Before this law some insurance companies spent 20-30% of their gross receipts from premiums on overhead. The law doesn't force the companies to take that 15%. Presumably if their overhead is less they can sell their policies for less thereby gaining a competitive advantage.
Self paying is great but can you afford to pay any conceivable medical costs you may have? What if you develop something like multiple sclerosis or an expensive cancer? Can you afford to cover those costs? If not then you're going to depend on the rest of us help you out unless you want to go commit suicide instead.
Yes, I believe it is explicitly written into the ACA that you can't be arrested or jailed for not paying the fine. What they can do is withhold any federal tax refund you may be due or possibly as you noted liens or garnishment.
If you already have health care through your employer there is no fine for you to pay.
What if you' get run over by a bus but it doesn't kill you, just makes you quadriplegic and dependent on nursing care for the rest of you life. If you don't have any way to pay for the costs should we just take you out back in the pasture and shoot you instead?
Or some plans may decide to forgo additional profits that way and thus be able to sell their policies for less. That's a competitive advantage. They will increase their profits by selling more policies.
15% is 15%. If they raise their premiums $1 they get 15 cents but that's also 85 cents more they have to spend on their customers health care. There's a limit to how far they can take that and still remain competitive.
And what would you have done if (God forbid) one of your children developed some form of cancer that cost you $500,000 to treat? Could you cover that or would you be forced to rely on charity?
Yes but there's also $0.85 more that they have to spend on health care.
I can see it now, health insurance premiums go through the roof in order to increase profits but at the same time everyone gets Cadillac health care so they can keep the ratio going.:) Somehow I don't think it's going to work out that way.
As long as you stay healthy it's cheaper for you to pay your own medical bills. What happens if you get hit by a drunk driver and end up a quadriplegic or otherwise become dependent on others to keep you alive? Are you wealthy enough already to cover a lifetime of costs?
Whether insurers pass these cost savings to individuals is a craps shoot.
One provision of the ACA is that insurance companies must spend at least 85% of the premiums they receive on actual health care, not overhead. A bunch of people have received rebate checks from their insurance companies this year because of that provision.
"Obamacare" has a provision that forces insurance companies to spend at least 85% of their premiums on providing health care and limiting overhead to 15%. So even if the companies raise their premiums they're still stuck with spending it instead of just increasing profits. So any increase in premiums is probably related to increases in the underlying cost of health care. That may go down some or at least stop increasing so fast since there will be less unpaid for care in the first place. Did you know that about 60% of personal bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills? Hopefully that will drop too.
At least the ACA forces private health insurance companies to spend 85% of the premiums they receive on health care and limits overhead to 15%. A lot of people received rebates from their insurers this year because of that provision.
Portland is 60 miles inland up the Columbia River and Seattle is on Puget Sound with no direct exposure to the open ocean. Even when the big subduction zone earthquake hits the pacific coast it's not likely the big tsunami will reach either of them to any great extent.
Sea level may appear to be receding in places on the west coast due to the land being pushed up by the subduction zone off the coast. When the big subduction zone earthquake hits they'll drop back down 4 or 5 feet in an instant.
That is just one factor and probably the smallest of them. The two biggest are water expanding as it warms and ice melting from glaciers and ice sheets.
Well, my question was rhetorical in nature. It generated a pretty good discussion. I'm perfectly aware of the reasons that companies don't do that so much any more.
... why don't they publish predictions for the next 10 years?
That question just shows how badly you misunderstand what climate models do. What they mostly do is project what the 30 year running mean temperature average of the globe will be given the various input scenarios they use. Try reading the climate model FAQs to increase your understanding:
Slashdot Mirror
Before this law some insurance companies spent 20-30% of their gross receipts from premiums on overhead. The law doesn't force the companies to take that 15%. Presumably if their overhead is less they can sell their policies for less thereby gaining a competitive advantage.
Any payment to a doctor providing care to you is not overhead for the insurance company regardless of what the doctor charges.
Self paying is great but can you afford to pay any conceivable medical costs you may have? What if you develop something like multiple sclerosis or an expensive cancer? Can you afford to cover those costs? If not then you're going to depend on the rest of us help you out unless you want to go commit suicide instead.
Ok, rebate was the wrong word, I should have said tax credit.
You are being taxed for being a member of society. If you don't like that move to Somalia.
Yes, I believe it is explicitly written into the ACA that you can't be arrested or jailed for not paying the fine. What they can do is withhold any federal tax refund you may be due or possibly as you noted liens or garnishment.
Are those the same people who said "Keep your government hands off my Medicare?"
The government subsidizes the cost of your health care.
Then your coverage will consist of waiting until you're really really sick and showing up at the Emergency Room.
If you already have health care through your employer there is no fine for you to pay.
What if you' get run over by a bus but it doesn't kill you, just makes you quadriplegic and dependent on nursing care for the rest of you life. If you don't have any way to pay for the costs should we just take you out back in the pasture and shoot you instead?
Or some plans may decide to forgo additional profits that way and thus be able to sell their policies for less. That's a competitive advantage. They will increase their profits by selling more policies.
15% is 15%. If they raise their premiums $1 they get 15 cents but that's also 85 cents more they have to spend on their customers health care. There's a limit to how far they can take that and still remain competitive.
And what would you have done if (God forbid) one of your children developed some form of cancer that cost you $500,000 to treat? Could you cover that or would you be forced to rely on charity?
Yes but there's also $0.85 more that they have to spend on health care.
I can see it now, health insurance premiums go through the roof in order to increase profits but at the same time everyone gets Cadillac health care so they can keep the ratio going. :) Somehow I don't think it's going to work out that way.
Nobody's forcing you to buy insurance. You just don't get the tax rebate if you don't.
As long as you stay healthy it's cheaper for you to pay your own medical bills. What happens if you get hit by a drunk driver and end up a quadriplegic or otherwise become dependent on others to keep you alive? Are you wealthy enough already to cover a lifetime of costs?
Whether insurers pass these cost savings to individuals is a craps shoot.
One provision of the ACA is that insurance companies must spend at least 85% of the premiums they receive on actual health care, not overhead. A bunch of people have received rebate checks from their insurance companies this year because of that provision.
"Obamacare" has a provision that forces insurance companies to spend at least 85% of their premiums on providing health care and limiting overhead to 15%. So even if the companies raise their premiums they're still stuck with spending it instead of just increasing profits. So any increase in premiums is probably related to increases in the underlying cost of health care. That may go down some or at least stop increasing so fast since there will be less unpaid for care in the first place. Did you know that about 60% of personal bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills? Hopefully that will drop too.
Exactly! They didn't want to call it a tax because that's such a dirty word to so many in this country.
At least the ACA forces private health insurance companies to spend 85% of the premiums they receive on health care and limits overhead to 15%. A lot of people received rebates from their insurers this year because of that provision.
Portland is 60 miles inland up the Columbia River and Seattle is on Puget Sound with no direct exposure to the open ocean. Even when the big subduction zone earthquake hits the pacific coast it's not likely the big tsunami will reach either of them to any great extent.
Sea level may appear to be receding in places on the west coast due to the land being pushed up by the subduction zone off the coast. When the big subduction zone earthquake hits they'll drop back down 4 or 5 feet in an instant.
That is just one factor and probably the smallest of them. The two biggest are water expanding as it warms and ice melting from glaciers and ice sheets.
Maybe you are confusing 'macro evolution' which hasn't been proven with 'micro evolution' which we see all around us every day.
The only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is time.
Well, my question was rhetorical in nature. It generated a pretty good discussion. I'm perfectly aware of the reasons that companies don't do that so much any more.
That question just shows how badly you misunderstand what climate models do. What they mostly do is project what the 30 year running mean temperature average of the globe will be given the various input scenarios they use. Try reading the climate model FAQs to increase your understanding:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/