now on because medical costs "went up". Never mind that they start approving more unnecessary tests and non-generic meds and don't negotiate rates very well. If regulators object, they'll publicly ask which tests/meds/visits that are now provided because of ACA that the government would like them to stop covering. We'd better hope the regulators do better than with financial problems and BP (where the regulations were there but not enforced)

[Zalatix]

64. Indeed. There are LEGIONS of ways for them to game the system.

[TheKentuckian]

139. When you are limited to a percentage and control the purse strings

the only way to increase revenue is to increase the allowables and there is nothing to stop them from doing exactly that and of course they only have to even come up with an excuse if they go up 10% or more.

So, you are dead on unless someone is ready to make the case that the cartel has given up on growing the bottom line.

I tend to think the MLR a dangerous to system provision. It would make a lot more sense to place it on producers if the goal is to slow the rate of growth. With that in place then a MLR on the cartel would button things up but without it, we have a virtual mandate to increase systemic costs.

[still_one]

56. I sure haven't seen that. However, what do you think premiums were doing before ACA? They were NOT

going down

[Zalatix]

62. As I said upthread, health insurance premiums should have been FROZEN.

There is no reason for them to go up for the next 5 years. Yeah that's arbitrary but I am willing to bet the health insurance companies won't suffer if they are ALL slapped with a 5 year rate freeze. They won't suffer at all.

[Nye Bevan]

66. You keep talking about what "should" have been done in this thread.

But none of the stuff you mention would have had any chance of being passed by Congress. President Obama pushed through the best possible bill he could get, and I think that while it's not perfect it's a pretty damn good bill.

[Zalatix]

68. And the Individual Mandate is a poisonous element. It was originally a HERITAGE FOUNDATION idea.

[CreekDog]

71. It's not mandatory, why are you spreading misinformation?

nobody is required to buy insurance right now.

what is wrong with you?

[Zalatix]

78. So no individual mandate law was passed or upheld by the Supreme Court?

What's wrong with you that you're not up to date with history?

[CreekDog]

89. Is there a requirement *today* that you buy insurance right now?

because you blamed premium increases (which happened before) on mandatory insurance.

now, i don't believe you are actually ignorant of the law and that it doesn't require you to purchase insurance right now. i do think you will probably feign ignorance in order to cover yourself for making right wing arguments against the Affordable Care Act here on DU.

and i've said that to you before, when you tried to do it before.

FIRST, what everyone should know about your post:

1) if you are truly as ignorant about the law as you are claiming to be right now, they should disregard anything you say about it.

2) if you aren't as ignorant as you claim to be, then you are trying to trick people and they should disregard what you say about ACA for that reason.

and since there isn't a way to know which one of those is right, one of them is right, and everyone should disregard what you've posted on that basis. there's no in between.

[Zalatix]

94. No, but the law has been passed. Insurance companies are responding to that law.

And once again I am not making an argument against the ACA. I am making an argument against the individual mandate, as I explained to you before and you disregarded. The individual mandate is not the whole ACA - and I've told you this before, too, but you clearly do not understand that.

When the individual mandate actually does come into force things will get very ugly for those who are above the poverty level. One person complained about a 10% increase this time around but you're going to hear more of this happening when this law comes into force.

Furthermore, corporations are going to find ways around the limits they've been hit with. See Post #14 and #55.

You are the one who is being militantly ignorant here.

[Nye Bevan]

72. OK, Romney's your man. He has pledged to overturn it on the first day of his presidency. (nt)

[Zalatix]

75. Are you KIDDING ME? Romney was the guy who passed the FIRST health insurance mandate law in MA.

Please, know your history before you post stuff like that.

[Nye Bevan]

80. That was a couple of Etch-a-Sketch shakes ago (nt)

[Zalatix]

81. +100!

[Romulox]

121. Um, you realize how stunningly ironic this statement is, don't you? Um, don't you??? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. O'er here, reality check

The only way to do that would be single payor...oh wait, my TRICARE went up as well.

[stopbush]

67. Does it matter if premiums go up when the ACA demands that any $ not spent on providing care

is refunded to the person paying the premiums?

At worst, the insurance companies are taking extra money to put in the bank to earn interest until they have to refund the principal to the insured.

[Zalatix]

69. See post #14, and post #55

[CreekDog]

117. Maybe it's time for you to give up...you speak about a law you don't get

most of what insurance companies are doing now is going to be addressed when the mandate takes effect. limits on premiums, however, have already taken effect, meaning that whatever increase they charge someone, most of it must be used for health care and not profits.

and what you're missing is that without ACA, the insurance companies could do all the things you worry about, but unlike now and in the future, there would be little restriction.

so, time to pack it in.

nice try though --well, not really.

[Zalatix]

118. Maybe you should start trying to actually read what I said.

and what you're missing is that without ACA,

Stop. Right. There.

First of all, I didn't say the ACA sucked. I said the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE SUCKS. Do you get the difference? Do I need to draw a Venn Diagram for you to explain the difference?

The Individual Mandate didn't make it so the companies can't go screwing people around. In fact, it is the one poisonous provision of the ACA that leaves people vulnerable if the corporations find their way around the limitations placed upon them.

You need to pack it in until you comprehend what I actually said and stop making up false accusations of me attacking the whole ACA rather than one relatively microscopic but disproportionately damaging provision.

[Sancho]

76. That's not entirely true...

We got a refund from my wife's employer, and they just negotiated a new contract for health care costs that are essentially the same as the last three years. As long as health care costs go up, the insurance will also.

The insurance companies will try to scam the system, but their profits are limited by ACA. In the long run, a public option will hopefully be the solution.

[Loki]

86. Oh please.

Under the Bush administration our health care premiums (and we were a small business and self insured) went up every GD year. So much that in order to keep it affordable we went from $1000 deductible up to a $5000 deductible. There has never been a year that I remember that our health care premium went down.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

87. I don't remember when you said it....

But if I had, I would have said that you're as full of crap then as you are now.

Insurance rates in 2011 when up by 4-10% depending on your carrier. And I'm not sure what a "nutty" deductible looks like and I suspect you don't either.

Forecasts for 2012-13 are for low single-digit increases. Personally, the cost of my employer-provided plan inched DOWN during the past year (not a lot, mind you, but it went down). And I'm the treasurer for a non-profit organization, and I can tell you that THEIR rates went down as well.

So thanks for your "the sky is falling" message.

[Warren Stupidity]

90. Here is what the OP says that is total bullshit.

"People are now being forced to pay higher insurance premiums just for being alive in America. And it's going to get worse, just like I said!"

1. nobody is being forced to do anything right now, as the dreaded mandate does not take effect until 2014.

2. the premium cost issue is getting better, not worse, but again that has little to do with the ACA, as most of the ACA does not take effect until 2014.

The OP is simply false as it asserts that "the mandatory health insurance provision in the ACA was bad news?" while those provisions are in the future.

The OP uses specifically vague language: "people's health insurance premiums are going up as much as 10% now" so that when confronted by the actual data, the OP can disingenuously change the subject from the overall effect of the ACA to the fact that individuals indeed do have different experiences in our patchwork healthcare system. The ACA will introduce more regulation and more standardization and more control over rates and expenditures for health care, but it can't do that until after it takes effect.

On the bullshit meter, I rate this OP 100% bull.

[Nye Bevan]

99. Good post.

Most of the ACA has not yet taken effect. The fact that some people are having unpleasant experiences underlines why the ACA is needed.

In some ways the ACA can be thought of as a kind of Glass-Steagel act for the health insurance companies in that it regulates them, restricts their activities, and limits their profits.

[cr8tvlde]

111. Hear Hear !! One of the 53% ers to be sure. All baloney, no bread.

The Republican Credo ... Details are tacky. Or in MittWit's words...We don't need no stinkin' fact checkers...paraphrased.

[Obamamite]

112. I got a notice I'm getting a REFUND because of the 85% rule. Ins. premiums go up EVERY YEAR....

One year they went up 29%.

I doubt they're going up 10% this year, actually. I'd like to see proof of that before I automatically believe a negative post by someone who is against something at the outset.

The mandatory provision is only fair. Instead of others paying for your health care, you have to pay for it. If you can't afford it, the government will SUBSIDIZE it for you. And you're covered. It is also necessary to pay for those high risk cases where people have pre-existing conditions, and no more caps on amount to be paid out when someone gets a serious illness.

This is a good bill. It needs to be tweaked, but one thing at a time.

[Hoyt]

115. I'd be happy with a 10% increase, considering it has gone up more than that annually for decades.

Sure, they could have socked it to the "rich" I suppose and cut the heck out of defense, but nothing would have passed.

We'd be sitting here all smug with no health care/insurance reform; no ban on pre-existing conditions; no exchange; no medical loss ratio to restrain insurers' profits; no coverage of millions who don't have it; waiting 20 years for someone to get the courage to propose reforms again; no framework for adding a public option with a few lines of legislation; etc.

[Whisp]

120. no, I don't remember. *hides thread.

[WinkyDink]

123. Mine went up $30/ month. Capital Blue Cross.

[gollygee]

125. Our insurance went up a very small amount

But it goes up every year. The announced rate is not higher than usual.

[Lex]

135. And mine went down for the 1st time in 10 years.

I think the OP is full of you-know-what.

[cr8tvlde]

126. This title infuriates me and that "we" are even engaging with this, uh, objectivist, is offensive.

Right out of Atlas Shrugged. Just go die on the street, already. I dub it Scroogish* at best. Got to admit, it does have a familiar, holiday-like ring to it.

Oh, and OP must live in a Blue/heavily populated/urban area where one has the "privilege" of swapping a car for riding the bus to work or school. Surely the horse and buggy days are in their twilight centuries. That meme is pretty self-selective. Go away.

* uselessness Like Ebenezer Scrooge. Alternately, like uselessness. Bah! Humbug.

[Lex]

134. Not mine. Same coverage and premium went DOWN

for the first time in 10 years.

[renie408]

140. OURS, TOO!!

With our government subsidy, we can NOW AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN FIVE YEARS!!!!


I am sitting here crying. You just don't understand how scary the last five years has been.

Thank you, Barack Obama.

[Lex]

143. Wonderful!

[tledford]

144. There IS an alternative to mandatory health insurance (assuming single-payer is "off the table")...

...don't treat anyone who doesn't have insurance AND who can't pay in full up front. Someone uninsured and poor comes into the emergency room, dump them on the curb and call the road-kill removal folks to come pick up the corpse.

That would be MUCH better, wouldn't it?

[sendero]

146. That's funny...

... because everything I'm reading and hearing says health care costs have risen slower (about 4%) the last couple years compared to double digits in previous years.

I think you are relying on faulty information.

[aikoaiko]

149. I'm still miffed that my FSA has been reduced to $2500.

Flex spending accounts were one of the best things to happen to the middle class.

Still the health care reform will help other people. Maybe even me some day if my situation changes.

[Renew Deal]

151. No, I don't remember.

[valerief]

153. Huh? Premiums HAVE BEEN going up for years now. nt

[spanone]

155. they would have gone up regardless.

[B Calm]

156. Duh, where you been man? Insurance has been

going up every year for the past 40 years. That's why we have had all the attention on health care the past few years just to try to get a handle on it!