patrick.net

I would at least be less outraged if all of the Obamatrons out there would at least acknowledge this. But instead they just blindly assert, that insurance has been rising all along, and it actually increased less this year than last. While it's gone up 100% just since it passed.

And not one son of a bitch that crafted the Act, has said one God damn word about it, or called the Insurance companies out on it.

Im not surprised... why are you surprised?

rfsanders says

got a call from my father today. He's watched his health insurance premium jump 30-60% a year since 2000. Today his provider informed him that his company-subsidized premium was going up ...

TWO-HUNDRED-AND-FIFTY PERCENT for 2013!!!

That's over $200 a month, increase!

Let's put some numbers to this so we can see what we are talking about in terms of $.

If a $200 monthly increase is 250% more than he paid in 2012, then it means he was paying $80/month in 2012. If his premiums went up by 30-60% annually since 2000 (let's call it 40% average per year), that means he paid 40 times more in 2012 than in 2000.

So, in 2000 he paid $2/month for insurance.

If this is all true, I'm guessing what has happened is that his employer has been shifting most or all of the increases to him or has otherwise changed the percentage of the premiums he is expected to pay.

I'd love to be able to get even decent insurance for $280/month. Where does he work?

This post just doesn't wash. Premiums on employer sponsored plans went up 4.6% in 2011 from $4349 to $4547 per person. Increase for 2012 is projected to be 4.1%. That's actually down from the 8.7% average increase 2000 to 2010. So how is it Obamacare which is just starting to be implemented now and won't see the major parts in operation until 2014 responsible for your fathers 200% increase? Looks like the company is shifting some of the ongoing cost rises to employees.

This is not to say I'm in favor of ACA, which I consider an oxymoron. It's not going to solve the baseline problems. It would have been better and cheaper to simply double the medicare tax and put everyone on medicare.

It kept on increasing for us(company subsidized)

It went by about 30% last year

but this year its stayed the same

I think going forward there is a limit on by how much they can increase by(%age) because of ACA

Also given the fact the insurance companies will have to spend majority of the amount in payments and profits are capped,it will be good for public in longer run

With the medicare paying lesser pvt insurers also pay less to providers(if they arent already doing)

Op
Did u check the details?
I think there are other reasons than ACA
I'd assume you already know and cherry picking info you wanted to posted

Repubthug says

I think going forward there is a limit on by how much they can increase by(%age) because of ACA

There are no such rules.

The law only makes more hoops for insurers to jump through. For example, the insurance companies must spend 80% of their premiums on health care for individuals or small groups and 85% for large groups.

Allowing spending to increase would let them collect more without violating that provision. For instance their prescription plan which covers Prilosec but not Nexium could add coverage for the new drug which is identical but lacks a non-bioactive chiral form of the molecule and is still covered by patent which allows a higher price. They could just negotiate higher fees for services with providers.

Things could get really interesting where hospitals and health insurance companies are owned by the same parent company (The McCarran-Furguson act exempts the insurance companies from federal anti-trust laws as long as there are state regulations in the area).

Repubthug says

Also given the fact the insurance companies will have to spend majority of the amount in payments and profits are capped,it will be good for public in longer run

It'll be bad for the public in the long run because health insurance companies now have significant financial motive to increase spending and less motive to negotiate lower prices with providers.

For instance instead of stubbed toes getting just an X-ray their new care protocols may allow $1000 CT scans which in turn allow them to retain $150-$200 more in premiums.

A health insurance bill passed for the people would have included a not-for-profit option like Medicare for all against which private industry had to compete.

That's not what we have.

swebb says

If this is all true, I'm guessing what has happened is that his employer has been shifting most or all of the increases to him or has otherwise changed the percentage of the premiums he is expected to pay.

It's a medium-sized defense contractor in a fly-over state. Back in the 90s the company paid 100% of the health care cost. They've been shifting the burden to the employees for quite some time. So yes, 10 years ago it would've basically been $2 a month.

What's most irritating is the lack of transparency as to WHY the increase! The company claims it's contributing the same dollar amount as last year.

drew_eckhardt says

Things could get really interesting where hospitals and health insurance companies are owned by the same parent company (The McCarran-Furguson act exempts the insurance companies from federal anti-trust laws as long as there are state regulations in the area).

This is already happening, as the major insurers are buying up hospitals and corporate practice networks to prepare for the MLR requirements. Some people simply refuse to understand that a parent company can own both an insurance subsidiary and a provider subsidiary, and simply shift the profit from one side to the other. Profit margins for C-T scans can exceed 90% for example, so we can expect to see more of them. And, if you have a real emergency and are taken to the nearest hospital, which happens to be out of network, you can expect them to "balance bill." Since the insurers' parent companies can raise the hospital subsidiaries' prices, we can expect balance billing to bankrupt even more people than it already does. This is basically what happened in Massachusetts with Romneycare: spending increased despite promises that it would "save money," and medical bankruptcies increased despite promises they would end entirely.

The % increase on an employee co-pay doesn't really say much about the % increase in the actual premium, but both are increasing despite false promises that premiums would fall. The whole mythology of cost-shifting from uninsured patients (only 2% of total spending anyway, i.e. less than the amount of annual increase) was a red herring to distract from the much larger cost shifting that mandatory insurance will impose. It's about maximizing spending, which translates to revenue to the lobbyists that wrote the legislation and secured its enactment. Employees and everyone with a pulse are now a captive market, with essentially unlimited price increases (subject only to some hoops as noted above) being part of "an offer you can't refuse."

Nuh Uh! It's a step in the right direction, for a single payer.
Not sure what that means but it has legs.

swebb says

Let's put some numbers to this so we can see what we are talking about in terms of $.

If a $200 monthly increase is 250% more than he paid in 2012, then it means he was paying $80/month in 2012. If his premiums went up by 30-60% annually since 2000 (let's call it 40% average per year), that means he paid 40 times more in 2012 than in 2000.

So, in 2000 he paid $2/month for insurance.

If this is all true, I'm guessing what has happened is that his employer has been shifting most or all of the increases to him or has otherwise changed the percentage of the premiums he is expected to pay.

I'd love to be able to get even decent insurance for $280/month. Where does he work?

Good analysis. I call bullshit on the OP.

Besides which, the right-tards don't seem to get that the parts of the law that are designed to keep premiums in check HAVEN'T TAKEN EFFECT YET.

bob2356 says

This post just doesn't wash. Premiums on employer sponsored plans went up 4.6% in 2011 from $4349 to $4547 per person. Increase for 2012 is projected to be 4.1%. That's actually down from the 8.7% average increase 2000 to 2010. So how is it Obamacare which is just starting to be implemented now and won't see the major parts in operation until 2014 responsible for your fathers 200% increase? Looks like the company is shifting some of the ongoing cost rises to employees.

Don't confuse the Obama-haters with those pesky facts.

This is not to say I'm in favor of ACA, which I consider an oxymoron. It's not going to solve the baseline problems. It would have been better and cheaper to simply double the medicare tax and put everyone on medicare.

Any kind of single-payer system just wasn't going to be politically possible. The right would never have let it happen. Maybe we can get there someday.

drew_eckhardt says

A health insurance bill passed for the people would have included a not-for-profit option like Medicare for all against which private industry had to compete.

That's not what we have.

Actually there are several non-for-profit options - one big one I can think of from the top of my head is Kaiser Permanente.

Meccos says

Kaiser Permanente.

LOL - most of the Kaiser network is for profit. The Kaisers' empire includes a non-profit HMO that advertises constantly on radio & TV and is supposedly non-profit so it didn't pay any tax on more than $1 billion in NET income (aka profit) last year, plus a non-profit foundation that acts as a marketing arm, but the actual practice network that employs most of the doctors is for-profit and privately held, i.e. they do not disclose financial results.

Homeboy says

Good analysis. I call bullshit on the OP.

Call it whatever you like. But now he's facing real financial pain. That's not bull.

rfsanders says

Call it whatever you like. But now he's facing real financial pain. That's not bull.

According to what you posted, his premium would be $280/month. You call that "real financial pain"? I know people who pay $1500/month, and prices were out of control like that BEFORE ACA was passed. Your post doesn't make any sense. Care to take a stab at explaining why, according to the numbers in your post, he would have to have been paying $2/month in 2000?

Simply stated, there has not been a 250% increase in insurance premiums in the last year. That's just nonsense.

So yeah, unless and until you correct your figures, I maintain that what you posted is bullshit.

ACA penalizes families. Individuals are cheap, but family plans are 6X as much. Even if you only have one kid.

I also call bullshit on CaptainShuddup, but that's pretty much a permanent condition for him.

NY Times: "Law Could Make Family Coverage Too Costly for Many"

rfsanders says

He's watched his health insurance premium jump 30-60% a year since 2000.

And who is this insurance with?

60% a year seems he's an idiot to stay with that company: