Pope Flick Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Who are you going to believe Ursa and BP who may or may not actually deal with insurance, and even if they did would just be anecdotal or the NY Times article originally linked? I'm sure the NY Times is just another hyper conservative news outlet you would like to dismiss. http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/22/pf/health_...costs/index.htm If they were to make no changes to their plans, employers reported that their benefit costs would increase by 7.1%. While that would still be down from annual increases of about 9% in the past couple of years, most employers say it's still too much for them to absorb. This article backs up what ursa and bp said. Does that makes SECs anecdotal too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Americans get too much healthcare, their docs say According to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the U.S. spent $7,960 per capita on healthcare in 2009. That's $2,608 more than Norway, the runner-up, shelled out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Well at least now you are no longer with Ursa and BP saying there is no increase due to Obama's terrible plan. What you just quoted shows that Obama care increased the cost by an additional 1.9%, making up over 20% of the increase. Where did they say that? From what I've read costs haven't gone up as much in year's past, and I am wondering where it was said - by anyone - that health care premiums would STOP rising, as opposed to slowing down - which they are. Glad you have agreed on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Americans get too much healthcare, their docs say Just out of curiosity how many new drugs are formulated in Norway? How many new medical devices are invented in Norway? How good would Norway's health care be if not for American medical advancement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) Where did they say that? From what I've read costs haven't gone up as much in year's past, and I am wondering where it was said - by anyone - that health care premiums would STOP rising, as opposed to slowing down - which they are. Glad you have agreed on that. I miss read the article the first time, thus the deleted post. Having said that it looks like we have dueling studies, the one that started this thread showing costs going up, and the one you linked showing cost going down. Which means we are not very likely to accomplish much comparing the two. Common sense does tell us that like SEC has been saying all along, forcing employers to keep adult children of their workers on their insurance increases the cost of insurance to the companies significantly. I don't see how a rational individual could argue otherwise. So even if costs per individual are going down, companies are having to cover more individuals making cost to the companies go up. This additional cost will either cost the companies and their investors more, or will cost the employees more due to lower compensation either now or in the future. If I had to guess I'd say it is costing everyone. So while the cost per person is down the overall cost is going to go up. Edited September 28, 2011 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Just out of curiosity how many new drugs are formulated in Norway? How many new medical devices are invented in Norway? 11,366 and 34,345 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I miss read the article the first time, thus the deleted post. Having said that it looks like we have dueling studies. Which means we are not very likely to accomplish much comparing the two. Common sense does tell us that like SEC has been saying all along, forcing employers to keep adult children of their workers on their insurance increases the cost of insurance to the companies significantly. I don't see how a rational individual could argue otherwise. Because young adults ages 20-26 are healthier than the rest of us and are now paying into a pool they by and large will not use like older adults will, much like safe drivers increase cash flow to the insurance companies to cover the less safe drivers. That's a perfectly rational expectation. But the companies would rather spin that fact into something else in order to simply grab more cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Because young adults ages 20-26 are healthier than the rest of us and are now paying into a pool they by and large will not use like older adults will, much like safe drivers increase cash flow to the insurance companies to cover the less safe drivers. That's a perfectly rational expectation. But the companies would rather spin that fact into something else in order to simply grab more cash. I concede that it will bring the average cost per employee down, but you are still having to cover more people, which is going to bring the cost up. Hypothetically lets say that the young ones decrease the average cost per person covered by 10%. That is great but the only problem is you are increasing the number of people that are covered by 15%. It is costing companies more money, which is in turn costing the investors / owners, or the employees in lower compensation or more than likely both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I concede that it will bring the average cost per employee down, but you are still having to cover more people, which is going to bring the cost up. Hypothetically lets say that the young ones decrease the average cost per person covered by 10%. That is great but the only problem is you are increasing the number of people that are covered by 15%. It is costing companies more money, which is in turn costing the investors / owners, or the employees in lower compensation or more than likely both. It is reducing the cost to the taxpayer by having those people insured though. Previously they formed part of the freeloader army (before they became the downtrodden patriot army) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 It is reducing the cost to the taxpayer by having those people insured though. Previously they formed part of the freeloader army (before they became the downtrodden patriot army) Does it, if companies are not hiring because they can not afford the additional cost, particularly if they are right at the threshold of having to comply with Obamacare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Does it, if companies are not hiring because they can not afford the additional cost, particularly if they are right at the threshold of having to comply with Obamacare. They aren't hiring because there is no demand. There is no demand because no-one wants to buy because they are terrified of losing their job. Vicious circle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 So it does sound like a rational position, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 11,366 and 34,345 i was going to say 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 According to an article last week on CNN, rates are going up but at a lower rate than in years past. Both BP and Ursa chimed in to say that was true, while somehow SECs rates more than doubled, against everything in the news and several experiences that backed that up. At what point did I ever say, imply, state, type, etc... that my rates doubled? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Who are you going to believe Ursa and BP who may or may not actually deal with insurance, and even if they did would just be anecdotal or the NY Times article originally linked? I directly negotiate all contracts for my company, in particular health insurance and benefits. Perch everything you post is anecdotal of how it specifically refers to you and only you. Considering that you think that Obama personally ended your business and then "anecedotally" lit a bag of dog poo on your stoop and ran away, you arent exactly the best source. Just saying' . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 They aren't hiring because there is no demand. There is no demand because no-one wants to buy because they are terrified of losing their job. Vicious circle. Here is some simple math for you. Say I have 38 employees that all make $10 an hour. None of them are assured. If they work a total of 40 hours a week or 160 hours a month. That represents 6,080 man hours which costs $60,800 a month. Now lets say I need to increase my production to meet demand, and that it needs to be increased by 320 man hours a month to do so. Now I can either do one of two things. I can just work 320 hours a month overtime which would cost an overtime premium of $4,800 a month. Or I can increase my workforce by two and have to provide insurance to 40 employees which costs an average per employee of $452 per month, which is an Obama premium of $18,096. Obamacare just cost two people jobs with my company. It could actually cost up to 20 people jobs if I were willing to work everyone 20 hours overtime a week in lieu of hiring 20 new employees. If I were to work people 20 hour overtime in lieu of hiring 20 new people and paying for obamacare I'd save $14,668. Basically what Obamacare had done is make it to where unless you have demand 2500 man hours a month or less a month if you are smart you are going to work your people overtime rather than employ more than 39 people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I directly negotiate all contracts for my company, in particular health insurance and benefits. Perch everything you post is anecdotal of how it specifically refers to you and only you. Considering that you think that Obama personally ended your business and then "anecedotally" lit a bag of dog poo on your stoop and ran away, you arent exactly the best source. Just saying' . . . . I was quoting a study in that response, vs your anecdotal evidence. Don't get me wrong, anecdotal evidence has it's place, but it doesn't compare to an actual study. As to my business, I've also provided a news story showing 48 construction projects canceled as a direct result of Obamacare. That is not anecdotal at all. That is a fact. Granted I often give anecdotal evidence, we all do, but in the instance you are talking about it wasn't anecdotal. Thanks for playing.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 At what point did I ever say, imply, state, type, etc... that my rates doubled? Sorry. If I recall you were saying your rates were going up at twice the rate of what bp and ursa were claiming theirs were (5 to 10% -there's the double-), which was backed up by the CNN stats: rates were up but not as much as year's past. The way I wrote that was rather misleading and unintentional. What I just wrote was what I meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I was quoting a study in that response, vs your anecdotal evidence. Don't get me wrong, anecdotal evidence has it's place, but it doesn't compare to an actual study. As to my business, I've also provided a news story showing 48 construction projects canceled as a direct result of Obamacare. That is not anecdotal at all. That is a fact. Granted I often give anecdotal evidence, we all do, but in the instance you are talking about it wasn't anecdotal. Thanks for playing.. Sooo . . . your contracts being cancelled= fact My renewal being significantly lower= anecdotal Got it . . . welcome brack perch . . . welcome brack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Sooo . . . your contracts being cancelled= fact My renewal being significantly lower= anecdotal Got it . . . welcome brack perch . . . welcome brack Only three of the 48 contracts cancelled in the news story I linked were contracts my company had. It was a news story, thus not anecdotal just to me. If you don't understand that, I don't know how to make it clear to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Granted I often give anecdotal evidence, we all do, I think you need to give yourself more credit here. You're more special than everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I think you need to give yourself more credit here. You're more special than everyone else. I'm no where near as special as you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I think you need to give yourself more credit here. You're more special than everyone else. Well that's what his wife's friend's hairdresser says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Well that's what his wife's friend's hairdresser says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Here is some simple math for you. Say I have 38 employees that all make $10 an hour. None of them are assured. If they work a total of 40 hours a week or 160 hours a month. That represents 6,080 man hours which costs $60,800 a month. Now lets say I need to increase my production to meet demand, and that it needs to be increased by 320 man hours a month to do so. Now I can either do one of two things. I can just work 320 hours a month overtime which would cost an overtime premium of $4,800 a month. Or I can increase my workforce by two and have to provide insurance to 40 employees which costs an average per employee of $452 per month, which is an Obama premium of $18,096. Obamacare just cost two people jobs with my company. It could actually cost up to 20 people jobs if I were willing to work everyone 20 hours overtime a week in lieu of hiring 20 new employees. If I were to work people 20 hour overtime in lieu of hiring 20 new people and paying for obamacare I'd save $14,668. Basically what Obamacare had done is make it to where unless you have demand 2500 man hours a month or less a month if you are smart you are going to work your people overtime rather than employ more than 39 people. Do you have to provide insurance? I thought there was some minuscule penalty you could pay to avoid that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.