First of all, that's looking at one factor in isolation. Secondly, in Oregon the increase due to that one factor will be 0%. Oregon already caps the price at 2:1, the new federal cap is only 3:1, so in fact it won't change anything for Oregonians. barfo
oooh, the irony is thick. You mean, we shouldn't just look at things as if in a vacuum? Who woulda thunk?
You should look at all of reality. Including fantasies into your analysis isn't generally a good idea. barfo
2:1 meaning seniors can only be charged 2x as much as young people. So what's 2x $100/month vs 2x $500/month? Still 2:1. In fact, they could jack up young people's rates by 100000000000% and not charge the elderly an extra nickel.
Uh, yes, in theory they could. How is that different than the situation pre-healthcare reform? Answer: not at all. The article you posted suggested that rates would go up for young people to pay for the 3:1 requirement. My point was they won't (in OR) because they are already at 2:1. barfo
If the insurance companies need $X to pay their bills and have a reasonable profit, they will raise rates according to the 2:1 or 3:1 formula. If you look at the algebra, it has to be the young people who end up paying more.
No, actually it doesn't. Let's suppose that right now, the ratio in Oregon is exactly 2:1. Let's assume that there are 10 old people paying $200, and 10 young people paying $100. So the insurance company is raking in $3000. Let's assume they need to raise an extra $1000 to feed their families, Sprewell-style. They could raise the old people by $66.66 each, and the young people by $33.33 each, and raise an extra $1000 that way. Old people pay $266.66; young people pay $133.33, 2:1 ratio is maintained. The % increase is the same for young and old people (33%); the absolute dollar increase is greater for old people ($66.66 vs $33.33). Of course, they could instead raise the young people by $100 each, and charge the old folks nothing extra. That would also raise $1000. But that solution is not required. barfo
You can assume that if you want to. I think your lack of math skills have betrayed you once again. barfo
I'm satisfied with your math. Not only are young peoples' rates going up, but so are the elderly's. Thanks for pointing that out.
It's true - if you assume that rates are going up, as you did, then it logically follows that rates are going to go up. It's one of them thar tautology things. barfo
Everywhere else where there is not already a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio, the young obviously will have to pay more. They're not going to cut the elderly's rates to get to 3:1, they're going to up the rates of the younger people to get to 3:1.
Since my premium went up 28% a year ago and went up again 52% last fall, I think you'll need to blame that on something else like, uh...corporate greed combined with no public option. Those 2 situations have not been changed at all by the bill so yes, our premiums will go up as they always have and no, it is not because of anything to do with the bill.
Since the insurance companies have been reaping obscene profits off both the seniors and the youngsters for a few decades now, why do you assume they won't pay a little back and actually CUT the rates for ALL citizens in gratitude? You must think they are greedy monsters in need of tight government control or something.
This is true. Oregon is in fact an outlier - there are only a few states with a 3:1 ratio or better already - but since this discussion seemed to spring from It's Go Time's question "when will we personally begin to see the effects", the case of Oregon is relevant. The reason young people will have to pay more in other states is that old people will pay less in other states. Here you are assuming the insurance companies are greedy rapacious pigs, as Maris has already pointed out. Probably true, but I will hold out the hope that they simply adjust the rates such that the net is the same - meaning that old people pay less, young people pay more. barfo
You mean the corporate greed that averages less than 4% profit? Yeah, that's greedy. And if you want competition, just open up insurers to cross state lines. What would increase competition more, one new player or thousands of new players?
