Conservative media cite industry study on premiums, ignore nonpartisan CBO
Conservative media have cited a study by insurance company WellPoint to claim that under health care reform, younger people would face premium increases of up to 178 percent. However, that study did not take into account subsidies provided by legislation to assist those buying insurance, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated would substantially lower premium costs for many individuals purchasing coverage on their own through the exchanges.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Conservative media cite WellPoint study to attack health care reform
WSJ cited WellPoint to assert that it is "utterly disingenuous" to claim bill lowers costs. In a December 21 editorial, The Wall Street Journal asserted that "the White House's core claim ... that reform would reduce health costs for individuals and businesses" is "utterly disingenuous," and that "[t]he best and most rigorous cost analysis was recently released by the insurer WellPoint, which mined its actuarial data in various regional markets to model the Senate bill. WellPoint found that a healthy 25-year-old in Milwaukee buying coverage on the individual market will see his costs rise by 178%."
Karl Rove: "One study suggested" premiums "might go up as much as 178 percent for younger, healthier workers." On the December 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity, contributor Karl Rove criticized the bill as a "power grab[]" and said: "We've been promised premiums are going to go down. Every bit of evidence is now pointing towards a pretty conclusive increase in premiums for Americans, most particularly for younger, healthier individuals. Their premiums are going to go up. One study suggested that they might go up as much as 178 percent for younger, healthier workers."
Ingraham asked whether 178 percent increase is "change you can believe in." On the December 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, guest host Laura Ingraham said: "We have a graphic I want us to put up on the screen. And I want to -- it's a cost analysis from -- by WellPoint. And they did an extensive cost analysis from -- about states across the United States. A healthy 25-year-old in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is going to pay an increase in health premiums of 178 percent; small business owner in Richmond, Virginia, with eight employees of average health -- 23 percent increase; a 40-year-old couple with two kids in Indianapolis -- 106 percent increase in health care costs. Is this change you can believe in, [Democratic strategist] Tamara [Holder]?"
But study explicitly states estimates do not include "application of any subsidies"
WellPoint: "Percent increase shown before ... the application of any subsidies." In its December analysis, which examined the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on insurance premiums in Wisconsin, WellPoint stated that the 178 percent figure did not take into account "any adjustment for the increase in medical costs over time or the application of any subsidies." From the WellPoint study:
CBO: Senate bill would actually result in lower premiums for many individual enrollees
CBO: By 2016, vast majority of people would not see higher premiums under Senate bill. In a November 30 analysis of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (NV) original Senate health care bill, CBO estimated that for the large-group market, which it said would make up 70 percent of the total insurance market in 2016, "the legislation would yield an average premium per person that is zero to 3 percent lower in 2016 (relative to current law)." Further, in the small-group market, which would make up 13 percent of the total insurance market in 2016, "CBO and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] estimate that the change in the average premium per person resulting from the legislation could range from an increase of 1 percent to a reduction of 2 percent in 2016 (relative to current law)." CBO has since issued an updated cost estimate of the Senate bill to incorporate the manager's amendment, which stated that "the effects on premiums of the legislation incorporating the manager's amendment would probably be quite similar."
Majority of individual buyers would receive subsidies that would, on average, lead to premium costs "roughly 65 percent to 59 percent lower" than under current law. CBO estimated that while the average premium per person in the nongroup market would be about 10 to 13 percent higher in 2016, "[t]hose figures indicate what enrollees would pay, on average, not accounting for the new federal subsidies. The majority of nongroup enrollees (about 57 percent) would receive subsidies via the new insurance exchanges, and those subsidies, on average, would cover nearly two-thirds of the total premium, CBO and JCT estimate. Thus, the amount that subsidized enrollees would pay for nongroup coverage would be roughly 56 percent to 59 percent lower, on average, than the nongroup premiums charged under current law."
Major cost-saving measures kick in after 2016. CBO analyzed the impact on premiums for 2016, but as Jonathan Cohn noted on The New Republic's health care blog, "many of the cost-saving measures in the bill aren't expected to yield savings until after that date." The Washington Post's Ezra Klein similarly wrote:
CBO is looking at 2016, which is long before the delivery system reforms will have really begun working, or the excise tax will have started restraining the growth in premiums costs, or the Medicare Commission will be aggressively experimenting to bring down costs first in Medicare and then in the system more generally. These are the numbers, in other words, from a world in which none of the cost control efforts work. In that world, health-care reform still does an enormous amount to help 30 or 40 million people, and a bit to help tens of millions more.
Ill trust wellpoint's actuaries
You don't feel bamboozled by the person with the sob story about how much they had to pay out of their own pocket for the trip? You should.
Likewise, you should feel bamboozled by WellPoint's study if it doesn't acknowledge the subsidies that will greatly reduce the premiums to lower income folks!
And did you read the actual posting by MMFA? Most people will pay less after subsidies are loaded in. And because of cost savings, people will continue to pay less for years to come than they would have without this bill!
Which means that every study that the right latches on to is just as worthless. Thank you for negating half of the right's talking points. The other half (death panels, the bill is too long, blah blah blah) were useless to begin with so we're good to go now.
Thanks, right ON!!!
2. The increase in medical costs is projected to be less with this bill than it will be without this bill, so your "argument" that potential increases in medical costs should be included is not only specious, but it defeats your aim!
3. No one has claimed that they can foretell the future, but the best estimates we have clearly say that doing this is much better than doing nothing.
4. There's not a shred of evidence that the CBO did any cherry-picking.
5. You're a known liar and a dishonest paid troll. You're the unreliable one here.
But I am the one who has personal animus towards you? I made no personal reference to you whatsoever, my point went to your argument, not you. Yet you cannot refrain from a baseless personal attack.
Hypocrite.
Contrast that with your personal animus towards me in almost every post you make (I didn't allege that in your previous post above you demonstrated any personal animus, did I? Why don't you recognize that fact?), where you attack me for no good reason, and yeah, a fair person can see the difference.
And you're the person who loves playing the victim. And you whine too much for anyone to believe that you don't care what people say to you.
That there will be subsidies is irrelevant. We are promised daily that there will be no premium increases in tv ads here in indy. I am not convinced the subsidies will offset the costs and what happens when you cant afford insurance after the subsidy? A tax bill and then prison if you cant pay for your 'free' insurance!
I am annoyed that the likes of delldolly say to be silent on global warming if you are not a climate scientists but have no problem with commenting on the arcane business of insurance.
Yet regarding health care, we should shun the "experts" or those immersed in health care insurance coverage and rely on government bureaucrats and lawmakers whose history of cost predictions is about as sorry as one can imagine.
Not only does it make absolutely no sense, it's about as inconsistent and hypocritical as you can get.
Just the very company that the govt is looking to regulate ...
Principals, the ever elusive quality for partisan hacks.
Since you do not see ANY conflict of interest in a HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY putting out a report saying that your premiums will increase 178% if the govt regulates us, then I must assume logic is not allowed to permeate your brain.
And, one more time, CBO has many, many very expert accountants and financial analysts who do not have a stake in massaging the numbers, like WellPoint does.
BTW, what motive would climate scientists have to fake their research ???
No global warming boogeyman...no job.
Oh, for heaven's sake ...
The lifeblood of the scientific community is reliant on grant farming, university endowments, and the federal govt.
Less concern about AGW means less money donated which means fewer research jobs. It's not a cabal of devious scientists...it's a cabal of scientists trying to save their jobs.
In the case of health care, who would you believe is more objective - those without a horse in the race (CBO), or those who have a financial stake (insurance companies)?
We should shun anyone who blatantly ignores any important factual variable in a discussion about any subject.
And that irritates you, doesn't it?
I'm confused. . . why do you think that the CBO is incompetent while you seem to think WellPoint has better numbers?
I don't think they're incompetent...I think they are incapable of making accurate forecasts. Why? Their forecasts are based on a snapshot in time...right now...assuming that nothing in the plan will ever change.
It's no different than trying to predict the winner of the 2012 presidential election by using today's poll numbers.
Where they have validity is in comparing one plan versus another and the relative differences...but not as a forecast of the future.
Our govt. has a long history of over-promising...under-performing...over-spending...and that will be true of this monstrosity of a healthcare bill.
Just because things might change doesn't invalidate their projection.
And because the WellPoint study ignores an incredibly important variable, THAT does invalidate their projection about premium increases.
Which is the point of MMFA's article here that you all want to distract us from.
And yeah, we noticed the tag team - it's still professional trolling, not legit debate.
"I'm confused. . . why do you think that the CBO is incompetent while you seem to think WellPoint has better numbers?"
If wellpoint is wrong there are no taxpayers to pay the surplus
You shouldn't waste your time trying to comprehend stuff for which you don't have the tools, the data, or the training.
No one should.
-----------------------------
looks like someone says we should not question our betters
It's nigh onto treason for important leaders to mislead other Americans on important topics like this. On this blog, it's simply wrong.
But it's not a matter of "questioning" people who know more than you do. That's always a good idea. But if you don't know what you're talking about, and you don't have the training, or the tools, or the data to learn enough about it in order to analyze the results, you shouldn't demand to get the underlying data that an expert would need to DO that analysis.
If you gave me all the parts that went into an engine, I couldn't put it together properly and come to a conclusion about how energy efficient it was! So it would be stupid for me to demand the individual pieces of an engine if I was questioning if that motor was actually as energy efficient as the manufacturer claimed!
This is not rocket science, but you think that you can smear me with a prior quote? What a tool.
Without training and experience at analyzing data, the raw data itself won't do you any good.
The way you verify that the engine manufacturer isn't lying about the energy efficiency claims he made is by having an independent expert in energy efficiency TEST his claims. The way you verify that climate scientists didn't do any tomfoolery with their analysis of data is by having their work peer-reviewed.
And magically, that already happens! But we don't give that raw data to neophytes who don't have the tools or training to analyze the data, because without that specific skillset, those people won't be able to do a reliable analysis! It would be a waste of time.
Testing an assembled engine is different from polling experts. If you polled engine experts on what is the most efficint engine you would get opinions that MIGHT converge. Testing removes all doubt. We can not test climate theories so we are forced to rely on human honesty, and (simplistic and flawed) models as well as methodology which allows a proxy as long as it is useful, but discards the same proxy when it is inconvenient rather than discarding the whole unreliable series!
Last, I do not give you authority over me and reject your elitism for what it is. As the late GOP president said, "...with malice toward noe, with charity toward all...", and "...of the people, by the people, for the people..."
Since someone is paying you (I believe you are being accused of being a "paid poster") let me give it a try..
"Since scientific facts are liberally based, we can discount most global warming concerns, but since corporate facts are typically correct we should believe information from the Insurance companies"
I bet your sponsor would pay me a few bucks to post that little gem...
But, hey, since the CBO is not a for-profit business, why believe them? LOL!
Those of us in the real world prefer honesty over partisanship.
And yeah, I say that people who aren't educated on a topic should refrain from telling other people what the facts are. On this topic, I am educated - I know that the partisan healthcare provider who did this study ignored the facts that almost no one will pay the full premiums that they listed.
As my analogies have shown, that paints a dishonest picture of the actual effect of the bill. Well-trained people can still paint dishonest pictures.
I am not recycled. I am not paid. Iam confident wellpoint looked at all angles. Why? Indiana DOI will hang them if there actuaries are not playing fair
They ignored the subsidies that won't allow almost all insured people to pay the full premium cost! So, their claims about the cost of the premiums are bogus, since only a very few people will actually pay the full premium!
Remember the analogies I've given you, I know, it was yesterday, such a long time ago. But of course, you couldn't have forgotten them - how could someone as bright as you claim to have been in high school have forgotten the analogy that blows your contention here out of the water here?
If someone goes on a business trip and then moans about having to spend $300 of his own money on expenses, but in reality he's only going to be out $80 since the company will reimburse him, it's UNFAIR and INACCURATE to claim that it cost him $300 to make that trip. It cost him $80.
It's UNFAIR and INACCURATE to claim that insureds will have to pay the full premiums that WellPoint cited! And their own study tells us that they didn't include any subsidies in their findings, and the WSJ told its readers that some premiums would go up 178%, which is a distortion of reality that misinforms the readers!
The subsidies will reduce the out of pocket expense not the costs. The costs are independent of subsidies if you manage to keep terms straight and not read stuff in. Its the same as college..It costs 10000 if the feds give you nothing or a million. The CBO claims premium (cost) will not increase and MMA says to only analyze out of pocket expense.
Medical costs are likely to increase (supply of money for constant level of services) and expenses may increase depending on the to be determined subsidies and to be determined (but actuarially predictable by removing underwriting) premium.
If the subsidy is too small, and if you cannot afford the difference, and fail to pay the fine you will find yourself in prison for debt. Far fetched but with 300 million Americans likely. My neighbor who cant afford food now and has health problems is a likely candidate for debt imprisonment. (I do share food and money-- government is way slow)
If a freight train is covers 100 miles in one hour, and the company is paying for the fuel how fast is the train moving?
The idea that health insurance costs will skyrocket under this bill, but it's ok since we'll tax you more and help you with the premiums, is rediculous.
MMFA--you need to correct YOUR misinformation on this page, a premium increase is a premium increase, even if congress gives you fries with it.
DellDolly, I'm sure you'll attact me and call me names--that's your style. But you also need to correct the misinformation in all YOUR posts defending MMFA's slanted distortion that a subsidy means the insurance company isn't charging more.
But I know you're on MMFA's payroll, so you have a job to do--no matter how silly MMFA's premise is, you'll support it.
I'd say more, but what's the point? Most of the people here are PAID to be here. Why am I here? Good question. I guess I sometimes want to see the (unserious) crazy left in action. The serious crazy left is over on HuffPo and Kos. Those guys are really scary--they actually BELIEVE what they post, not like MMFA and DellDolly.
Let me be clear. Obama is not a liar, a fool or a bad person. I do think he is pursuing a bad policy
Being non-partisan doesn't equal being correct all the time.
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/issuebriefs_ib154/
If we could trust them to spend our money wisely, honestly and with care and integrity, then if costs are overrun and estimates fall short, well if we know we are getting what we paid for and things happen, honorable men and women step up and we will deal with whatever comes our way.
But Nooooo, we have spineless politicians who are too afraid we won't like what we hear so they need to package it and focus group test it until it is so watered down that we might, just might, look the other way or accept their apocalyptic doom and gloom situations unless we fork over more and more.
We are skeptical of anything coming out of Washington for damn good reason.
as for an extra tax...if I paid a tax for the middle east wars and all other aspects of the budget had to be balanced...maybe. Congress would NEVER do such a sensible thing
But the issue here is that given the data available, the WellPoint people ignored an important part of that data to claim that premiums will be higher than they actually will be!
You need to re-learn what a projection is, and while you're at it, educate some of your buddies who don't get it either.
But things almost always change especially over a ten year period and therein lies the problem with relying on any of this.
Things changing didn't make their projection incorrect though. The projection was based upon the data they were given. Once the data changed, that projection became invalid, not incorrect. There's a big difference between those two things.
Now, WellPoint's projection is INCORRECT as it stands, since they ignored a variable. But if a projection doesn't ignore a variable or make a calculation error or something else, then just because the data changes, it doesn't make that original projection incorrect. It makes it no longer valid.
And no one is saying that our healthcare coverage rules by the federal govt will remain the same, but that doesn't make any projection "INCORRECT" or "USELESS".
And therein lies your distortion. Projections are not guarantees. But some projections are valid, like CBO's. And some are not, like WellPoint's assertion that many people could see premium increases of 187%! And that's because their projection IS incorrect.
What good is a projection if the data you use is wrong?
I'm really not interested in playing word games about it.