I'm more interested in what went down.  Did anything go down?

Posted by bad_luck on 11/3/2014 3:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/3/2014 3:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/3/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/2/2014 11:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2014 10:48:00 AM (view original):
Thanks for the links to other studies.

I still don't see a link to the health pocket study mentioned by the dailycallerand the WT.

http://www.healthpocket.com/healthcare-research/infostat/obamacare-2014-premiums-higher-than-pre-reform-market?_ga_variation=1&utm_expid=60784014-14.Zlx56I0SQAqKSdO9tJpZVg.1&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fm.insurancenewsnet.com%2Foarticle%2F2014%2F10%2F29%2Fstudy-women-men-young-old-average-higher-premiums-with-obamacare-a-570830.html#.VFZdh6nnbqA

Another actual study - most likely the one quoted in the WT and dailycaller... Methodology at the bottom.

Quoted from the study:
"Average premium costs for 23-year-old women and men increased 44.9% and 78.2% respectively after the ACA’s implementation. "

Finally, the actual study. I can see why the daily caller didn't link it directly.

The conclusion (emphasis added):

"The examination of unsubsidized health insurance premiums is multifaceted and prone to political misuse. The analysis of pre- and post-Obamacare health insurance in the individually purchased health insurance market demonstrates a clear increase of average premiums across age groups and both sexes. While the degree of increase varied by age and sex, the occurrence of an increase did not. However, the degree to which the cost of consumers’ premiums increased is a more complicated matter than suggested by the premium data."

There's so much going on here. It's not 78% across the board. It's 78% for people who purchse health insurance on their own. Which, prior to Obamacare, was a small percentage of the population due to the fact that carrier could underwrite people based on individual health actors and exclude pre-existing conditions.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the whole point of the obama exchange to be the place to get individually purchased health insurance plans? Can a business buy group insurance plans on the exchange?


Actually the first study I posted was well done and quite comprehensive. I noticed you glossed over it.

A) Yes, the exchange is where you buy individual policies, not group plans.

B) WTF are you talking about? I quote directly from your link http://www.healthpocket.com/healthcare-research/infostat/obamacare-2014-premiums...

A) so then wouldn't the pricing of individually purchased plans be directly impacted by an exchange created to be the market for individualized insurance plans?

B) this is WTF I'm talking about...

Link to 47 page study in this article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/10/23/now-there-can-be-no-doubt-obamacare-will-increase-non-group-premiums-in-nearly-all-states/

Most people buy health insurance on a group plan. Just dropping the 78% number is misleading since it doesn't apply to most people. 

No interest in reading a 47 page study, especially when you aren't giving me clickable links. And again, that's non-group plans. 

Posted by bad_luck on 11/3/2014 4:31:00 PM (view original):
Most people buy health insurance on a group plan. Just dropping the 78% number is misleading since it doesn't apply to most people. 

No interest in reading a 47 page study, especially when you aren't giving me clickable links. And again, that's non-group plans. 

OK... So are you suggesting a marketplace for individual plans will drive down the premiums for group plans? Please explain the correlation. The obamacare exchange is for individual (non-group) plans only and to compare pricing it should be compared to individual (non-group) plans only imo. A la apples to apples. Seriously please connect the dots for me here. What am I missing?

As for not having links... Have libs become THAT lazy? Just highlight the link and do a web search. Its one additional click.

The study shows that premiums 'directly attributed' to obamacare went up higher in 45 states than they would have w/o obamacare. It also shows taxpayers will pay 24% more for exchange subsidies due to these increases.

And yes - we are strictly talking about non group coverage... Which is what the exchange is for.

Posted by moy23 on 11/3/2014 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/3/2014 4:31:00 PM (view original):
Most people buy health insurance on a group plan. Just dropping the 78% number is misleading since it doesn't apply to most people. 

No interest in reading a 47 page study, especially when you aren't giving me clickable links. And again, that's non-group plans. 

OK... So are you suggesting a marketplace for individual plans will drive down the premiums for group plans? Please explain the correlation. The obamacare exchange is for individual (non-group) plans only and to compare pricing it should be compared to individual (non-group) plans only imo. A la apples to apples. Seriously please connect the dots for me here. What am I missing?

As for not having links... Have libs become THAT lazy? Just highlight the link and do a web search. Its one additional click.

Seriously, what the **** are you talking about?

Tec threw out a link that said "some study 78% rate increase cuz obamacare." (paraphrasing obviously)

It's misleading because it makes it sound like everyone's rates are going up 78% due to Obamacare. In reality, rates for non-group policies purchased by men went up 78%. There's a big difference between everyone and men who purchase individual insurance policies.

I'm on my phone. Copying and pasting a link is not always easy.

Posted by moy23 on 11/3/2014 4:58:00 PM (view original):
The study shows that premiums 'directly attributed' to obamacare went up higher in 45 states than they would have w/o obamacare. It also shows taxpayers will pay 24% more for exchange subsidies due to these increases.

And yes - we are strictly talking about non group coverage... Which is what the exchange is for.

Also, where are you quoting "directly attributed" from? I don't see that phrase anywhere in either of the studies.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/3/2014 5:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/3/2014 4:58:00 PM (view original):
The study shows that premiums 'directly attributed' to obamacare went up higher in 45 states than they would have w/o obamacare. It also shows taxpayers will pay 24% more for exchange subsidies due to these increases.

And yes - we are strictly talking about non group coverage... Which is what the exchange is for.

Also, where are you quoting "directly attributed" from? I don't see that phrase anywhere in either of the studies.

What part of this entire paragraph (and the chart that went with it) did you need help comprehending?

"Of equal importance, unlike prior studies which simply compared pre-Obamacare premiums in 2013 to actual premiums offered on Exchanges in 2014, this new study isolates the causal impact of Obamacare statistically by using trend data in each state to figure out what non-group premiums in 2014 would have been in the absence of Obamacare. Thus, critics could dismiss many other so-called “pre-/post” studies by effectively saying “Well, premiums in the non-group have always gone up by a large amount, so what’s happening under Obamacare is no different.” Such criticisms cannot be levied at this study. All of the percentage changes shown in the chart below represent the net change attributable to Obamacare after accounting for all the other factors that would have made premiums go up.[1]"

Posted by moy23 on 11/3/2014 6:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/3/2014 5:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/3/2014 4:58:00 PM (view original):
The study shows that premiums 'directly attributed' to obamacare went up higher in 45 states than they would have w/o obamacare. It also shows taxpayers will pay 24% more for exchange subsidies due to these increases.

And yes - we are strictly talking about non group coverage... Which is what the exchange is for.

Also, where are you quoting "directly attributed" from? I don't see that phrase anywhere in either of the studies.

What part of this entire paragraph (and the chart that went with it) did you need help comprehending?

"Of equal importance, unlike prior studies which simply compared pre-Obamacare premiums in 2013 to actual premiums offered on Exchanges in 2014, this new study isolates the causal impact of Obamacare statistically by using trend data in each state to figure out what non-group premiums in 2014 would have been in the absence of Obamacare. Thus, critics could dismiss many other so-called “pre-/post” studies by effectively saying “Well, premiums in the non-group have always gone up by a large amount, so what’s happening under Obamacare is no different.” Such criticisms cannot be levied at this study. All of the percentage changes shown in the chart below represent the net change attributable to Obamacare after accounting for all the other factors that would have made premiums go up.[1]"

I understand all of it.

What I don't see anywhere in any study you linked is the phrase "directly attributed."

Just a heads up, when you put something in quotation marks, it means you're quoting it from somewhere. 

  The missing link.

A hypothetical for BL:

Had the ACA never been passed, do you think the average American's total cost of healthcare in 2014/2015 would be (a) higher, or (b) lower than it actually is with the ACA in place?

Explain.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/3/2014 6:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/3/2014 6:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/3/2014 5:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/3/2014 4:58:00 PM (view original):
The study shows that premiums 'directly attributed' to obamacare went up higher in 45 states than they would have w/o obamacare. It also shows taxpayers will pay 24% more for exchange subsidies due to these increases.

And yes - we are strictly talking about non group coverage... Which is what the exchange is for.

Also, where are you quoting "directly attributed" from? I don't see that phrase anywhere in either of the studies.

What part of this entire paragraph (and the chart that went with it) did you need help comprehending?

"Of equal importance, unlike prior studies which simply compared pre-Obamacare premiums in 2013 to actual premiums offered on Exchanges in 2014, this new study isolates the causal impact of Obamacare statistically by using trend data in each state to figure out what non-group premiums in 2014 would have been in the absence of Obamacare. Thus, critics could dismiss many other so-called “pre-/post” studies by effectively saying “Well, premiums in the non-group have always gone up by a large amount, so what’s happening under Obamacare is no different.” Such criticisms cannot be levied at this study. All of the percentage changes shown in the chart below represent the net change attributable to Obamacare after accounting for all the other factors that would have made premiums go up.[1]"

I understand all of it.

What I don't see anywhere in any study you linked is the phrase "directly attributed."

Just a heads up, when you put something in quotation marks, it means you're quoting it from somewhere. 

So you understand it....and you have no comment? Then I assume then you agree with the study that suggests increased premiums for individual plans under obamacare. Case closed.


Btw - Just a heads up.... Technically these are quotation marks " " for citing direct quotes.... Not these ' '

Hmmm what exactly do you think single quotation marks are used for?

Posted by bad_luck on 11/4/2014 12:36:00 AM (view original):
Hmmm what exactly do you think single quotation marks are used for?

Technically.... For quoting quotes inside a quote which is rarely used... Or to highlight a title of a poem which I clearly was not doing. That's precisely why I use them to highlight something I want to stand out (next time I'll use *** ***). I suppose I didn't even need to use apostrophes in the first place because 'directly attributed' is redundant anyways. Surely you would know that attributed means *** resulting from a SPECIFIC cause *** , in this case the specific cause was obamacare. I love how you get hung up on semantics rather than answering the question when you don't like the question being asked or when it's not in your favor. Laughable.