quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Hewitt's survey was the second released in September that showed an increase in employees' share of health costs. Early in the month, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that employers' premium costs increased 3% in 2010 but that their employees' costs went up 14%. The survey of about 3,000 employers, as well as Hewitt, noted that employers were passing more premium costs to workers.

quote:

And, "employers offer less" has to do with....?

Goes back to my point...
Lowering insurance coverage while raising rates... dont like that? find somewhere else to work.
If it were just a few that would be one thing... but this is across the board.

So, the employers are getting rich by letting the employee spend more while they it is spending more, too?!? Sounds pretty fucking stoopid to me. Since employer-based care coverage is - no matter what you might think - a perk of employment (as not all employers offer it), yeah, you can take it or leave. Your choice! See? Freedom of choice! Right?

quote:

quote:

What no one is willing to actually determine is why cost of care is rising so dramatically. Why are services so much more expensive here? And, it's not simply because the government pays for them.

Why?

Interesting. Not a damn thing about the cost of care in your response there. I'm not talking premium increases, but the actual charges for a medical procedure. For example, why does an X-ray cost a bajillion (just for the example's sake) times more than it did when it was first rolled out? Isn't "new tech" supposed to drop in price after a while? Apparently, not.

quote:

So, the employers are getting rich by letting the employee spend more while they it is spending more, too?!? Sounds pretty fucking stoopid to me. Since employer-based care coverage is - no matter what you might think - a perk of employment (as not all employers offer it), yeah, you can take it or leave. Your choice! See? Freedom of choice! Right?

quote:

Interesting. Not a damn thing about the cost of care in your response there. I'm not talking premium increases, but the actual charges for a medical procedure. For example, why does an X-ray cost a bajillion (just for the example's sake) times more than it did when it was first rolled out? Isn't "new tech" supposed to drop in price after a while? Apparently, not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
And.. interesting.. not a damn thing about the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act from you.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
...because of medicare and the great rich taxpayers.
Medicare is a cash cow so you get doctors peforming 275 spinal fusions in less than a year. A $400,000 bonus from medical device providers.
So, with an federal court injuction to the FOI act (1979) we the people paying for it aren't supposed to know just what medicare does pay for proceedures the more of which you provide...the more [they]profit.
This is America so it is not about healthcare, it is...about money/profits. That is the creed...a maximized profit...period.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
And.. interesting.. not a damn thing about the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act from you.

Yeah, it's interesting because I haven't taken the time to look it up yet. Damn me. Now, how about showing me in the $500k/molestation thread what my abortion beliefs are and how they frame what I post in a negative light?

Whoops! Sorry for actually giving you some of your own med's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

So, the employers are getting rich by letting the employee spend more while they it is spending more, too?!? Sounds pretty fucking stoopid to me. Since employer-based care coverage is - no matter what you might think - a perk of employment (as not all employers offer it), yeah, you can take it or leave. Your choice! See? Freedom of choice! Right?

The employers are not spending more. They are passing on their more to the employees. Even you.. well.. I doubt you can so never mind. And how is it not force when an employer knows damn well that if you change your employment, you lose your insurance and your pre-existings may not be covered by the next policy?

quote:



Sorry, tazzy, but the facts are on my side on this one, unless you can show me that the table you posted wasn't premiums (as labeled in the article). The cost of premiums has gone up significantly, and the share of premium paid the employee has gone up some, but not enough to prevent the employer from paying more. I even posted the info.

Please read it, this time for comprehension:

quote:

Premium share [paid by the employee] has risen from 17.62% to 22.49%.
To make the numbers really more telling, or to call into question the veracity of the article (not claiming intentional misrepresentation), you have to compare employee total spend to the total care cost. The table shown has "Annual Cost" as the second category, yet the article claims those numbers are the annual cost of premiums. Thus, the total cost of employee care has to be the cost of premiums + employee out of pocket. And, if this means the employer pays nothing more, then we can stop right there. But, if the employer is "self-insured" and the insurance company only steps in when stop-losses are hit, then that's an entirely different story.
To manipulate the table a bit, I'm going to put the data in this format: Year - Premium + Out of Pocket (% employee pays compared to the total amount spent for care).
2004 $7,110 (29.80%)
2005 $7,850 (31.02%)
2006 $8,513 (32.07%)
2007 $9,000 (33.80%)
2008 $9,603 (34.82%)
2009 $10,182 (34.96%)
2010 $10,962 (35.58%)
2011 $11,998 (36.56%)
The burden on the employee has still increased, as a %, but to think the employer isn't paying more, would be wrong. From 2004 to 2011, the employee's costs have risen $2,267, and the employer's costs have risen $2,679.

quote:

We have a great divide between us on health care. Dont blame me because you see it extremely narrowly.[/quoe]

Yeah, you're right. My "no free lunch" beliefs are sooooo narrow.

quote:

quote:

Interesting. Not a damn thing about the cost of care in your response there. I'm not talking premium increases, but the actual charges for a medical procedure. For example, why does an X-ray cost a bajillion (just for the example's sake) times more than it did when it was first rolled out? Isn't "new tech" supposed to drop in price after a while? Apparently, not.

Cost have dropped. Check out the link.
Federal officials say the law has resulted in significant savings. “The health care law includes new tools to hold insurers accountable for premium hikes and give rebates to consumers,” said Brian Cook, a spokesman for Medicare, which is helping to oversee the insurance reforms.
“Insurers have already paid $1.1 billion in rebates, and rate review programs have helped save consumers an additional $1 billion in lower premiums,” he said. If insurers collect premiums and do not spend at least 80 cents out of every dollar on care for their customers, the law requires them to refund the excess.
As a result of the review process, federal officials say, rates were reduced, on average, by nearly three percentage points, according to a report issued last September.
While employers may be able to raise deductibles or co-payments as a way of reducing the cost of premiums, the insurer typically does not have that flexibility. And because insurers now take into account someone’s health, age and sex in deciding how much to charge, and whether to offer coverage at all, people with existing medical conditions are frequently unable to shop for better policies.
Now.. as to directly why the rates are going up now???
The practice of medical underwriting — being able to consider the health of a prospective policy holder before deciding whether to offer coverage and what rate to charge — will no longer be permitted after 2014 under the health care law.
Because its their last chance to raise rates to where insurance companies want them to go. After this year, its not going to be possible.

I think you forgot the hyperlink.

How is it that in one post, (#57) you say rates are going up an average of 4% for employer based coverages (would love to see what companies those are), yet state that consumers are saving billions in premium reductions?

_____________________________

What I support:

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

(in reply to tazzygirl)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
And.. interesting.. not a damn thing about the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act from you.

Yeah, it's interesting because I haven't taken the time to look it up yet. Damn me. Now, how about showing me in the $500k/molestation thread what my abortion beliefs are and how they frame what I post in a negative light?
Whoops! Sorry for actually giving you some of your own med's.

Going off topic?
LOL
Ask there

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

I think you forgot the hyperlink.

quote:

Yeah, you're right. My "no free lunch" beliefs are sooooo narrow.

quote:

Sorry, tazzy, but the facts are on my side on this one, unless you can show me that the table you posted wasn't premiums (as labeled in the article). The cost of premiums has gone up significantly, and the share of premium paid the employee has gone up some, but not enough to prevent the employer from paying more. I even posted the info.

quote:

Actuarial value: Under the PPACA’s employer pay-or-play mandate, employers with 51 or more full-time employees must offer at least one plan with an actuarial value of at least 60% or face potential penalties. Employees of large firms that fail this “minimum value” standard may become eligible for federal premium assistance tax credits to buy coverage in the exchanges. When employees qualify for these credits, the employer must pay a penalty of $2,000 per full-time employee or $3,000 per full-time employee receiving a premium assistance tax credit, whichever is less. Large firms that do not offer a health plan to all full-time employees also face a penalty of $2,000 per full-time employee.7

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

I think you forgot the hyperlink.

Not at all, it was from my previous link.

quote:

quote:

Yeah, you're right. My "no free lunch" beliefs are sooooo narrow.

When it comes to health care, you have lots of narrow views.

quote:

quote:

Sorry, tazzy, but the facts are on my side on this one, unless you can show me that the table you posted wasn't premiums (as labeled in the article). The cost of premiums has gone up significantly, and the share of premium paid the employee has gone up some, but not enough to prevent the employer from paying more. I even posted the info.

My chart showed premiums going up.
My chart showed costs to employees going up.
My chart showed out of pocket expenses going up.

quote:

Now, you have also missed a huge argument that many hold against the health care law.. and I guarantee that you have no clue what it is.
But, I will give you a hint.
Its the 2000 fine businesses will have to pay per employee.

quote:

Actuarial value: Under the PPACA’s employer pay-or-play mandate, employers with 51 or more full-time employees must offer at least one plan with an actuarial value of at least 60% or face potential penalties. Employees of large firms that fail this “minimum value” standard may become eligible for federal premium assistance tax credits to buy coverage in the exchanges. When employees qualify for these credits, the employer must pay a penalty of $2,000 per full-time employee or $3,000 per full-time employee receiving a premium assistance tax credit, whichever is less. Large firms that do not offer a health plan to all full-time employees also face a penalty of $2,000 per full-time employee.7

Lets see if you can figure it out.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

I think you forgot the hyperlink.

Not at all, it was from my previous link.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

That it did. Now, tell me if premium expenses and "out of pocket" expenses are the same, because, IMO, they are not. And, the amount of money employees spend towards premiums rises, but not as much as the premiums themselves rise, where is that difference coming from? That's right!!! The employer pays more.

But, that can't be. You said employers weren't paying more. Hmmmm....

quote:

Um, is it the whole "$2k not high enough" argument? Or, is it actually going to be $4-5k/employee (which is still less than what they pay now, and not even double what they are going to pay in "Cadillac Tax")?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

I think you forgot the hyperlink.

Not at all, it was from my previous link.

Your link had nothing to do with the cost of care. Insurance premiums are not cost of care. The cost of care is what it costs for the procedure. Lower the cost of each procedure, and you'll be able to lower the cost of insurance premiums.

That isn't happening. They are going to rework reimbursements for Medicare and Medicaid, right? How much you want to bet that doesn't happen? Backing my assertion is the continual passage of a "Doc Fix" Bill that prevents reimbursement rate cuts that were part of a reform bill passed under Clinton. Nifty, eh?

quote:

Health-care costs may have stabilized for employers and employees over the last year, but that doesn’t eclipse the fact that costs have shot up 40% for employees over the last five years,

quote:

Tazzy....as an employer (I couldn't care less what some idiot study says), our health care premiums (of which I pay 100% beginning on the day they're first employed) have risen over 60% in 5 years.

Employees health care costs (for companies that charge a portion of same to the employee) have simply risen in concert, and that % has gone up just as the employers side has as well.

quote:

You are saying this as if the companies rates aren't rising, too. Hilarious. Every job I've had, I only paid a share of the premiums. When premiums went up, my part went up too, though it was always the same rate. Unless you can show that premium percentages paid for by the employees is also rising, then you have something to stand on. But, if you can't do that, then you're just whining.

quote:

The cost has to come from somewhere. If the employer doesn't make enough to cover the entire cost, a prudent employer will offer health care with the proviso that that cost is shared at some level.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

That it did. Now, tell me if premium expenses and "out of pocket" expenses are the same, because, IMO, they are not. And, the amount of money employees spend towards premiums rises, but not as much as the premiums themselves rise, where is that difference coming from? That's right!!! The employer pays more.
But, that can't be. You said employers weren't paying more. Hmmmm....

Employers will likely face health-care cost increases of 8.5% in 2012, but they’ll mitigate that burden by pushing more costs onto employees and making other changes to benefits, a PricewaterhouseCoopers report finds.
Taking those plan changes into account, employers will see their health-care costs rise about 7%. (The report is based on a survey of about 1,700 employers, plus interviews with hospital execs and health-plan actuaries, among others.)

Mitigate

Verb
1. Make less severe, serious, or painful: "he wanted to mitigate misery in the world".
2. Lessen the gravity of (an offense or mistake).

Mitigating a burden means making it less severe, which does not mean "negates" the burden.

Thank you for proving my point that employers are still going to be paying more.

quote:

quote:

Um, is it the whole "$2k not high enough" argument? Or, is it actually going to be $4-5k/employee (which is still less than what they pay now, and not even double what they are going to pay in "Cadillac Tax")?

Yeah, didnt think you would get it.

_____________________________

What I support:

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

(in reply to tazzygirl)

quote:

Mitigate
Verb
1. Make less severe, serious, or painful: "he wanted to mitigate misery in the world".
2. Lessen the gravity of (an offense or mistake).


Mitigating a burden means making it less severe, which does not mean "negates" the burden.

Thank you for proving my point that employers are still going to be paying more.

quote:

You are saying this as if the companies rates aren't rising, too. Hilarious. Every job I've had, I only paid a share of the premiums. When premiums went up, my part went up too, though it was always the same rate. Unless you can show that premium percentages paid for by the employees is also rising, then you have something to stand on. But, if you can't do that, then you're just whining.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

I think you forgot the hyperlink.

Not at all, it was from my previous link.

Your link had nothing to do with the cost of care. Insurance premiums are not cost of care. The cost of care is what it costs for the procedure. Lower the cost of each procedure, and you'll be able to lower the cost of insurance premiums.
That isn't happening. They are going to rework reimbursements for Medicare and Medicaid, right? How much you want to bet that doesn't happen? Backing my assertion is the continual passage of a "Doc Fix" Bill that prevents reimbursement rate cuts that were part of a reform bill passed under Clinton. Nifty, eh?

You keep yammering on about this time and time again. And you have yet to explain just how that would work in your world. Please, do take the time now to explain just how DS's Health Care reform would actually work in the current environment.

• Removes at least one incentive towards raising care costs
• Insurance/Care company can't raise prices to raise profits outright.
  20% of $200 is $40, and 20% of $2000 is $400. If you can charge $2000, why wouldn't you? Premiums can be raised to keep whatever %-age rule is determined, and without changing the internal operations, there won't be a need for more employees.
• Hospitals can't raise rates so they can write off more $$ for charity care
  If they perform X # of procedures as charity care, why not set rates as high as you can so you can write off a larger chunk as charity care? It's especially productive when the actual cost of providing the care is low and rates can be set high. If they can charge $2000 for a charity care visit when it truly only costs $200, that's a tax incentive for them!

• Competition, baby!!
  Forcing insurance companies to compete with one another more is only going to make the insurance market more aggressive, and could easily streamline operations. If Aetna wants to sell insurance in NY, isn't it required that they have a physical presence in NY? Being able to sell insurance across state lines could lead towards more centralizing of operations, reducing employee and realty costs. And, what would lower insurance company costs mean? You got it! Lower premiums!

• Lowers malpractice insurance cost
  Lowers the costs providers have to pay for coverage, which will lower the costs for the care provided!!

• Increase Rx authorities for Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners
  This one is a bit more difficult to describe and bring about. The AMA has a monopoly on Physician accreditation, which means it has the ability to not only set standards, but to limit the number of people that pass their standards. Standards are good, and necessary, but having only one body that can accredit that you pass those standards? Not so much. Increasing PA and NP prescription authorities will also lower costs as they can be seen more without having to resort to a physician visit. Physicians will still be absolutely necessary to oversee the PA's and NP's.

• Will all but destroy the Drug Trade.
  This could also impact gang activity, gun trafficking, and lead to lower levels of violence overall. Sure, there will still be turf wars, but they won't be about the lucrative drug trade.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Again, negating your point of....

quote:

You are saying this as if the companies rates aren't rising, too. Hilarious. Every job I've had, I only paid a share of the premiums. When premiums went up, my part went up too, though it was always the same rate. Unless you can show that premium percentages paid for by the employees is also rising, then you have something to stand on. But, if you can't do that, then you're just whining.

I did show that.

quote:

You're not whining. At least, not that much.
Premium share has risen from 17.62% to 22.49%.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)