RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it.

RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/16/2013 7:31:59 AM)
Thats not the link to post 45. Try getting it right. [;)]

DesideriScuri -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/16/2013 7:54:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Thats not the link to post 45. Try getting it right. [;)] Shall I come over and show you how to scroll down? I don't know why the links aren't working. They aren't working, though. A different way to do it, though, is here.

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/16/2013 8:37:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Thats not the link to post 45. Try getting it right. [;)] Shall I come over and show you how to scroll down? I don't know why the links aren't working. They aren't working, though. A different way to do it, though, is here. Finally, you got it right! See? You can learn. lol... quote: Hewitt projected that the average annual health care premium will rise from $4,083 in 2001 to $9,821 in 2011. In that period, employees' annual insurance premium contributions and out-of-pocket costs will more than triple, from $1,229 to $4,386. The employees' percentage of costs has risen from 35% in 2001 to an expected 45% in 2011. http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2010/10/11/bisb1011.htm Trying to manipulate the numbers doesnt work. Out-of-pocket expenses are what you pay for health-related services above and beyond your monthly premium. Depending on your health plan, these expenses may include an annual deductable, coinsurance, and copayments for doctor visits and prescription drugs. The out-of-pocket maximum helps protect you from very high additional costs. In most cases, once you reach your health plan's out-of-pocket maximum, your insurance company will cover 100% of the costs they consider to be medically necessary. Some health plans do not count all of your out-of-pocket expenses when determining the OOP maximum. For example, your plan may not include your annual deductible and some plans may not include the copays associated with outpatient procedures. This doesnt include what your insurance company doesnt cover. No prescription plan? Meds dont count. No eye coverage, exams dont count. No dental? ect ect ect. That means that in 2001, an employee would have met the OOP maximum at $2,119 ... of allowed expences... 2011 its now $4,386. That, in itself, isnt the kicker. What IS the kicker is that while employees are paying more, they are getting less services/coverage. You used the 5% rate... how would you like to take a pay cut of 5% every year? Thats what it amounts too when its part of your benefit package and, as you stated, its part of "income". Cost more... get far less..

DesideriScuri -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/16/2013 12:30:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Thats not the link to post 45. Try getting it right. [;)] Shall I come over and show you how to scroll down? I don't know why the links aren't working. They aren't working, though. A different way to do it, though, is here. Finally, you got it right! See? You can learn. lol... Had to get the link a different way than ever before. But, thanks for the smarmalade on my bagel. [:D] quote: quote: Hewitt projected that the average annual health care premium will rise from $4,083 in 2001 to $9,821 in 2011. In that period, employees' annual insurance premium contributions and out-of-pocket costs will more than triple, from $1,229 to $4,386. The employees' percentage of costs has risen from 35% in 2001 to an expected 45% in 2011. http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2010/10/11/bisb1011.htm Trying to manipulate the numbers doesnt work. Out-of-pocket expenses are what you pay for health-related services above and beyond your monthly premium. Depending on your health plan, these expenses may include an annual deductable, coinsurance, and copayments for doctor visits and prescription drugs. The out-of-pocket maximum helps protect you from very high additional costs. In most cases, once you reach your health plan's out-of-pocket maximum, your insurance company will cover 100% of the costs they consider to be medically necessary. Some health plans do not count all of your out-of-pocket expenses when determining the OOP maximum. For example, your plan may not include your annual deductible and some plans may not include the copays associated with outpatient procedures. This doesnt include what your insurance company doesnt cover. No prescription plan? Meds dont count. No eye coverage, exams dont count. No dental? ect ect ect. That means that in 2001, an employee would have met the OOP maximum at $2,119 ... of allowed expences... 2011 its now $4,386. That, in itself, isnt the kicker. What IS the kicker is that while employees are paying more, they are getting less services/coverage. You used the 5% rate... how would you like to take a pay cut of 5% every year? Thats what it amounts too when its part of your benefit package and, as you stated, its part of "income". Cost more... get far less.. Let me try to explain what I've failed to get across before. Your table showed premium costs, right? It also showed what the employees paid towards the premiums. And, it showed OOP expenses for the employees. But, when determining the employee share of health care expenses, it tallied - rightly so - the employee premium spend and the OOP expenses. I am not challenging that at all. What I am challenging, however, is that sum is compared to the cost of the premiums. And, that isn't the correct way to determine the employee's share of the employee's health costs. You have to compare what the employee spent (premiums + OOP) to what was spent, in total for that employee (premium + OOP). When you do that, you'll find that in 2011, the employee share was just north of 39%, not just north of 44% as shown in the table. And, that is where the 5% difference comes in. It's not a 5% increase in employee expense. It's a 5% difference between the faultily derived share in the table to the properly derived share. And, I'm going to reiterate what I found when I applied the numbers properly, employee share of premiums is going up, and employee share of total costs is going up. Employer cost is also going up since the increase in employee share of premiums is not as large as the overall increase in premiums. Now, if you want to argue any of that, bring it. It's math. I'm right on this one (and, even though the %-ages I come up with are smaller than the ones in the table, the general trend is still supporting your assertion [which I've admitted, without request, even]).

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/16/2013 12:50:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl [image]local://upfiles/502828/4BD0250702F147A7A9E3786CE2A14F67.gif[/image] quote: Let me try to explain what I've failed to get across before. Your table showed premium costs, right? It also showed what the employees paid towards the premiums. And, it showed OOP expenses for the employees. But, when determining the employee share of health care expenses, it tallied - rightly so - the employee premium spend and the OOP expenses. I am not challenging that at all. Good. quote: What I am challenging, however, is that sum is compared to the cost of the premiums. What you are missing is that the "Annual cost per employee" is the total amount, of which the employee pays a share. 2004 Annual cost = 6059.. or which the employee contributes to that cost directly 1051 2011 Annual cost = 9821.. of which the employee part is 2209. 2004 - employee cost.. just the annual cost... is 17% 2011 - employee cost ... 22% Thats 5% increase in percentage... if everything else was equal, that wouldnt be so bad. But benefits have dropped while rates have rose. How do I know benefits have dropped? By the employee out of pocket costs. Deductibles have gone up, you pay more in co-pays, its well known coverage has been slashed. An overwhelming majority, or 72%, of those who saw their benefits cut said their health insurance coverage was hardest hit, NEFE said. As employers cut back, employees shouldered more costs, including higher deductibles and co-pays, as well as more expensive premiums. This year, workers' out-of-pocket costs rose 5.8% to an average of $3,470 for a typical family of four, according to data compiled by independent actuarial and health care consulting firm Milliman Inc. http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/31/pf/employee-benefits/index.htm People in that chart are paying 5% more from their own pocket just to have insurance, then an extra 50% out of pocket.. for less services and benefits. I really cant explain it any other way to you.

DesideriScuri -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/16/2013 4:14:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl [image]local://upfiles/502828/4BD0250702F147A7A9E3786CE2A14F67.gif[/image] quote: Let me try to explain what I've failed to get across before. Your table showed premium costs, right? It also showed what the employees paid towards the premiums. And, it showed OOP expenses for the employees. But, when determining the employee share of health care expenses, it tallied - rightly so - the employee premium spend and the OOP expenses. I am not challenging that at all. Good. quote: What I am challenging, however, is that sum is compared to the cost of the premiums. What you are missing is that the "Annual cost per employee" is the total amount, of which the employee pays a share. 2004 Annual cost = 6059.. or which the employee contributes to that cost directly 1051 2011 Annual cost = 9821.. of which the employee part is 2209. 2004 - employee cost.. just the annual cost... is 17% 2011 - employee cost ... 22% And, tazzy, I mentioned this in my very first response to this table (Post #52): quote: 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. And, to show why I wasn't sure about the categories, I quote from your link: quote: Hewitt projected that the average annual health care premium will rise from $4,083 in 2001 to $9,821 in 2011. In that period, employees' annual insurance premium contributions and out-of-pocket costs will more than triple, from $1,229 to $4,386. The employees' percentage of costs has risen from 35% in 2001 to an expected 45% in 2011. See? The table says "Annual Cost," but the article specifically says "annual health care premium." So, column 2 is the Annual Premium Only, which is why you have to add in the OOP to get the total cost of care. Column 2 less Column 3 will give you the amount the employer contributes towards the premiums. quote: Thats 5% increase in percentage... if everything else was equal, that wouldnt be so bad. But benefits have dropped while rates have rose. How do I know benefits have dropped? By the employee out of pocket costs. Deductibles have gone up, you pay more in co-pays, its well known coverage has been slashed. An overwhelming majority, or 72%, of those who saw their benefits cut said their health insurance coverage was hardest hit, NEFE said. As employers cut back, employees shouldered more costs, including higher deductibles and co-pays, as well as more expensive premiums. This year, workers' out-of-pocket costs rose 5.8% to an average of $3,470 for a typical family of four, according to data compiled by independent actuarial and health care consulting firm Milliman Inc. http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/31/pf/employee-benefits/index.htm People in that chart are paying 5% more from their own pocket just to have insurance, then an extra 50% out of pocket.. for less services and benefits. I really cant explain it any other way to you. The reason you can't explain it to me is because we are seeing two different things, and have been led to those two different things by the article and table you've linked to. If the author of the article fucked up in the article and assigning the values to the annual premiums, you'd be correct. But, if the table is wrong, then I am right. At least right as far as what the data is saying in the table. Until precisely what those figures represent is determined, we'll not know. If I am correct, employee costs have risen, but employers are spending more on premiums, over and above the increase in employee premium contribution. So, both are paying more, which I acknowledged in Post#52 way back in the way back.

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/16/2013 4:26:24 PM)
quote: The table says "Annual Cost," but the article specifically says "annual health care premium." What do you think Annual Health Care Premium means?

DesideriScuri -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/16/2013 4:35:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: The table says "Annual Cost," but the article specifically says "annual health care premium." What do you think Annual Health Care Premium means? The annual cost of the insurance premiums. That is very different from total annual costs, no? And, to show you what I was saying, I ask you to cast your eyes upon the following... [image]http://slides.kff.org/upload/jpg/enlarge/2012%20EHBS%206.3.jpg[/image] Edited to Add: Now, can you see how employer costs have also risen? According to this chart, employee premium costs rose from $318 in 1999 to $951 in 2012; an increase of $633, or roughly, 200%. In that same span, employer costs have gone from $1878 to $4664; an increase of $2786, or roughly 148%. Employee share went from 14.5% in 1999 to 16.9% in 2012. Now, do you see what I was saying?

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/16/2013 4:49:28 PM)
And look at the totals there... then back at the chart I gave you. Not that much different. 6000 for annual costs... Your chart is for single employees... quote: The annual cost of the insurance premiums. That is very different from total annual costs, no Im not even looking at that figure. You are stuck on the last two columns that I am not even looking at.

DesideriScuri -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/16/2013 5:38:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And look at the totals there... then back at the chart I gave you. Not that much different. 6000 for annual costs... Your chart is for single employees... And, that matters why? quote: quote: The annual cost of the insurance premiums. That is very different from total annual costs, no Im not even looking at that figure. You are stuck on the last two columns that I am not even looking at. Bullshit. You are looking at the 2nd column in the table, which is the column that might be incorrectly labeled, which would make the last column incorrect. Just so you can't blow me off because I only showed "single employee coverages..." [image]http://slides.kff.org/upload/jpg/enlarge/2012%20EHBS%206.4.jpg[/image] Employee Premium contribution, 1999 to 2012: From $1543 to $4316; an increase of $2773, or roughly 180% increase. Employer Premium contribution, 1999 to 2012: From $4274 to $11429; an increase of $7155, or roughly 167% increase. Premium costs from 1999 to 2012: From $5791 to $15745; an increase of $9954, or roughly 172%. So, now that you've seen family and single premium breakdowns, what are you going to say when I say that employer premium costs are going up, too? Wait. Before you do, have a look at this table: [image]http://slides.kff.org/upload/jpg/enlarge/2012%20EHBS%206.1.jpg[/image] Shows both single and family contribution shares for employees. Now, what was it again you were saying about employer's premium costs?

LookieNoNookie -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/16/2013 5:52:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Thats not the link to post 45. Try getting it right. [;)] Tazzy, I think you indicated (forgive me if I am quoting you incorrectly) that ObamaCare was going to eliminate (again, correct me if I'm wrong) increases in health care. That's simply a fallacy. Be aware...ObamaCare or any other name you care to give it, was never predicated on the intent of providing health care...(Medicare premiums have also gone up annually since inception, as have benefits dropped....annually)...it (ObamaCare) was devised/predicated on providing another government service that would demand payments by the masses wherein which (like Medicare, SI and others) the feds could say, via this new gigantor bucket of new cash "we have you covered" but in fact is entirely designed to provide a NEW pot wherein which they can dip into (like SSI) and say "you're covered...we got your back"....and then....in 30 years (probably less) they'll come out with new reports (like they have since 1977 for SSI every 5 - 10 years) and say "well....the system is going broke, we need to fix it...." new taxes, new deductions, lesser payments to doctors...etc. And by virtue, lesser services to you and yours. Tazzy...this isn't, and has never been about the big bad evil corporation...corporations have zero control over SSI, Medicare, health care costs (which, as an addendum, has lowered benefits....via the feds...not the evil corporations) and other govt. programs...this is and has always been about the govt., finding a new fishing hole....and guess who that is? Vous. This is not news to people that pay attention. You CAN work for a company (not for long frankly) that pays 100%, and if you do, they are probably being prudent in offering benefits that are sustainable. In the meantime....stop looking at the evil corporations for your solace, many of which are on your side (because without you...they die/can't produce products or services). It's about...and always has been...the govt. They've been stealing from your pocket book for 70 years....this is simply a new avenue/bucket wherein which to do so. Show me every graph or annulus you choose....it ain't there. You're barking up the wrong tree. (Honest....I'm not kidding....I don't have a dog in this fight hon...I pay all my staff's health care 100% because I WANT them to be healthy....you're looking at the wrong criminal sweety). Really.

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/16/2013 6:02:39 PM)
quote: Tazzy, I think you indicated (forgive me if I am quoting you incorrectly) that ObamaCare was going to eliminate (again, correct me if I'm wrong) increases in health care. That's simply a fallacy. Its not fully implemented. When it is, we will revisit your insistence. quote: You CAN work for a company (not for long frankly) that pays 100%, and if you do, they are probably being prudent in offering benefits that are sustainable. I could see it being "prudent" if the cost saving measures were on both sides. Instead, when employers cost goes up by 50%, but employees costs double... its not "prudent".

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/16/2013 6:19:49 PM)
quote: Bullshit. You are looking at the 2nd column in the table, which is the column that might be incorrectly labeled, which would make the last column incorrect. Just so you can't blow me off because I only showed "single employee coverages..." The Second column, marked... "Annual cost per employee"... is what the coverage costs the employer. Why arent you understanding that? Here is your clue.... Hewitt projected that the average annual health care premium* will rise from $4,083 in 2001 to $9,821 in 2011.* What is so hard to understand? An insurance premium is the amount of money charged by a company for active coverage. quote: Shows both single and family contribution shares for employees. Now, what was it again you were saying about employer's premium costs? My position does not change. Employees are still bearing an increasingly larger cost of health care, with a reduction of service, for more money. This is what YOU termed income as part of their benefit package.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/16/2013 6:50:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: The table says "Annual Cost," but the article specifically says "annual health care premium." What do you think Annual Health Care Premium means? Maybe it's just me but....I'm guessing it means the full cost of the monthly payment to the insurance companies (not the outgo of individuals paying their deductibles and such). (Which is probably why they refer to it as "premiums", which is vernacular for...the monthly payment to the insurance company for said insurance).

DesideriScuri -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/16/2013 6:55:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Bullshit. You are looking at the 2nd column in the table, which is the column that might be incorrectly labeled, which would make the last column incorrect. Just so you can't blow me off because I only showed "single employee coverages..." The Second column, marked... "Annual cost per employee"... is what the coverage costs the employer. Why arent you understanding that? Here is your clue.... Hewitt projected that the average annual health care premium* will rise from $4,083 in 2001 to $9,821 in 2011.* What is so hard to understand? Well, tazzy, get out your handy dandy calculator and punch in some numbers. Add the employee share of the premiums and the OOP. Divide it by the % the table shows you. You will get the cost of the premiums. Which, isn't an accurate portrayal of the employee's share of overall coverage. Keeping the OOP out of the "annual cost of care" isn't accurate when you are trying to show how much the employee is contributing. And, I have made this point since right after you initially posted the table. What is so hard for YOU to understand? quote: An insurance premium is the amount of money charged by a company for active coverage. quote: Shows both single and family contribution shares for employees. Now, what was it again you were saying about employer's premium costs? My position does not change. Employees are still bearing an increasingly larger cost of health care, with a reduction of service, for more money. I questioned whether or not employees were paying a higher share of premiums. You posted a table. I acknowledged you were correct. It wasn't really as bad as you were making it out to be, but employees were paying a higher share of premiums, nonetheless. But, when I made the claim that employers were also having to spend more, you disagreed. I think I've shown you that it is true. Employers are spending more money, as well as employees, and the coverages aren't always as good. The cost of the actual care - not talking about insurance premiums right now - is going up and up and up. That is what is driving premiums up and up and up. Unless the cost of the care provided (again, not talking about insurance premiums) drops or stops rising, you won't see premiums drop or stabilize. There will be a one or two year adjustment period where rates drop because of the 80/20 rule, but they'll just continue going up from there. quote: This is what YOU termed income as part of their benefit package. Huh?!? You're going to have to show me that one there.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/17/2013 6:22:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And look at the totals there... then back at the chart I gave you. Not that much different. 6000 for annual costs... Your chart is for single employees... And, that matters why? quote: quote: The annual cost of the insurance premiums. That is very different from total annual costs, no Im not even looking at that figure. You are stuck on the last two columns that I am not even looking at. Bullshit. You are looking at the 2nd column in the table, which is the column that might be incorrectly labeled, which would make the last column incorrect. Just so you can't blow me off because I only showed "single employee coverages..." [image]http://slides.kff.org/upload/jpg/enlarge/2012%20EHBS%206.4.jpg[/image] Employee Premium contribution, 1999 to 2012: From $1543 to $4316; an increase of $2773, or roughly 180% increase. Employer Premium contribution, 1999 to 2012: From $4274 to $11429; an increase of $7155, or roughly 167% increase. Premium costs from 1999 to 2012: From $5791 to $15745; an increase of $9954, or roughly 172%. So, now that you've seen family and single premium breakdowns, what are you going to say when I say that employer premium costs are going up, too? Wait. Before you do, have a look at this table: [image]http://slides.kff.org/upload/jpg/enlarge/2012%20EHBS%206.1.jpg[/image] Shows both single and family contribution shares for employees. Now, what was it again you were saying about employer's premium costs? I think what she was eluding to was how the average worker was getting railroaded, even while the average cost increase for employers over a 10 year period (2000 - 2010) has risen by $498.00 annually and the employees has only risen in the same period $238.00 per year. Yeah Tazzy, you're just getting ripped off. Those bastards are stealing you blind. Why....someone oughta do something about those thieving bastards, still providing health care for you at those kinds of shitty deals. Why don't you ask your employer to see if he'll show you his profit and loss statement over those same 10 years, ask him how many sick days he's taken, how much of his life savings is tied up in a business that taxes, insurance and everything else is swallowing up and then compare his profits in 2000 to today. Or....better yet, go start a business and pay all these fees and still provide health care for your entire staff, paid for or shared. It always amazes me how people who don't have a dime invested can "prove" how they're being fucked over so badly. Go start a business kiddo, hire 20 or 30 people and then come back and have this discussion.

MrRodgers -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/26/2013 9:34:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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. I see. So, Government is screwing us via Medicare? I wonder what we could do to stop that... Just got back in town but yes, if only because the govt. is not as in most private industry...cost-effective. Govt. bureacracies as such are not scrutinized on any pay-for-services level, so they pay almost any price for almost everything. The pentagon comes to mind too. So in medicare for example, doctors will 'test blood' weekly at $125 per., most of which does not occur. The elderly are pressed on this and are too feeble or metally able to contest or confirm these proceedures. Seems every doctor just has to be a millionaire and every bill for medicare for almost anything and almost without exception...is paid. Then maybe we see a handful of only the most aggregious cases of fraud.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625