Does everyone really agree that costs will go down?

[Zywiec]

I currently pay about $140 a month for an Aetna family health insurance plan through my job.

The president states: "The costs for families for the same type of coverage as they’re currently receiving would go down 14 to 20 percent."

How long do I have to wait to see the 14 to 20 percent savings?

:shrug:

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. Good luck on that.

Don't hold your breath. Mine go UP by $1200 a year.

[Zywiec]

5. Do you support the bill? n/t

[slackmaster]

2. There is no way to cover tens of millions more people without costs going up for people who do pay

:dunce:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Who said no one's paying?

Further, who said we aren't already paying? Ever hear of the emergency room?

[slackmaster]

7. Where did I say someone said no one's paying?

:dunce:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. Well, if people or the government are paying to cover those 30 million people...

Obviously that means costs don't have to go up. It's when people aren't paying that it would go up. So clearly, you're either saying no one is paying or you are what you depict.

[Romulox]

22. It's like the miracle of fish and loaves then? Everybody gets coverage, insurers keep their profits

and NOBODY pays any more? :crazy:

[slackmaster]

36. Well I've been to one world fair a picnic and a rodeo and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard

:crazy:

[Egnever]

41. Did you fall on your head or something while you were at these events?

Cause spreading risk is what this is all about and its pretty sound working principle.

If you don't understand it maybe you should check with your doctor or something?

[slackmaster]

76. Mark my words - Costs are going to go up for just about everyone

If you don't get that, you are naive and I hope that some day you will get some common sense.

[ShortnFiery]

3. No, this thing will play out like a Trojan Horse.

It is going to be a horrific bill in practice and result in the Insurance Cartel having MILLIONS MORE from their billions in mandated premiums to "buy off" legislators in the future.

At least for the short term, our party is SCREWED by the right-wing corporate democratic legislators and the "gutless wonder" progressives who laid down for them.

[KharmaTrain]

32. So Leave 'Em Uninsured...That's The Ticket...

What's horrific is the status quo...where insurance companies can raise rates on a whim (as they're trying to do while they still can) and cherry pick only those policies that make them money. So this is preferable to a system where there's a larger pool of not just premiums but beneficiaries as well as well as caps on the profits those big bad insurance companies can make.

So what's your solution? Immediately outlawing insurance companies and figure things out later? Nationalize insurance companies? And under a single payer system you don't think the same mandating wouldn't occur? How else do you build a pool of money to pay for the universal care? I'm currently mandated to pay for Social Security...money I'm earning that is going for someone else. One day my turn will come...as is the case with health care.

These "reforms" don't go far enough in going after all the causes of high medical costs, but it finally does focus attention on the need for further changes. Each day more people go bankrupt due to medical emergencies, this bill offers them a lifeline. So we do nothing and wait for "perfect" to materialize? It's easy to condemn...now what's your solution for getting a better system?

[ShortnFiery]

37. These reforms don't go anywhere.

It doesn't mean squat to have insurance coverage when you can't afford the premiums and/or must declare bankruptcy and become an indentured servant to the insurance cartel for the rest of your natural life.

[KharmaTrain]

38. So Staying Unisured Is The Ticket?

So how do you fix it? Get the votes? Pass the hoops and hurdles we've seen over the past year? Again, it's easy to condemn...I have plenty of issues with the legislation but I also see positives for many that can't be ignored and have seen the existing system close up to know it can't remain as it is. So if there's another way to get even greater reforms, let's hear it.

[ShortnFiery]

39. No, but passing MANDATES and FINES will just give the already financially bloated Insurance Cartel

more ammunition to fight against a robust Public Option or Single Payer in the future.

[KharmaTrain]

67. So Single Payer Wouldn't Be A Mandate?

Then how do you pay for it? Or do we just demand free health care and not give a damn how its paid for? To pay for a universal system you will be paying a mandate...so what's the difference?

So your bitch is having to pay a fine if you refuse to participate? I'm sure those whose are facing medical problems and would greatly benefit from this legislation would be very sympathetic.

Again...what's the alternative. I'm honestly interested in solutions...

[Individualist]

6. No

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7948093&mesg_id=7948093

[Warpy]

8. I sincerely doubt you'll see any savings soon

and most people won't see any savings, at all. Insurance companies are going to fight the derailment of their gravy train with everything they've got, probably all the way to the USSC.

That sort of thing, along with the usual bribery of Congress, costs a fortune and you won't see any reduction in your premiums because of that.

[RKP5637]

20. This is what I too think will happen... As usual money talks and it will go

where needed to buy influence and power, bribery as usual, especially with the SC's recent stupid ruling on corporate personhood for contributions. What a piece of work this country has become...

[izzybeans]

9. I'd predict that the costs to your employer will go down and that it will be up to

their discretion whether or not to pass along the savings to you.

I think there needs to be a mandate on the employer to pass any savings along to workers as a boost in wages. The biggest residual problem from the health insurance crisis has been stagnant wages. Our merit increases have been eaten up by premium increases every year.

[DefenseLawyer]

10. Right. The insurance industry will use the billions more in revenue to lower your premiums

Cause you know, it's the right thing to do. And that's obviously what they are all about.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. It's what they'll do if they don't want a public option or single payer.

Because if premiums still go up, and everyone has to have it, you're going to have 300+ million angry Americans that are going to push for exactly that.

[DefenseLawyer]

23. Our politicians have shown that the really care what the public is pushing for.

This whole process has been all about what the people want, hasn't it?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. Yeah, because there's really a consensus among the people right now...

:sarcasm:

[laughingliberal]

25. We've had 70% support for a public option for months

Even the most Republican states polled support for the public option at over 50%. I don't see how the wishes of the American people change anything. Unless we all get fabulously wealthy and can buy our own legislators.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. So where is this 70%? Why aren't they marching in the streets?

Why didn't they go to town hall meetings and counter the assholes shouting down congressmen? I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. If what you're saying is true, why is everyone sitting at home with their thumbs up their asses?

[laughingliberal]

53. The polling has been clear about it

And your strawman does not change it. There were people demonstating and donating large sums of money to support a public option. They were shot down by the White House early on (August).

82% of the people of MA wanted a PO. They didn't march in the streets about it. They voted in the guy who said he'd kill this bill that did not have it.

[Lorien]

57. Um, they did go to the town hall meetings, and we did march

but just like during the Iraq war protests the MSM only had their cameras on the minority.

[laughingliberal]

65. +1000 nt

[RKP5637]

31. I've seen little to control costs, which IMO will still spiral up, so the premiums

will follow... I had thought the democrats would do a public option or single payer, but IMO the hardest way possible was chosen to appease the cornered wealth of this country. And I use the term country lightly, because IMO we have become a corporation, USA, Inc.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. Then you might want to read the bill.

Or consult an economist. Cost controls are most certainly there. Instead of invoking your right to an opinion, I'd recommend informing said opinion first.

[RKP5637]

44. Wouldn't have Medicare for all been a better choice? n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. That really ain't the point, and it doesn't support yours. (nt)

[RKP5637]

47. It was just a question to you. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

49. Sure it would.

But where are the votes for it?

[RKP5637]

51. Good point, as usual... I read your postings. I'm just frustrated and venting, but

I do certainly think this bill is better than nothing at all.

[laughingliberal]

55. I've read it and there is no effective control on premium prices

And there are quite a few health care policy experts and economists who say the same.

[jtrockville]

60. I agree, but I think it might be an in-road to health care reform.

Any company, insurance companies included, generally focus on next quarter's bottom line, not long term. And let's not forget who insurance companies are obligated to: their shareholders, not their policy holders. So sure as the sun will rise tomorrow: premiums will rise. There will be new loopholes discovered, new made-up characterizations (like "pre-existing condition"), new fees, whatever it takes to increase revenue and profit.

Also, I read somewhere here on DU that your employer will now have to list their contribution towards your health insurance.

Skyrocketing premiums + full disclosure of what we're paying these scammers, and maybe we'll finally cut them out of the picture.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

61. Oh really?

Cite them.

[laughingliberal]

63. Okay.

Cost Controls

The average MLR 20 years ago was well over 90%. When a proposal to set it at that level was made President Obama's director of OMB, Peter Orszag, stepped it to stop it saying it would amount to a nationalization of the system. The MLR is now set at 85%.

Couple of things about that:

The Senate bill would impose a “medical loss ratio” of 80% to 85%, depending on the market segment, meaning insurers would have to spend 80 to 85 cents of each dollar they collect from plan members to provide health care. Carl McDonald, a health care analyst with Oppenheimer & Co., an investment bank, wrote in a note to clients Monday that the number was “workable” for insurers, especially if they can label certain items that count as corporate expenses for accounting purposes as health care for purposes of meeting the spending minimum.


Further how does this prevent the insurance industry from increasing its profits and paying the 6.7 billion industry tax by raising premium rates. The 6.7 billion tax should be another exclusion listed under what is not “medical care.” The American people should not be punished for the sins of the insurance industry. Providing the insurance industry with an incentive by allowing it to arbitrarily raise premium prices because it will receive 15 or 20 percent of a larger premium amount does not effectively address the continued rising cost of premiums, e.g. health insurance. This needs to be fixed. We NEED a PUBLIC OPTION!


http://www.progresspolitics.com/2009/12/medical-loss-ra... /

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

66. Unless "jai2" is an expert or an economist, you've failed miserably.

[laughingliberal]

68. More:

MSNBC Countdown w/ LAWRENCE O'DONNELL - 22 December 2009: In an interview with CIGNA whistleblower Wendell Potter, O'Donnell discusses the medical loss ratio - the "amount of money insurance companies must spend on actual health care" - included in the Senate bill and in the overall health care reform.

O'DONNELL: "It's called medical loss ratio, the amount of money insurers must spend on actual health care... It is in the Senate bill and insurance companies are already trying to manipulate it. The bill will impose a medical loss ration of 80-85%. Sen. Jay Rockefeller had pushed for a 90 percent ration, and he tells Time Magazine that customers have a right to know how much of their premiums are spent on administrative costs and advertising. But, as Smart Money reports, the insurance companies already see a silver lining in the new MLR regulations.


Earlier this year, the Senate Commerce Committee investigated medical loss ratios, resulting in Aetna admitting that it had misreported its revenues that overstated its MLR in the small group market. Aetna then amended its filings to reflect the actual numbers.

- snip -

O'DONNELL: "Now, what are the insurance companies thinking about how they're going to approach this new regulation on medical loss ratios?"

WENDELL POTTER: "Well, just like they did two years ago in California when that state tried to reform its health care system, there was general agreement among the insurance companies that they could live with an 85 percent medical loss ration because they knew they could manipulate the numbers and they could define the terms, in other words, they could make them work for them by being able to categorize expenses in certain areas."

O'DONNELL: "This is first of all designed to cut into their profit margins. Will it do that?"

POTTER: "It can if there is significant regulation and we have enough transparency..."

- snip -

O'DONNELL: "Is there anyone currently employed in the U.S. government - at the IRS, or in the HHS - who knows how to enforce this; how to go into an insurance company and figure out what their real medical loss ratio is?"

POTTER: "No, I don't think so. At least I haven't come across them. One of the things I have learned over the last six months is that there is very, very little understanding in Washington about how commercial health insurance companies work, including on Capitol Hill. The exceptions are Sen. Rockefeller and his team..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7302927&mesg_id=7304281




Please note:

The Senate bill would impose a “medical loss ratio” of 80% to 85%, depending on the market segment, meaning insurers would have to spend 80 to 85 cents of each dollar they collect from plan members to provide health care. Carl McDonald, a health care analyst with Oppenheimer & Co., an investment bank, wrote in a note to clients Monday that the number was “workable” for insurers, especially if they can label certain items that count as corporate expenses for accounting purposes as health care for purposes of meeting the spending minimum.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

69. Insurers being able to live with something =/= "no cost controls"

Try again.

[laughingliberal]

70. No need to try again.

Yes. Insurers being able to live with it does=no cost controls. And nothing I say will convince those who prefer the talking points of those who support the bill. So your opinion is duly noted and I certainly hope you will be fighting as hard for improvement to the bill once the problems are seen as you are for passage of the bill now.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

73. Well, that's fine, but you are factually wrong. (nt)

[laughingliberal]

75. Then so is Potter and the analyst from Oppenheimer & Co

Your opinion is noted, as I said. I get it you want the bill passed and any problems with it are to be refuted no matter what.

But I repeat my question: will you be fighting as hard for future improvement of this bill as you are for initial passage? Because I see a whole lot of people here who I think like it just fine the way it is.

[WinkyDink]

21. You're in good hands.

[Marr]

58. Of course. It's the Miracle of the Market!

Of course, we're openly accepting the existence of an insurance cartel (i.e. "Exchange"), that will set the prices. And you're required by law to purchase their fraudulent products.

But apart from that, it's the miracle of Supply/Demand!

[Moondog]

12. No. The numbers just don't add up. n/t

[quiller4]

14. For those of us with incomes under $50,000 that buy our own

insurance, costs will go down. According to the different charts I've examined, my spouse and I will see an annual drop of $3,800-$4,400.

We currently pay $8,200 a year for private coverage with $3,500 per individual deductible (deductible does not apply to annual screenings like PAP, mammogram and sigmoidoscopy) and then have a 70-30 split after deductible.

We are 59 and 64. My spouse retired in 2003. I retired in 2006. I have two chronic health conditions.

[laughingliberal]

29. Wow! They must love you guys

My husband and I before we had to drop ours were paying $14,400 per year. We were, at that time 52 and 59. That was 3 years ago. I can't imagine what our premium would be now.

[guitar man]

15. I'm paying $514 a month

For an aetna family plan through my job on a $34k salary. It has to go down, and more than 20% or I'm out, I've sold off about everything I can over the last two years and moonlighted all I can trying to sustain us. It either goes down significantly or I'm out, I'm not getting up and going to work every day just so health insurance execs can get rich while I have nothing. Not gonna do it anymore...

[WinkyDink]

24. I'm paying more for my individual plan THROUGH MY EMPLOYER, post-retirement.

I'm retired, and my pension is a lot less than 34K.

[guitar man]

34. that's ridiculous

The people at the top of the food chain have no idea what it is like for us "little people" and furthermore, they just don't care. It pisses me off to no end :grr:

[NYC_SKP]

16. "Everyone agree"? Not even that the sky is blue can everyone agree.

My opinion: Costs will, on average, still rise over time but at a slower rate than without the bill.

But the question is too broad. For some, costs will rise, as they should. Just like taxes.

[jody]

17. How long? "Until the twelfth of never and that's a long, long time." n/t

[WinkyDink]

18. Bwahahahaha! Yeah, sure. You mean like televisions and cars and food and gas and rent?

[Romulox]

19. It's not logically possible for costs to go down. They will continue to increase geomtrically. nt

[frazzled]

27. If you lose your job it sure will

Five or six years ago, my daughter, in her early twenties, got laid off from her job (along with the rest of the office). Her COBRA insurance cost $650 a month--that was for a single individual. We had to help her pay that until she eventually found another permanent job (she was subsisting on part-time things for around a year).

With the new health care plan, I assume she could have gone to the exchanges to get not only a better deal on individual insurance, but a subsidy to help pay for the premiums.

I believe the 14 to 20% savings you quote was the savings on plans in the individual market, not on your employer's plan. But a number was quoted for that, too.

[jtuck004]

28. Costs go down with big technological improvements, big improvements in

efficiency, really large costs in underlying materials, reduction in demand.

Here there is going to be much more demand (mandates) and virtually nothing else. There will be some efficiencies, such as a few million<?> people who will be getting their initial health care in lower cost clinics, a few things along that line, which will bring some cost savings.

In an industry with an average profit of only 5 or 6%, what makes anyone think there is either an incentive or mechanism to lower costs? Why would anyone think someone who says that, without specific ways to accomplish it, is acting any differently than anyone for whom making the sale is more important than their relationship with the customer?

[subterranean]

35. Costs will go down for some people and up for others.

Your mileage may vary.

[Political Heretic]

40. Um no, and no one said they would. They said they would go up "more slowly"

And even that is questionable.

[Egnever]

43. I dont think its questionable at all.

I also think we will see cost savings within a few years

[Lorien]

52. the ajustmens made to the bill yesterday removed any controls on premium

or deductible rate hikes.

[laughingliberal]

56. +1000 nt

[Zywiec]

59. Um yes, they said it would go down

From the health care summit

Update: 11:03 AM EST

President Obama introduces the "controlling costs" section of the meeting. He and Lamar Alexander tussle over whether the president's proposal will reduce health insurance premium costs for families. The president says that the CBO estimated that the bill would reduce premium costs by 14 to 20 percent. Alexander interjects and says it would raise costs instead. The president says that it would reduce costs for the same type of insurance, but people would have the option of choosing better insurance and paying 10 to 14 percent more than they pay for the "bad" coverage they have now.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/02/live-blogging-the-health-care-summit.html

[Egnever]

42. Absolutely over time

especially when compared to the costs you would have incurred had we not done this. I expect with in a few years there will be quite aggressive non profits running in the exchanges. There is still good money to be made for a non profit that will still be able to dramatically cut costs. I think we will see these pop up like hotcakes within a few years of this going live. Considering there are incentives built in for this to happen I don't think it will be too long before we start to see significant savings. When you compare it to what would have happened if we did nothing I think the difference in savings for the average american will prove to be staggering.

Of course we will never really know what costs would have become had we done nothing because this thing is going to pass,

[Stevenmarc]

45. It will work just as well as Trickle Down economics worked

[Carni]

48. I don't think it can be cheaper than 140 a month

That is incredibly cheap IMO

I think I was co-paying that much as a single person back in the 80's through my employer.

[mdmc]

50. Our fate is tied to access to affordable medical treatment

if working people see their medical costs go down the dems will win.
If working people see their medical costs go up the dems will lose.

[kestrel91316]

54. When I finally figure out how to pay the $225 or so a month for the cheap Kaiser policy

(plus the out-of-pocket), then I'll get it. And it sure won't be cheaper than my situation now, and if any diseases turn up on screening I don't know how I will pay a full deductible.

It WON'T be cheaper for me.

I am optimistic that many people WILL benefit. It's just the story of my life that this sort of thing never helps ME, lol.

Maybe it will help enough people that my client base will be better off and so my business income will improve.

I don't know what will happen. I just know that the way things are now is not JUST or FAIR or APPROPRIATE for the American people.

[daa]

62. No, private insurance and it will continue to go up

10-20% just like in the past.

[glowing]

64. Damn.. I wish our family plan was that cheap. You are extremely lucky.

[Lagomorph]

71. You will pay more...

A lot more. With the government's support and protection, the Insurance Cartel will find the highest price they can get away with. Think OPEC.

[stillwaiting]

72. My rates have increased 58.22% in 9 months. Over 100% in 2 years.

I have no chronic illness and I'm 37 years old.

I have absolutely no idea how they can justify increasing my rates so drastically. Now I'm paying 250 per month for shit insurance (2500 deductible). I'm pretty sure in Canada that if I paid 250 per month for health care I'd be able to insure a family. Please correct me if I'm wrong. And that's for pretty much EVERYTHING.

If Canada had not restricted immigration recently I would DEFINITELY move there. I have the points needed, I'm just not in a career that is needed and allowed for immigration. Conservatives have plagued my life as a gay man growing up in a southern baptist community, and conservatives in Canada just had to restrict immigration at a time in my life where I have the ability to relocate, but I'm not wanted there either.

[stillwaiting]

74. The point I was making is that my rates have gone up so much in the past couple years

that if they are somehow "reduced" now, it's just been a monstrous scam.

And I do NOT expect for my rates to come down.

[Vinca]

79. For $250 a month Canada will send a limousine to take you to your appointment.

:rofl: Seriously . . . I did find one Canadian bake sale related to medical care. It was for travel expenses for family members to visit a loved one in a hospital in the next province. I am so grateful I married a Canadian 37+ years ago. He's now also an American, but we do have the option of going back to the old country. And we're seriously considering it again.

[eridani]

77. No. You will be paying more and getting less.

Insurance companies can do whatever the fuck they want with the trillion dollars of taxpayer money they'll be getting.

[mmonk]

78. No.

There is no cost containment. This bill is a house of cards that subsidies will attempt to obscure. You better keep that job. $140 a month for family coverage is a fantasy for many of us.

[TexasObserver]

80. No, of course not. It's wishful thinking, at best.

The industry will have one more weapon to get customers, and they'll get rid of all their pre existing condition problems before the law prohibits them from doing so.

Anything that gets made into law at this point will help the health industry and its insurers make more money, not less. And it won't reduce costs at all.