Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[JJ Husker]

Carl- I really don't understand why you are choosing to not acknowledge that enactment of the ACA is directly responsible for a much larger premium increase on Jan 1, 2014 than would've taken place without it. There is absolutely no other reason for the huge difference between December and January. Recent historical premium increases support it. And it is totally to be expected. The system will be adding tons of people that have not had coverage, have been unable to get coverage due to preexisting coditions, and expectedley these additions will likely be a bigger drain on the system. Actuarials really do know what they're doing. They're even better than Vegas bookies. I guess you can choose to doubt that extra 24% increase is attributable to Obamacare but it is not logical or rational. Nothing could be more obvios.

 

[carlfense]

Carl- I really don't understand why you are choosing to not acknowledge that enactment of the ACA is directly responsible for a much larger premium increase on Jan 1, 2014 than would've taken place without it. There is absolutely no other reason for the huge difference between December and January. Recent historical premium increases support it. And it is totally to be expected. The system will be adding tons of people that have not had coverage, have been unable to get coverage due to preexisting coditions, and expectedley these additions will likely be a bigger drain on the system. Actuarials really do know what they're doing. They're even better than Vegas bookies. I guess you can choose to doubt that extra 24% increase is attributable to Obamacare but it is not logical or rational. Nothing could be more obvios.

The bold is the problem. You can't show that with any degree of credibility.

You can show the December 1 rate (years after the passage of Obamacare) and you can show the January 1 rate (years after the passage of Obamacare and after significant portions are in effect) but you can't show what the premiums would be absent the ACA.

I'm not sure if you don't understand this or if you're trying to dumb it down to support your beliefs.

 

[KJ.]

Carl- I really don't understand why you are choosing to not acknowledge that enactment of the ACA is directly responsible for a much larger premium increase on Jan 1, 2014 than would've taken place without it. There is absolutely no other reason for the huge difference between December and January. Recent historical premium increases support it. And it is totally to be expected. The system will be adding tons of people that have not had coverage, have been unable to get coverage due to preexisting coditions, and expectedley these additions will likely be a bigger drain on the system. Actuarials really do know what they're doing. They're even better than Vegas bookies. I guess you can choose to doubt that extra 24% increase is attributable to Obamacare but it is not logical or rational. Nothing could be more obvios.

The bold is the problem. You can't show that with any degree of credibility.

You can show the December 1 rate (years after the passage of Obamacare) and you can show the January 1 rate (years after the passage of Obamacare and after significant portions are in effect) but you can't show what the premiums would be absent the ACA.

I'm not sure if you don't understand this or if you're trying to dumb it down to support your beliefs.

You absolutely can. You seriously think that had the ACA never been passed, premiums would have "randomly" jumped 24% on January 1, 2014 when the typical pattern is 1%?

While insurance companies have spent a lot of time preparing for the ACA, that's only concerning business sold then. You act as if these October or November rates JJ brings up are greatly influenced by the ACA and thus widly different than what they would have been had it never been passed, but that's not the case. Any premium rate reflects the current laws as of its incurred date, and since the new laws aren't yet in effect these rates are not at all influenced by the ACA. For purposes of this conversation, they are the exact same as non-ACA rates.

Once the ACA is in place, the current way health insurance is priced becomes illegal. Companies will have to change the way their computers spit out rates. Why is it so hard to grasp that the new laws are going to have an instantaneous and significant impact on what those rates are?

 

[carlfense]

You absolutely can. You seriously think that had the ACA never been passed, premiums would have "randomly" jumped 24% on January 1, 2014 when the typical pattern is 1%?

OK. Show me what his insurance premium (if paid today) would have been on December 1, 2013 if the ACA hadn't been passed.

If you can't do that (and I doubt that you or anyone else can) then your 24%(!!!!) increase argument is already shaky.

While insurance companies have spent a lot of time preparing for the ACA, that's only concerning business sold then. You act as if these October or November rates JJ brings up are greatly influenced by the ACA and thus widly different than what they would have been had it never been passed, but that's not the case. Any premium rate reflects the current laws as of its incurred date, and since the new laws aren't yet in effect these rates are not at all influenced by the ACA. For purposes of this conversation, they are the exact same as non-ACA rates.

You're assuming that everything else remained constant and I suspect that you know otherwise.

Why is it so hard to grasp that the new laws are going to have an instantaneous and significant impact on what those rates are?

Of course the ACA is going to impact insurance rates. You're either acting intentionally obtuse or you're not paying attention to what I'm saying.

 

[KJ.]

OK. Show me what his insurance premium (if paid today) would have been on December 1, 2013 if the ACA hadn't been passed.

If you can't do that (and I doubt that you or anyone else can) then your 24%(!!!!) increase argument is already shaky.

If JJ would like to chime in on what he's paid over the last X years, I'd be happy to provide you a 99.99% confidence interval based on his trended expected costs while adjusting for stochastic variance and credibility of the sample. But I don't even see why that's necessary, as I've already mentioned these "current day premiums if the ACA never happened" rates you speak of are not significantly different than what they are today given the ACA did happen.

You're assuming that everything else remained constant and I suspect that you know otherwise.

I don't. The only thing that could potentially be reflected in today's rates is overhead expenses, which I suspect have gone up more than usual since the ACA. Increased staffing, hiring of consultants, upgrading IT, etc. However, this isn't going to have a significant impact on rates.

Why is it so hard to grasp that the new laws are going to have an instantaneous and significant impact on what those rates are?

Of course the ACA is going to impact insurance rates. You're either acting intentionally obtuse or you're not paying attention to what I'm saying.

"Of course" it's going to impact insurance rates, but we can't say with any sort of credibility that a 24% hike the day the ACA goes into effect is because of the ACA? But you're missing my point with this quote, I'm getting at the instantaneous aspect. Whatever change in rates the ACA causes, it's not a slow process from 2010 to 2014. It's overnight.

 

[JJ Husker]

I'm pretty much done trying to convince one person of something that is painfully obvious to anyone else. This doesn't have one thing to do with my feelings about Obamacare. It is a simple mathematical consideration. Our premiums have been increasing 1%+/- per month since well before the ACA passed. There has been no "preparing" for it by falsely increasing or decreasing premiums leading up to its implementation. The ONLY reason the January 1, 2014 renewal is a 38.8% increase instead of 15%+/- is because on that date plans have to comply with the ACA. They have to accept; people without prior coverage, people with pre-existing conditions that couldn't get coverage before, and they have to include coverage for things that weren't required before (whether or not the participant needs or wants that type of coverage). Of course the premiums are going to be higher because of the ACA. Only an idiot would try to claim otherwise. Does somebody really think that passage of the ACA was some magic decree that meant insurance companies would all of a sudden start paying out more in claims than they planned to collect in premiums. I know carl is sharper than this but he's having a very tough time proving it in this discussion.

 

[carlfense]

How can this be? 2012 rates are prior to 2014!

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/09/20130912a.html

Health care law saves consumers $1.2 billion nationwide

A new report released today by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) shows that 6.8 million consumers saved an estimated $1.2 billion on health insurance premiums in 2012, due to the “rate review” provision of the Affordable Care Act, which brought unprecedented accountability to slow the growth of health insurance premiums. The Affordable Care Act, along with state efforts, continues to bring scrutiny to proposed health insurance rate increases and is saving consumers real money as a result.

 

[carlfense]

Of course the premiums are going to be higher because of the ACA. Only an idiot would try to claim otherwise.

I'd appreciate if you could show this particular idiot where he made this particular argument.

You might have a lightbulb moment.

 

[carlfense]

I've already mentioned these "current day premiums if the ACA never happened" rates you speak of are not significantly different than what they are today given the ACA did happen.

Quit mentioning and start proving it up.

I don't. The only thing that could potentially be reflected in today's rates is overhead expenses, which I suspect have gone up more than usual since the ACA.

Sounds like you're not quite as familiar with this as you'd have us all believe.

"Of course" it's going to impact insurance rates, but we can't say with any sort of credibility that a 24% hike the day the ACA goes into effect is because of the ACA?

I doubt that I have to explain this again. Whether by accident or by design, you're missing the point.

 

[JJ Husker]

Of course the premiums are going to be higher because of the ACA. Only an idiot would try to claim otherwise.

I'd appreciate if you could show this particular idiot where he made this particular argument.

You might have a lightbulb moment.

What the f#*k is your point Carl? You've been trying to claim that the larger than typical jump in premium beginning Jan 1 cannot be proven to be the result of ACA implementation. I made that "idiot" comment generally and not necessarily directed at you but you also are doing little to dispell it in this case. Maybe I'm being dense. So tell me, what is your explanation for our group rates jumping an additional 24% from Dec to Jan when historically the month to month increase has been about 1% since well before we even heard of the ACA? Coincidence? We'll never be able to know without a time machine? What?

 

[carlfense]

What the f#*k is your point Carl? You've been trying to claim that the larger than typical jump in premium beginning Jan 1 cannot be proven to be the result of ACA implementation.

You seem to be making a very specific assertion: That the ACA will increase your premium cost on Jan. 1, 2014 by 24%. (If I've misstated that or misinterpreted your statement, I apologize.) You seem to have calculated your 24% increase by comparing a post ACA rate to a different post ACA rate.

I made that "idiot" comment generally and not necessarily directed at you but you also are doing little to dispell it in this case.

A masterpiece, this.

So tell me, what is your explanation for our group rates jumping an additional 24% from Dec to Jan when historically the month to month increase has been about 1% since well before we even heard of the ACA?

Your post ACA rate compared to a different post ACA rate is 24% higher. The insurance companies want to operate for as long as possible under the old rules.

 

[JJ Husker]

So, humor me cuz I might be slow on the uptake here.......you're claiming that if we renew December 1, 2013, at a 14% increase, THAT is a post ACA rate?

 

[KJ.]

So, humor me cuz I might be slow on the uptake here.......you're claiming that if we renew December 1, 2013, at a 14% increase, THAT is a post ACA rate?

Yes. He's more or less arguing this:



Which is a completely valid point in theory, it's just that the alternate 2014 isn't really that different than the original one. So using it as an argument against attributing that jump to the ACA isn't very strong.

Even if that wasn't the case, how can you possibly look at JJ's typical premium rates and say that there's not any credibility to the argument that the ACA is causing that 24%? You really think the ACA has secretly been pushing this graph down about 1% per month the last 3 years? Meaning that we'd be at the current with-ACA rates anyway?

 

[carlfense]

So, humor me cuz I might be slow on the uptake here.......you're claiming that if we renew December 1, 2013, at a 14% increase, THAT is a post ACA rate?

Yes.

 

[carlfense]

Could you include a link . . . or provide a source?