It's a EUC !!


(Enormous Unsupported Conclusion)

To the first reply post You might as well

That clears things up for me.

Not sure about you as you NEVER respond when I give you facts, but you sure do when you suppose things, and rank right up there with sarcasm but no facts....I have spoken to my insurer..want his number ?....and I got his best guess based on what is happening. I also know that rates in general will leap...there is no cost ceiling on a product we have to buy !

"Most Americans saw their insurance bills jump this year, according to a new study from the Kaiser Family Foundation. The average employer-based premium for a family increased a startling 9% in 2011. Over the next decade, rates are expected to double.

The Kaiser report is only the latest piece of research to indicate that ObamaCare isn’t driving down health care costs, as its proponents promised, but is instead accelerating their rise."

Higher Health Insurance Premiums This Year? Blame ObamaCare - Forbes

"America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the industry’s chief lobbying group, issued a statement following the ruling, stressing the importance of “secure, affordable coverage choices,” but saying that “major provisions, such as the premium tax, will have unintended consequences of raising costs and disrupting coverage unless they are addressed.” AHIP CEO Karen Ignagni suggested that due to the inflated costs, “it’s time for people to roll up their sleeves and look very carefully at those provisions.”

Supreme Court Ruling on ObamaCare to Boost Insurance Premiums

I have posted before that my wife works in Medical Mgt.and has been in meetings all the time of whats coming down the pike.But those with blinders on just don,t want to believe a word of it.We were told obama care cost 10yrs out 800 billion now over 2 .3 trillion and those C B O figures more then triple.

What I Do Know
 

I don't know all that's in the ACA, I haven't read it.

What I do know is this...

• If ACA is repealed, about 30-40 million Americans will return to being uninsured. They will still get healthcare, of course, at hospital emergency rooms. Because the hospitals will have no source of payment for their services, they'll pass them on thru increased fees for service to those who are insured. The insurance companies will pay these claims and pass their increased costs on in the form of increased premiums.

• The Medicaid provisions of ACA will be lost. Tens of millions of indigent citizens, mostly seniors, will have no health insurance or source of payment for either care or housing. The effect on insurance premiums will be the same, for the same reasons, as the above example.

• The whole system of insurance exchanges will be scrapped, leaving the current non-competitive situation where one company typically dominates insurance issued in each state. There will continue to be little competitive pressure to rein in premium increases.

There are probably lots of other improvements contained in the bill that will also be lost. There are also many significant improvements needed, improvements that Congress should be working on now. Like the inclusion of tort reform provisions...oh, forgive me, I forgot about the trial lawyers' lobby.

In summary, what I do know is that if people are concerned about skyrocketing premiums on their healthcare policies, the last thing they should desire is the repeal of ObamaCare without a well-thought out alternative.

All this incomprehensible law and public outcry and BLIND SUPPORT for it is exactly the type of chaos the Statists want.

With everyone in chaos and running scared, this is the perfect storm for people to not read and study and press their elected politicians...

...and to be gullible enough to believe it when the Statists/Leftists tell us, "We'll take care of you. Free housing, free healthcare, free transportation, free DAYCARE (indoctrinate them starting at age 4 weeks), free food..." (Never mind the take-home paycheck of $100 per month because..hey...with everything "free", who needs a bigger paycheck from the government?)

Can you say USSR? Cuba? (Never mind the KGB and secret police necessary to keep the regime in power because the hungry people get restless and protest and try to flee and defect.)

I am not sure if this is a post lauding this law and all its economic trickery or a criticism of Romney for wanting to fix it.

You are right...insurance costs WILL skyrocket...and again...not sure if you are angry at the guy who made this disaster happen or the guy who wants to fix it.

I understand reality but there are folks on this forum who think this is paid and done for and never to be heard from again. Just enjoy the good stuff and they never ever mention how it might be paid for. THAT to me is a mystery how someone can be concerned about the deficit and spending and not even mention this law in the same breath. I think, not sure, it is about 20% of our economy !

I find it really laughable that Hulababy said that 3rd World doctors will be moving in to the spaces left by our current doctors. Take a look at the names of the doctors in The Villages right now. A very large percentage of them are Indian, Pakistani or other 3rd World countries. YOU ARE GOING TO THEM RIGHT NOW - AND YOU THINK THEIR CARE IS EXCELLENT.

This bull hockey about all the American doctors leaving is just something to spread in your flower garden - or put in a cup of tea.

This article in Forbes was written by an outside contributer from the Pacific Research Institute which describes itself as :
"The Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy promotes the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility. The Institute believes these principles are best encouraged through policies that emphasize a free economy, private initiative, and limited government."

Books offered for sale on its home page include "The top 10 ways to dismantle and replace Obamacare", "The truth about Obamacare", and "Obama's Education Takeover". The author of those first two books is the same author as the Forbes article. Her well established vehement opposition to the ACA makes her interpretation that the increases in health insurance must be due to the ACA highly suspect.


And this evidence is from the website thenewamerican.com ....That website is the published by the John Birch Society. Look carefully at the words used by Ms Ignagni in her comment on the AHIP website after the Supreme Court decision. She says that the provisions "will have" she does not say "already have" A big difference from what you are suggesting, that the ACA is responsible for premium increases. I am not certain that asking the spokesperson for the insurance industry to place blame for rate increases is a good source for finger pointing. The last place they would point is the profit motive of the insurance industry trying to lock in profits before the provisions limiting their ability to overcharge the consumer kick in.

Between 1999 and 2009 the cost of a family insurance policy increased 131% while inflation was only 28%. The ACA has not lowered costs and undoubtedly a small amount of the increase is due to the provisions already in effect requiring better preventive care, coverage for young adults, and removing the lifetime caps are being passed on the the consumer. Once the ACA is fully implemented we can revisit the question. If you get more healthy people to buy insurance who are likely to be low utilizers of care, would you expect the cost of that insurance to go down compared to what it otherwise would have done?

Thank you for the correction. I appreciate being told with validation I am wrong....at least on the links...they were bad.

I expect the cost to go up. First there is no cap and the amount of companies bailing out and the usage of the system that will come into play with the new law.

You seem to know the industry and thanks for your input. Costs do worry me a lot. One of the things that is supposed to pay for this is a substantial cut in medicaire, that is supposedly from cutting fraud. Since you do seem to know your stuff in this area...is this reasonable ? And if it is, what have we been waiting for ?

Thanks again for the in put

Reply to Bucco
 

The ACA it is hoped will cut expenditures by the Federal government by several of its features. You are correct in mentioning some savings are to come by better fraud detection. The estimate is that this is only about 1% of the savings to be generated, at 4.9 billion of the 424 billion savings. This ability to detect fraud is one reason electronic records are being required. However, the data which the government is able to collect is not adequate to find fraud at this time.
The majority of the savings is anticipated to come from elimination of the overpayment to the Medicare advantage programs and adjustments in the payment schedules to providers other than physicians which together account for 350 billion in savings. The medicare advantage programs are paid an extra premium by the government with the expectation that their tighter controls would reduce costs. In fact these advantage programs are costing more per insured than traditional medicare and provide less choice of doctors and hospitals (it pays the providers less than traditional medicare) Guess who is pocketing that extra money and not saving the government anything? So the ACA levels the payment to the insurance company that offers the advantage program to that of basic medicare cost. If the carrier can be more efficient then it will make more money, if not, then it can choose whether to continue to offer its product as it now does or make adjustments. But Medicare advantage programs have been more expensive and not delivered better health outcomes than traditional medicare, so they are being phased out.

There are several online sources for looking at the numbers. Here is one from Oct 2010
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...aca_report.pdf

The often mentioned Congressional Budget Office report issued in the spring 2012 is here
CBO | CBO Releases Updated Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act

Here is the money line from their most recent report
"CBO and JCT (Joint committee on taxation) have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012-2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated."

In other words, this program will SAVE the government money if it goes according to the non-partisan CBO's analysis. This does not mean we won't be spending a lot of money, just that with the ACA we are going to spend less than we would without it (and provide tens of millions of Americans coverage they otherwise would not have)

I do not make sarcastic comments flippantly. Especially in magenta, size 7.

But I just can't seem to get your objective attention. I'm the one who's been asking YOU for facts to support your wholesale dismissal of ACA. In our last back/forth, "Who's Going to Pay", you said in your final post post that you weren't prepared to present specific proof of which elements of ACA were flawed, and how you might suggest they be repaired.

So, I must admit I find it difficult not to respond to your continual conclusion that ACA is going to "explode" your premiums. Holy cow! Do you expect us to take the word of your INSURANCE man that ACA will send you to the poorhouse. It appears you haven't seen the half dozen or so times we've been referred to the Snopes debunking of the BC/BS study that said your medicare advantage plan was going to go to $247 a month in a couple of years. Look it up and send it to your insurance man.

I'm stopping here. It's silly to respond to EUCs.

Blueash,

Can't thank you enough for excellent contributions like these !!