The Trump effect on Healthcare premiums

[RunInRed 16,360]

Why is no one talking about this?

Quote

New figures from the Congressional Budget Office put a finer point on just how bad things are getting for Affordable Care Act premiums.

The state of play: The premium for an average "benchmark" plan is 34% higher this year than in 2017, when the rules of the road had been set by the Obama administration. CBO expects premiums for the same set of plans to go up another 15% for 2019, then to level out at about 7% per year after that.

• As a result, CBO has also bumped up its estimates of how many Americans will be uninsured over the next decade — from 30 million to 34 million people.

Why now: Insurance premiums tend to go up every year, but the magnitude of these increases stems largely from the repeal of the ACA's individual mandate, the expansion of skimpy short-term plans, and the decision last year to cut off the law's cost-sharing payments.

What's next: Although the administration hasn't teed up any new policy announcements lately, senior officials from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association told reporters yesterday that there's still reason to be nervous.

• It's too late to help moderate premium hikes for 2019, they said, so they're focused on 2020.
• They're hoping new policies like the change in short-term plans won't take effect until 2020, so that they won't upend the market assumptions plans have made for next year.
• "It continues to be uncertain times," said Justine Handelman, a BCBSA senior vice president.

https://www.axios.com/trump-affordable-care-act-premiums-rising-9ea5263d-da16-4b4b-bf2f-2735bf008ddf.html

 

[LakeBum 187]

On 5/24/2018 at 10:16 AM, RunInRed said:

CBO has also bumped up its estimates of how many Americans will be uninsured over the next decade — from 30 million to 34 million people.

Have they told us how many homeowners in the US will be without flood insurance?   If we force everyone to buy it, it will get cheaper for those poor folks in Florida and Louisianna.

[homersapien 11,354]

1 minute ago, LakeBum said:

Have they told us how many homeowners in the US will be without flood insurance?   If we force everyone to buy it, it will get cheaper for those poor folks in Florida and Louisianna.

Homeowners insurance is pretty much universally available and affordable for all homeowners. 

Well, at least unless you choose to reside in a flood zone.  Then you have to take personal responsibility for that decision by paying the appropriate premiums for doing so.

Furthermore, the cost of flood losses are shared by everyone regardless of whether they need or bought flood insurance.

I don't see how this has anything to do with healthcare insurance availability or cost.

 

[LakeBum 187]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

Homeowners insurance is pretty much universally available and affordable for all homeowners. 

Well, at least unless you choose to reside in a flood zone.  Then you have to take personal responsibility for that decision by paying the appropriate premiums for doing so.

Furthermore, the cost of flood losses are shared by everyone regardless of whether they need or bought flood insurance.

I don't see how this has anything to do with healthcare insurance availability or cost.

 

I'm not surprised. Most folks don't understand many of the concepts of insurance. Forcing someone to buy insurance they don't need or want, in order to keep the price low for someone that wants it is not the way insurance is intended to work.  If you make someone in North Dakota buy flood insurance, it lowers the premiums in Florida.   Likewise, forcing health folks, who feel comfortable paying their own doctor's bills, to buy health insurance just to keep the premiums lower for those that actually want to buy it is not the way health insurance should work.  No person should be forced to buy any kind of insurance if they elect not to have it.  The only caveat to that would be a mortgage company requiring a homeowner to have insurance on their house while they have a mortgage, but in that case, it is a prerequisite to obtaining the loan. The always have the option not to get a loan in the first place.

[homersapien 11,354]

Again, healthcare is not the same as homeowners insurance.

Unlike homeowners insurance, providing healthcare to everyone is a moral obligation in an advanced society. 

That is exactly why we don't throw people out of hospitals into the ditch.  However, the cost of providing healthcare to everyone is ultimately borne by everyone, in the form of higher bills and higher premiums.

Therefore, the most efficient of providing universal healthcare is to require that everyone participate in the system.  That makes it much easier to manage those costs by earlier intervention and preventive care.

The homeowners insurance market can take care of itself.  (Although government needs to stop subsidizing the risk of living in areas we know are going to flood, and be more pro-active in preventing development in such areas.)

[LakeBum 187]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Again, healthcare is not the same as homeowners insurance.

Unlike homeowners insurance, providing healthcare to everyone is a moral obligation in an advanced society. 

That is exactly why we don't throw people out of hospitals into the ditch.  However, the cost of providing healthcare to everyone is ultimately borne by everyone, in the form of higher bills and higher premiums.

Therefore, the most efficient of providing universal healthcare is to require that everyone participate in the system.  That makes it much easier to manage those costs by earlier intervention and preventive care.

The homeowners insurance market can take care of itself.  (Although government needs to stop subsidizing the risk of living in areas we know are going to flood, and be more pro-active in preventing development in such areas.)

Don't confuse healthcare with healthcare insurance.  We all need food, clothing, shelter and healthcare but that doesn't mean everyone needs to have insurance for them.

 

[homersapien 11,354]

13 minutes ago, LakeBum said:

Don't confuse healthcare with healthcare insurance.  We all need food, clothing, shelter and healthcare but that doesn't mean everyone needs to have insurance for them.

 

I thought (flood) insurance was the operative analogy? 

My point is that universal healthcare coverage is the most efficient way of providing universal healthcare.

[LakeBum 187]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I thought (flood) insurance was the operative analogy? 

My point is that universal healthcare coverage is the most efficient way of providing universal healthcare.

I am glad you think so.  I am sad you try to force it down the throats of those of us who do not believe that, but that seems to be the way of the world these days.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

On ‎5‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 10:16 AM, RunInRed said:

Why is no one talking about this?

 

Maybe because you call it the Trump effect which is absurd. It is ACA imploding on it's own just as Trump predicted.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

4 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Maybe because you call it the Trump effect which is absurd. It is ACA imploding on it's own just as Trump predicted.

Well yes, when you strip one of the primary aspects of the ACA away, it will implode.  But don't act like Trump and the Republican Congress' moves to strip the core of the ACA has nothing to do with accelerating premiums and coats.

I can build you a great house, but if someone comes in and takes out the support beams used to build it, the house will inevitably fall down.

[LakeBum 187]

15 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Well yes, when you strip one of the primary aspects of the ACA away, it will implode.  But don't act like Trump and the Republican Congress' moves to strip the core of the ACA has nothing to do with accelerating premiums and coats.

I can build you a great house, but if someone comes in and takes out the support beams used to build it, the house will inevitably fall down.

Maybe you should buy your own support beams instead of asking neighbors to buy them for you. Then they won't come and take them back.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

4 minutes ago, LakeBum said:

Maybe you should buy your own support beams instead of asking neighbors to buy them for you. Then they won't come and take them back.

An individual mandate that we all have insurance is not me buying it for my neighbors.  But I'd GLADLY give that crappy tax cut back if it meant my fellow citizens had access to more affordable healthcare.  I tend to value that.  Sure wish others would too.

[LakeBum 187]

6 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

An individual mandate that we all have insurance is not me buying it for my neighbors.  But I'd GLADLY give that crappy tax cut back if it meant my fellow citizens had access to more affordable healthcare.  I tend to value that.  Sure wish others would too.

A mandate that we all have insurance is a good way to help the insurance companies make more money.   It has nothing to do with the actual cost of healthcare.  (If anything, it just makes the cost of healthcare higher.)  You could argue that it is a subtle approach to force people to pay for someone else's healthcare, thus making it more affordable to them.   

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, LakeBum said:

A mandate that we all have insurance is a good way to help the insurance companies make more money.   It has nothing to do with the actual cost of healthcare.  (If anything, it just makes the cost of healthcare higher.)  You could argue that it is a subtle approach to force people to pay for someone else's healthcare, thus making it more affordable to them.   

I live and breathe healthcare costs every day with my wife.  I make a good living, but without the ACA, and specifically certain provisions that came with it, I would be bankrupt.  Countless others would be too.  If me paying a few extra dollars in taxes keeps my fellow citizens cared for and allows them to keep homes, I'm all for it.  Allowing our government to negotiate drug prices for those on Medicare would help ease costs a ton too.

As for the individual mandate, costs soared because too many people decided to opt out and pay the fine. In theory, you need more young and healthy people to sign up than did, which caused premiums to rise.  But the exponential rise expected now is largely due to Congressional action taken last year and indecision by POTUS on what next steps are to be taken. The industry can't plan, which you would think a businessman president would understand as a vital thing.

[LakeBum 187]

I can understand your position and why you want to get others to subsidize your healthcare premiums.   Maybe we should just fix the prices that hospitals, clinics and doctors can charge folks for procedures and fix the price for drugs, too.  That will make everyone's healthcare costs affordable.  

[RunInRed 16,360]

7 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Maybe because you call it the Trump effect which is absurd. It is ACA imploding on it's own just as Trump predicted.

They not only undercut it, they offered nothing to fix it / put in it's place.  So much for "repeal and replace" ... more like, sabotage and leave everyone holding the bucket full of holes.  The results are on full display.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, LakeBum said:

I can understand your position and why you want to get others to subsidize your healthcare premiums.   Maybe we should just fix the prices that hospitals, clinics and doctors can charge folks for procedures and fix the price for drugs, too.  That will make everyone's healthcare costs affordable.  

You are badly mistaken.  No one subsidizes my premiums.  Maybe you missed the part where I said I make good money.  Far too much to qualify for ANY subsidy.

[augolf1716 21,096]

2 hours ago, LakeBum said:

I can understand your position and why you want to get others to subsidize your healthcare premiums.   Maybe we should just fix the prices that hospitals, clinics and doctors can charge folks for procedures and fix the price for drugs, too.  That will make everyone's healthcare costs affordable.  

I am an expert on this I can give you a perfect example my company would sell a bottle of 500 Advil which is hospital size only for $5  in turn the hospital would charge $1 per each pill or more. So doing the math that's $500 which they paid $5. That's an over the counter product don't get me started on the Epogens or Loratab. 

Hospitals are always with a national buying group normally if its a large group the hospital cost from us for all product Rx or OTC would be cost minus 2%. Yes that's our cost minus 2%. So how do we make money the group has to paid in advance. Example Florida Hospital purchases on a monthly basis $3.4 million a month they would have to have the $3.4 to us on the last day before the next month. As a wholesaler we use that money plus working on maybe .9 % operating expense and keeping the very best inventory control known to man we make money. If you want to see financials  for the company Distribution Centers I was VP at check out Mckesson, Cardinal and AmerisourceBergen Drug wholesalers. 

That was 10 years ago before I retired can't imagine what it is now

Oh the story's

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, RunInRed said:

They not only undercut it, they offered nothing to fix it / put in it's place.  So much for "repeal and replace" ... more like, sabotage and leave everyone holding the bucket full of holes.  The results are on full display.

The worst part of the ACA, the individual mandate, has been removed. People no longer have to pay for not having insurance if they don't want it. Also the drug option is now much better for a lot of people..

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

You are badly mistaken.  No one subsidizes my premiums.  Maybe you missed the part where I said I make good money.  Far too much to qualify for ANY subsidy.

But I had to pay about $650 penalty for not needing ACA and because I made too much money.

[RunInRed 16,360]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

The worst part of the ACA, the individual mandate, has been removed. People no longer have to pay for not having insurance if they don't want it. Also the drug option is now much better for a lot of people..

Right now, there's nothing that's better for anyone.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

Right now, there's nothing that's better for anyone.

Wrong. The individual mandate was wrong. I don't need ACA but as I posted above I had to pay about a $650m penalty for not having ACA because I was over some magic income level. I won't have to pay that anymore and I keep my doctors without any question. So changes are better foe me and a lot of other people I know. If you are happy with it good for you.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

24 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

But I had to pay about $650 penalty for not needing ACA and because I made too much money.

Let's be clear. You're claiming you don't need insurance.  The ACA is much broader than that.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

12 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Let's be clear. You're claiming you don't need insurance.  The ACA is much broader than that.

As a retired fed employee I have great insurance so don't need ACA. But others in my extended family do so. But my comment was why should I have to pay a $650 penalty for not having ACA under the maximum income clause (now removed).

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

40 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

As a retired fed employee I have great insurance so don't need ACA. But others in my extended family do so. But my comment was why should I have to pay a $650 penalty for not having ACA under the maximum income clause (now removed).

 

My comment was to get you to use the correct terminology.  The ACA is a law that contains more that just the individual mandate.  You don't have insurance, which is why you paid the penalty.

But we could ask this about a lot of things.  Why do I have to pay for school taxes when I don't have kids and am not planning on having them?  That's a large portion of my property taxes, which ain't cheap here in Texas.  Other people's kids aren't my responsibility, right?

Why does someone have to pay for public transportation infrastructure if they drive everyday?

Why does my money go to holding primary elections for private organizations, which the Dem and Republican parties are?

Sometimes things are for the greater good.