No it applies to all. The past 2 years, the company has received a refund from the insurance company because they did not meet the 80% threshold. And the paperwork associated with that "refund" is quite significant.
If Obamacare made no changes to your plan, it can't be the cause of your price increase. I don't know what causal link you're trying to imply here because you're literally starting off by asserting there isn't one.
The cost of insurance is very closely associated with the cost of health care. That's true even more today since at least 80% of premiums must go to health care expenses. When the cost of health care increases, the cost of health insurance increases. Since our plan coverage is constant and the insurance company overhead is capped due to the 80% rule, its obvious the huge increases in insurance premiums are due to huge increases in health care costs. And those costs did not start to explode until obamacare kicked in.
Growth in health care costs has been at historic lows since the ACA passed. Indeed, increases in premiums for employer-based insurance have also been at historic lows. Your experience is just an exception to that general trend. Which suggests local, idiosyncratic factors are likely to be responsible.
It might be due to statewide issues given the size and structure of the plan. And the company health benefit administrator claims from conversations with other companies admins that its not local. I looked up historical health care costs, its clearly politicized. Charts of health care costs (and the definition of "health care costs" vary from chart to chart) as a % of GDP tend to show a flattening in recent years, but its easy to hide true trends because GDP is a function of many variables. Charts of employer paid premiums show premiums steadily increasing, as do most charts that show the actual & inflation adjusted dollar cost of premiums. Emergency room costs also show significant increases, the annual increase of the cost of a trip to the ER is basically constant from 1980 to 2016. My little survey through google land images of historic trends of these costs shows their growth is certainly not at historic lows, but increasing and increasing significantly.
Growth in national health expenditures (the costs we're talking about) has been hovering near historic lows for years. It's ticked up a little bit from the all-time low and is around 5-6% right now, but that's still below the historical average. As to how that translates into an impact on premiums for employer-sponsored insurance, every benefit company and survey of ESI has found the same thing in recent years. Mercer: ADP: EBRI: KFF/HRET: PwC
From your Mercer link - the reason the national avg health care cost rose 2.4% was because "......employees moving into lower-cost medical plans...." Premiums did go up significantly, employers responded by moving from low deductible high premium PPO and HMO to high deductible lower premium plans (such as HSA's). There was "only" a 2.4% increase in premiums paid because employers changed plans in response to significant increases in premiums on their existing plans. That supports 2 of my arguments - 1) that its easy to hide the truth and make it appear things are better than they really are; 2) the cost of insurance is going up much faster than some people want to believe. I don't have time to look up all your other links, but I'll bet they turn out the same as the Mercer link. You should read the entire link not just the headline before using it to support your argument.
That's how all price increases are held down! That's literally the entire point of having markets. If your ideal is that there's one plan, so nobody is ever asked to shop around or potentially change plans, and costs are held down by a magic external force instead of normal market dynamics, single-payer is probably more your speed
Prices went up, people could not afford the insurance they had and wanted, so they had to step down to a lesser plan with a lower cost. What is the end result of that process? Prices go up, their current lesser plan becomes too expensive, they step down to an even lower coverage plan, and so on until the last step - no insurance at all. Is that your idea of a market? Prices rising out of control thanks to govt meddling until nobody can afford it?
You can continue to point out the TRUTH that Obamacare has been a blessing in multiple ways but the deluded far right will continue to cling on to their myths forever.
Premiums ultimately reflect the underlying cost of care (prices x utilization of actual health care services), which is part of the reason growth in ESI premiums and overall health spending both slowed to historic lows in tandem. The end result of the process has to be sustainability, which will require three things: 1) Insurers negotiating aggressively on price with care providers. Two years ago when we saw the first ever decline in hospital prices, it was noted that insurers seem to be moving in that direction. 2) Insurers deploying new reimbursement approaches that reward providers for efficiency and slowing cost growth. They've been moving in that direction, too. "WellPoint making big push toward performance-based payouts;" Value-Based Care Will Drive Aetna's Future Goals;" "UnitedHealth Group Launches National ACO" "Why Cigna Succeeds in Value-Based Care Reimbursement Model;" etc 3) Insurers offering products with benefit designs that encourage consumers to weigh the relative prices and costs of different care providers and treatments. Most ESI has historically been bloated and overly generous to the point that there are no economic incentives for the consumer at all when it comes to making health care decisions. Rolling out new benefit designs like these are a feature, not a bug. They aren't an indication that the system has failed, they're a sign it may be starting to work. All three of these things have the potential (particularly if done together in a coherent way) to slow cost growth. But the pressure for insurers to do all three of these things comes from customers who are willing to defect to competitors who do it better and thus can offer more competitive premiums for their products. This is the point of having market dynamics.
That's all theoretical. The entire issue is that the true market dynamics have been derailed by the government. All of the options you mention (such as WellPoint making big push toward performance-based payouts) are dependent upon and limited by the govt mandates. Health insurance and health care providers are excessively regulated and controlled by the govt, that's why actual costs are going up, and up rapidly. Get the govt out of health care and insurance, then you can talk about market dynamics. Stop treating health insurance as a some sort of health payment provider and health care monitor. Its insurance, it should be treated like car insurance.
Obamacare causes insurance companies to cover millions more people than were previously covered. This costs money, and the money could not be obtained from the working class as they have been hammered by capitalist economics for 40 years. So Obamacare went after the wealthy folk for the money. The republican effort was to eliminate Obamacare not because it covered more people, and not because premiums subscribers pay were going up (they were going up at a slower rate than they were prior to Obamacare) but because of the extra taxes it laid on the rich. It was an effort to cut taxes for the rich! It wasn't and isn't about healthcare at all, except to the extent they have to make it about healthcare to buy off the people while they cut the taxes for the rich.
Tom Cotton changes his tune on Medicaid expansion when faced by angry voters back home http://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...-on-Medicaid-expansion-when-faced-with-voters What a difference a month—and having to face your constituents in person—has made for Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who faced angry town hall crowds back home this week. Cotton was absolutely slammed at a Monday town hall, "on topics ranging from Donald Trump’s tax returns and possible ties to Russia to the GOP push to repeal Obamacare" Politico reports. It was the latest in a string of confrontations between GOP lawmakers and voters during Congress’ two-week spring recess, coming on the heels of the party’s failed bid to overturn the Democratic health care law. Cotton, a rising star in the Republican Party seen as a potential White House aspirant in time, withstood 90 minutes of boos and occasional cheers from an oft-agitated crowd in Little Rock, Arkansas. more ....
Under #Trumpcare, hundreds of 1000's #vets would lose their health care coverage. Add it to Under Trumpcare, hundreds of thousands of veterans would lose their health care coverage. Add it to the list of Trump's broken promises. Follow Jake Tapper ✔@jaketapper Veterans saw dramatic gains in coverage after Obamacare, study says http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/19/news/economy/veteran-obamacare/index.html … 5:21 PM - 19 Apr 2017 Veterans saw dramatic gains in coverage after Obamacare began The number of uninsured veterans plummeted after Obamacare began, a new Urban Institute study has found. money.cnn.com Veterans saw dramatic gains in coverage after Obamacare http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/19/news/economy/veteran-obamacare/index.html #TRuMPCare will take away the gains by Tami Luhby @Luhby April 19, 2017: 6:17 PM ET The number of uninsured veterans plummeted after Obamacare began, a new Urban Institute study has found. The uninsured rate among veterans under age 65 dropped to 5.9% in 2015, down from 9.6% two years earlier, according to the report. The number of vets lacking coverage fell to 552,000, down from 980,000. The changes started in 2014, when two major Obamacare coverage provisions kicked in. That's when Medicaid expansion took effect and the Obamacare exchanges opened. Most uninsured veterans had incomes that would make them eligible either for Obamacare subsidies or Medicaid. Veterans eligible for Medicaid expansion -- individuals earning up to $16,400 -- saw the largest drop in uninsured rates. Prior to Obamacare, some 21.6% of these vets lacked coverage. By 2015, this share fell to 12.2%. The declines were largest in the states that expanded Medicaid. Veterans who qualify for subsidies on the Obamacare exchanges -- a single person earning up to $47,500 -- also saw declines. Some 10.6% were uninsured in 2013, but only 6.6% were two years later. Veterans' families also benefited from Obamacare. The uninsured rate among spouses fell to 5.5% from 9.2%, while the rate among children fell to 2.9% from 4.5%. The majority of uninsured vets were older than age 45, and half of them worked full-time. ACA = saving lives every day
When you pit democrats against Republicans when it comes to health care, you lose. Neither of their plans have, will work. Obviously the dems plan, Obamacare has failed to do as promised and the Republicans proposed plan will fail too. Why? Because they both fail to address the real problems. They are trying to turn insurance into an all inclusive Nolan to cover ball medical costs, regardless of preexisting health issues that are costly on a continual basis or where the patient has previously been diagnosed with a surgical issue. That goes against nthe definition and purpose of insurance. Auto insurance does cover preventative care, such as oil changes, new tires and the like. Nor does it cover body damage that existed prior to purchasing insurance. Same as homeowner insurance, it doesn't cover replacement of a roof damaged by a storm prior to purchasing coverage. Get real. Now employer group policies do cover preexisting conditions as no employee is denied coverage. The same could be true if those with preexisting conditions, both costly and not so costly(such as previous injury or cured illness) were put into a group, lowering the cost of insurance. And those totally uninsurable should be offered Medicare, say Part E, at a premium higher than Part B and based on the estimated overall cost. Routine office visits should not be covered by insurance. This would drastically reduce the premiums. One should be able to buy the exact coverage they need. For many that might mean hospitalization, inpatient and outpatient, surgery, prescriptions and diagnostic tests. For mother's it might mean covering surgical procedures and inpatient and outpatient hospitalization. And so on. Obama care failed to include dental care. Missing teeth or bad teeth causing abscesses can lead to medical conditions leading to death and heart attacks. While some coverage pays for removal of bad or accessed teeth. They don't pay to replace the teeth. This can lead to digestive problems. Why wasn't dental included? Republicans like Democrats are failing to get input from those on the front line providing the care. They are all morons in my opinion.
No doubt that the Dems have some failings. But their actions saved lives while the Republican actions destroyed lives. This should serve as a very sobering fact to be kept in mind by everyone. Ironically, the Republicans claim to be "pro life". As far as I am concerned, all American lives are precious and need to be preserved. This is why more HCR is needed. The Dem party created ACA was only the first, not the last step, in that process.
Then that flaw should be fixed! But the Republicans aren't interested in healthcare. They're interested in cutting the taxes on the rich contained in the ACA. As much as a $7 million windfall for some in the top stratosphere of high incomes.
Not a problem in Canada at half the cost. Not a problem in Canada. They're covered in Canada. Risk pools mean higher costs for some. Not necessary in Canada at half the cost. They know what the people want and it's not what they intend to do.
The cost of providing health care has not gone up because doctors are only paid on what their contract with insurance companies say they will be paid. They could charge $1000.00 but if their contract says they will only be paid $500.00 they will be paid 80% of that and the patient will owe the remaining 20%, on average policy . that is why few doctors contract on the lowering paying policies. THe insurance companies have to cover high coat preexisting conditions so need to recoop the losses elsewhere and they do that by charging higher premiums, deductibles and annual out of pocket AND by contracting with providers for lower reimbursements. The cost of health insurance is rising NOT the cost of providing health care. Those not in the health care field just don't get it. Doctors incomes have been decreasing for the last decade, especially surgeons.
A Vote To "Harm Millions Of Americans:" Study Released Today Predicts Disaster With TrumpCare. The Republican health bill is simply a bad bill. It’s been blasted by conservative and liberal health experts, as well as groups representing patients, doctors, nurses and hospitals. Above all, the bill cuts health benefits for the poor, the middle class, the elderly and the sick, and it funnels the savings to tax cuts for the rich. http://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...leased-Today-Predicts-Disaster-With-TrumpCare Republican death panels coming to a block near you!
The 'Pro-Life' Party Has Become the Party of Death: New Research on Why Republicans Hate Poor and Sick People New data and the health care debate reveal how Republicans feel about poor people who get sick: They think they deserve it. By Chauncey DeVega / Salon May 4, 2017 On Thursday, Republicans in the House of Representatives forced through a health care “reform” bill that is likely to leave millions of Americans without health insurance, especially those who suffer from chronic illnesses such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease. It has been estimated that if the Republican Party is successful in eliminating the Affordable Care Act that at least 43,000 Americans a year will die from lack of adequate health care. The Republican Party is pursued this policy in order to give millions of dollars in tax cuts to the very rich. President Trump, who is a billionaire, would financially benefit if Republicans succeed in repealing the ACA. It is abundantly clear that Trump and his party possess a deep disdain for sick people, the poor and other vulnerable members of American society and wish to do them harm. There is a moral obligation to speak plainly and directly in a time of crisis. To wit: The Republican Party’s so-called health care reform is designed to kill, injure and bankrupt the poor, the sick and the weak, in order to line the pockets of the 1 percent. As Republicans have repeatedly shown, the supposed “party of life” is actually the “party of death.” http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/gop-party-death Republican death panels are here!
If you want to cover all people then we must go I to universal health care. Paying all providers a federal government salary the government t running all clinics and hospitals a d tax paying for it all. The pros are everyone will get health care. The con's are that only 50% of tax payers will be paying for it and it will take linger to see a doctor and the government t not your doctor will control the treatment you get. Fewer individuals will choose to be doctors and those already in practice will either retire early or only accept cash payments for xcare. Just as dentists and plastic surgeons currently do. It that might not be so bad as the price the charge for treatment will likely go down
