Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

Except your premise isn't true. I don't make $250k a year (I don't even make a fifth of that), and the premiums on my employer-sponsored insurance went up considerably (indirectly due to ACA, as I pointed out above). Is my life ruined? No. Am I complaining? No. Am I "worse off" in that I now have less money than I would otherwise, with no tangible benefit (because my coverage is the same or slightly worse than before)? Hell yeah.

What nenjin is saying is "Don't be an ass". And your response is "I'm not an ass because I'm right." Which is being an ass.

[Reelya]

The problem is that sometimes people fetishize this to such an extent that they dont bother to look at the facts of the matter.  If someone is insisting on a view despite evidence, engaging in denialism, then you dont blame the other side.

This is sort of similar to blaming Obama for the national debt, I guess. The rhetoric goes:

Claim: "$19 trillion in debt and it's all Obama's fault for being the biggest spender ever!"

Counter: "But federal spending flatlined under Obama for the first time in decades, in fact it's declined once you factor in inflation"

Claim: "Oh, but you know he wanted to, but the Republican Congress stopped him!"

Counter: "Oh, right, so Congress gets the credit for not actually increasing spending ... but now somehow the $19 trillion in debt is Obama's fault because of a spending increase we agree never actually happened".

... In fact the deficit went up purely because the federal government isn't collecting as much tax revenue these days. So overall Obama's term represents a small cut in spending and bigger cuts in taxation. Which is pretty much what the Republicans are promoting anyway.

[mainiac]

and the premiums on my employer-sponsored insurance went up considerably

Oh, so your premiums were flat before?  Your conclusion is that this wasn't going to happen otherwise?

What nenjin is saying is "Don't be an ass". And your response is "I'm not an ass because I'm right." Which is being an ass.

No, my response is "Dont be an ass".  If you invent an incredibly shoddy argument and then act offended that I'm not accommodating towards it you are being an ass.

[smjjames]

@RedKing (not quoting because unwieldy on iPhone) : Only thing though is that 538's delegate tracker doesn't appear to treat Pennsylvania as purely WTA, so, it may be more complicated.

[Shadowlord]

That was oddly typo-filled (or error-filled) for maniac, but the vibe I got was "You're a jerk for saying I should be more understanding, and I don't care if I alienate anyone, I'm an asshole, and I'm proud of it."

[3 new posts] "Fuck it, we're doing it live" - Bill O'Reilly

[RedKing]

and the premiums on my employer-sponsored insurance went up considerably

Oh, so your premiums were flat before?  Your conclusion is that this wasn't going to happen otherwise?

More or less, yes. The increases were in the range of $10-20 per year previously. This year they went up $200+.
And yes, I don't think you'd have seen that precipitous increase without the insurance companies trying to offset their losses on ACA plans. I think they're probably gouging the rest of us for more than they actually need to offset the ACA losses, but they wouldn't be able to get away with the gouging if not for the ACA.


Mind you, I'm an ACA supporter. But you have to be willing to admit its had unintended consequences and some of that came from not being a comprehensive system. They tried to cobble together measures that would pass, and so it created areas for the market to take advantage of people.

What nenjin is saying is "Don't be an ass". And your response is "I'm not an ass because I'm right." Which is being an ass.

No, my response is "Dont be an ass".

So someone says "Don't be an ass" and your response is "No, YOU don't be an ass"? Sounds pretty ass-y to me.


@smjjames: Yeah, none of these contests (with the exception of a few of the Western states at the end) are simple. Pennsylvania's a "winner-take most" contest which awards part based on the statewide total and part based on CDs. But if Kasich can deny even the bare majority of those 71 delegates from Trump, he likely keeps Trump from clinching, if the remaining contests pan out as I'm calculating.

[mainiac]

So someone says "Don't be an ass" and your response is "No, YOU don't be an ass"? Sounds pretty ass-y to me.

Well I consider it pretty freaking asinine to defend the middle ground fallacy.  And you can make of that what you will.  It's a free country.  But I'm gonna point out that for someone getting on a high horse about me using blunt language you went to pretty blunt language yourself.

And yes, I don't think you'd have seen that precipitous increase without the insurance companies trying to offset their losses on ACA plans.

AFAIK only one company made losses on the part of the market the newly created market and that was due to bad luck in their underwriting.

[Shadowlord]

A number of small insurance companies have actually folded from failing to make ends meet - Google risk corridors if you want to know why. Basically this is partly the result of the Republicans in Congress intentionally sabotaging the ACA after it was law, in order to make it a failure like they had been saying it was. I'd assume that the companies which raised premiums etc are the ones that saw the problem coming, most likely. Maybe some of it's opportunism, sure. I haven't heard of any insurance company CEO taking a pay cut, and you would expect they would publicize that if they did.

[mainiac]

I'm confused by why risk corridors would make insurance companies go bankrupt.

[Shadowlord]

Basically by not existing.

[mainiac]

Basically by not existing.

Oh yeah, if you expected them and then they didn't happen that could definitely fuck you three ways to sunday.

[RedKing]

So someone says "Don't be an ass" and your response is "No, YOU don't be an ass"? Sounds pretty ass-y to me.

Well I consider it pretty freaking asinine to defend the middle ground fallacy.  And you can make of that what you will.  It's a free country.  But I'm gonna point out that for someone getting on a high horse about me using blunt language you went to pretty blunt language yourself.

I wasn't on a high horse, I was arguing that neither was nenjin. And blunt language is what I do. It's my fucking oeuvre.

And yes, I don't think you'd have seen that precipitous increase without the insurance companies trying to offset their losses on ACA plans.

AFAIK only one company made losses on the part of the market the newly created market and that was due to bad luck in their underwriting.

Cigna: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/262488-cigna-ceo-we-havent-made-money-in-obamacare-marketplace
Humana: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-08/humana-to-record-2016-obamacare-shortfall-as-membership-declines
Aetna: http://ww2.cfo.com/health-benefits/2016/02/aetna-suffers-loses-affordable-care-act-business/
Anthem:http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2016/01/27/anthem-profits-tumble-on-higher-obamacare-patient-expenses/#17174fe46cb9
United Healthcare:http://www.fiercehealthpayer.com/story/losses-lead-unitedhealth-rethink-role-aca-exchanges/2015-11-19 (United actually said it may pull out of the exchanges)

So again, your premise is wrong. Now, the reasons for those losses may vary and be open to debate, but it's not a point of contention that they're losing money on this segment (and then passing the cost on to other non-ACA segments, including by removing less-profitable private plans they had been offering).

[Rolan7]

So someone says "Don't be an ass" and your response is "No, YOU don't be an ass"? Sounds pretty ass-y to me.

Put another way, whoever claims dibs on the middle ground first should be unassailable?

Not taking a side right now except to say that, yeah, the middle-ground fallacy is a fallacy and we should be better than that.

Fakedit:  Seems that perhaps you agree about the middle ground.

[Shadowlord]

In news: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/in-syria-and-iraq-the-islamic-state-is-in-retreat-on-multiple-fronts/2016/03/24/a0e33774-f101-11e5-a2a3-d4e9697917d1_story.html

[mainiac]

So again, your premise is wrong. Now, the reasons for those losses may vary and be open to debate, but it's not a point of contention that they're losing money on this segment (and then passing the cost on to other non-ACA segments, including by removing less-profitable private plans they had been offering).

It's interesting but it establishes your premise is right, not my premise is wrong .  My premise was they weren't passing the costs onto you.  But it is interesting to know that they have been losing money in this segment which I was wrong about.

However I would suggest you look at that Anthem article again because that has a couple notes on the internal cost structure.
1) The benefit expense ratio rose from 84.5% to 87%.  That means a greater share of revenues went to healthcare.
2) Profits fell

Furthermore if you go to the linked revenue statement you can see more: http://ir.antheminc.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=130104&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2132574

1) Operating revenues increased 6.6% while operating loses increased over 9%.  That means that they were eating the loses, not passing them on to you.
2) Operating revenues increased 6.6% while enrollment increased 2.9%.  That means the cost per patient rose by about 3.6%.  That is substantially below the pre obamacare increases.
3) Their operating margin on "Commercial & Specialty Business" fell, not rose by 12.5%.

So while the pool turned out to be more expensive then they thought those loses were not passed onto people in the existing insurance markets, the company just lost money on that part of the market.