Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[JJ Husker]

Carl-What would you like JJ to say?

JJ has a problem with the fact his premiums were up year over year by a consistent 14-16%. Soon it will go up 30+% due to what he feels are provisions based on ACA/Obamacare.

Of course he can't prove that without ACA, the premium wouldn't have been lower just like you can't prove it wouldn't have been higher. But a rational mind would sense that based on history, it would not have been higher and actually stayed consistent.

And so since ACA will lower premiums for "some people", JJ shouldn't care or actually be happy to pay the higher premiums?

Carl, based on what I have offered as evidence in the last few pages of this thread, about my company's specific situation with our renewal, would you agree that implementation of the ACA on Jan 1, 2014 is directly causing my plans (ours, not anybody else's) renewal rates to be about 24% higher than they would have been without Obamacare?

I can't agree because we don't know what your pre-Jan 1 rate would have been without the ACA.

I'm not sure how I can state that any more clearly. It's obvious that it's not getting through.

Edit:

I agree that your December 1 post-ACA rate would be approximately 24% lower than your January 1 post-ACA rate. Beyond that, we'd both be speculating.

We have our answer. Carl cannot identify cause and effect in this case.

 

[carlfense]

We have our answer. Carl cannot identify cause and effect in this case.

I'm wondering if you really don't understand what I'm saying or if you're just refusing to acknowledge what I'm saying.

But hey. Keep talking about that 24% increase. Some people seem impressed.

 

[BigRedBuster]

We have our answer. Carl cannot identify cause and effect in this case.

I'm wondering if you really don't understand what I'm saying or if you're just refusing to acknowledge what I'm saying.

But hey. Keep talking about that 24% increase. Some people seem impressed.

There is something about you typing that that is pretty funny.

 

[carlfense]

There is something about you typing that that is pretty funny.

 

[sd'sker]

 

[JJ Husker]

We have our answer. Carl cannot identify cause and effect in this case.

I'm wondering if you really don't understand what I'm saying or if you're just refusing to acknowledge what I'm saying.

But hey. Keep talking about that 24% increase. Some people seem impressed.

I'm done with this topic because we seem to be at that point where you don't understand what I'm saying and I am absolutely sure I can't understand why you can't understand. Honestly, I am not refusing anything on purpose. I am just dumbfounded how it is so crystal clear to me yet you can't attribute the differential increase to enactment of the ACA. Oh well, that's how it goes sometimes.

 

[carlfense]

I'm done with this topic because we seem to be at that point where you don't understand what I'm saying and I am absolutely sure I can't understand why you can't understand.

Quite the opposite, actually. You don't seem to understand what you're saying and I'm trying to help on that front.

I am just dumbfounded how it is so crystal clear to me yet you can't attribute the differential increase to enactment of the ACA. Oh well, that's how it goes sometimes.

I'll try one more time: your 24% increase between December and January exists in a world where the ACA has already been passed and some aspects are already in effect. You can accurately state what your quoted rate is in January after another part has been enacted . . . but you cannot claim that your December rate would be the same if the ACA didn't exist. Therefore, any specific number you throw out there is already contingent on the ACA being passed.

If that doesn't get the job done I'll join you in throwing up my hands. We can find some other part of the legislation to discuss.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Carl,

What you don't understand even though multiple people have told you over the last year and you completely choose to ignore is that the parts that have been enacted so far have very little to do with the cost to companies like JJs and mine. On January 1st 2014 that changes. Now, I'm sure you will choose to ignore this fact again so, I'm done with this subject. It's useless to discuss a topic with someone who chooses to totally ignore facts.

On top of that, you really don't care that it costs people more money. You think this program is wonderful. We understand that. Time to move on.

 

[carlfense]

What you don't understand even though multiple people have told you over the last year and you completely choose to ignore is that the parts that have been enacted so far have very little to do with the cost to companies like JJs and mine.

Apparently you aren't aware of the changes that have already been made by health care providers. Unless, of course, you're going to argue that the cost of administering health care doesn't impact the cost of health care premiums.

On top of that, you really don't care that it costs people more money.

On top of that, you really don't care that it costs some people less money or that millions more will have health insurance.

You think this program is wonderful.

Resorting to lies, I see.

 

[rawhide]

levity helps:

an expert opinion

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/09/79967-leno-obamacare-bad-obama-now-calls-bidencare/

 

[Mavric]

10 Ways Obamacare Isn't Working:

1. WAIVERS: ... a legally questionable program of temporary waivers ...

2. ILLEGAL TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES FOR CONGRESS: ... the Administration had no legal basis on which to make this ruling.

3. EMPLOYER MANDATE: In July, the Administration announced it would not enforce Obamacare’s employer mandate until 2015, ...

4. PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS: ... insurersstopped offering child-only plans in 17 states, fearing that only parents of sick children would apply for insurance coverage.

5. OUT-OF-POCKET CAPS: ... the Administration delayed these new caps from taking effect as scheduled. ...

6. BASIC HEALTH PLAN: ... the Administration unilaterally delayed it for one year. ...

7. TAX DISCLOSURES: ... the Administration unilaterally delayed this requirement, and employers did not have to report these data until after the 2012 presidential election.

8. HONOR SYSTEM: ... gives many Americans a strong incentive to “game the system” and obtain more in taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies than they should actually receive.

9. PRIVACY: ... “an absurdly broad interpretation of the Privacy Act’s ‘routine use’ exemption.”

10. TOBACCO PENALTIES: ... due to a “computer glitch,” those penalties will be limited for “at least a year”—meaning non-smokers may have to pay more as a result.

In the end,

 

[JJ Husker]

Carl- I understand what you are trying to say but I think you are not acknowledging that the parts of the ACA enacted before 2014 have not had any noticeable effects on my groups premiums. I suppose you could try to claim that premiums would've been higher prior to 2014 without the legislation but that would not jive with the 1% per month increases we have been experiencing since well before the bill passed and which have continued right up until Dec 1, 2013. It is obvious to me that the only variable causing our renewal to jump markedly on Jan 1, 2014 is that is the date that coincides with full implementation of the ACA provisions (of course excepting those that they have recently decided to delay further). If this one time larger than typical increase is not a direct result of ACA enactment, to what would you attribute it? Do you feel it could/would have been even higher without the ACA? Or, are we going to pretend there can be no definitive answer because we do not possess a magical Delorean or the means to generate 1.21 gigawatts of power?

 

[carlfense]

If this one time larger than typical increase is not a direct result of ACA enactment, to what would you attribute it?

I don't think that I've said that. Absent your magical Delorean it's not possible to give a definitive answer as to the quantity of an increase or decrease. You can't quantify an increase (or decrease) if you can't prove a baseline. As far as I can tell that 2013 baseline where the ACA wasn't passed doesn't exist.

Do you feel it could/would have been even higher without the ACA?

I don't know. I know that the growth of health care spending has been slowing. I also know that the amount of money spent on health care influences the cost of health insurance premiums.

How much of the change can be attributed to the ACA? That's a good question. One person's take was posted around a page ago.

 

[carlfense]

10 Ways Obamacare Isn't Working:


1. WAIVERS: ... a legally questionable program of temporary waivers ...

2. ILLEGAL TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES FOR CONGRESS: ... the Administration had no legal basis on which to make this ruling.

3. EMPLOYER MANDATE: In July, the Administration announced it would not enforce Obamacare’s employer mandate until 2015, ...

4. PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS: ... insurersstopped offering child-only plans in 17 states, fearing that only parents of sick children would apply for insurance coverage.

5. OUT-OF-POCKET CAPS: ... the Administration delayed these new caps from taking effect as scheduled. ...

6. BASIC HEALTH PLAN: ... the Administration unilaterally delayed it for one year. ...

7. TAX DISCLOSURES: ... the Administration unilaterally delayed this requirement, and employers did not have to report these data until after the 2012 presidential election.

8. HONOR SYSTEM: ... gives many Americans a strong incentive to “game the system” and obtain more in taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies than they should actually receive.

9. PRIVACY: ... “an absurdly broad interpretation of the Privacy Act’s ‘routine use’ exemption.”

10. TOBACCO PENALTIES: ... due to a “computer glitch,” those penalties will be limited for “at least a year”—meaning non-smokers may have to pay more as a result.

In the end,

So which one of these can't be fixed by legislative action? I know that when I've got a leaky faucet I always burn the house to the ground and start over.

 

[Mavric]

10 Ways Obamacare Isn't Working:


1. WAIVERS: ... a legally questionable program of temporary waivers ...

2. ILLEGAL TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES FOR CONGRESS: ... the Administration had no legal basis on which to make this ruling.

3. EMPLOYER MANDATE: In July, the Administration announced it would not enforce Obamacare’s employer mandate until 2015, ...

4. PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS: ... insurersstopped offering child-only plans in 17 states, fearing that only parents of sick children would apply for insurance coverage.

5. OUT-OF-POCKET CAPS: ... the Administration delayed these new caps from taking effect as scheduled. ...

6. BASIC HEALTH PLAN: ... the Administration unilaterally delayed it for one year. ...

7. TAX DISCLOSURES: ... the Administration unilaterally delayed this requirement, and employers did not have to report these data until after the 2012 presidential election.

8. HONOR SYSTEM: ... gives many Americans a strong incentive to “game the system” and obtain more in taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies than they should actually receive.

9. PRIVACY: ... “an absurdly broad interpretation of the Privacy Act’s ‘routine use’ exemption.”

10. TOBACCO PENALTIES: ... due to a “computer glitch,” those penalties will be limited for “at least a year”—meaning non-smokers may have to pay more as a result.

In the end,

The House just took legislative action, did they not?