[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Well, air_ogi, how else do you explain this huge YoY increase?? I started with this plan in 2004 and it has NEVER increased this much YoY. The “form letter” I was sent in August implementing the 10/1/10 increase stated that they were complying with the new HCRA. It gave me the “option” of giving up my plan for a lesser plan ($10,000 co-insurance for hospitalization) for the same premium I had but I would lose my “grandfathered” benefits and my *newly chosen* plan would be subject to be “reworked” to comply with their new requirements under HCRA.
[/quote]

If you haven’t had these sorts of YOY increases in the past you’re unique. I don’t even consider it huge. My premiums increased 311% over the last 9 years (for a policy year beginning 7/1/10). Three times over that period, premiums increased by more than 25% in a single year. My experience was only slightly higher than most because of my particular employee census. That you’ve never had those kinds of increases is almost shocking. Twenty percent a year has been pretty typical and any argument, on the part of the insurance companies is disengenuous at best, and outright lie at worst. The only significant part of the new law that will affect this policy year is insurance companies inability to cancel coverage, and mandatory of allowance of children up to age 26 (though there are certain extensions on the applicability of that part of the law.) And that’s a part of the law that insurance companies LOVE. There are no better customers than 22-26 year olds, they don’t get sick and they don’t go to the doctor.

The reason for the increase this year is the same as it has been over the last 15 years. To increase profits. Certainly the possiblity exists that increases were accelerated in anticipation of some price controls under the new law which won’t take effect for a few years.

United Health just came out with their earnings. Beat the street by a huge margin. Came in with an 80.9 loss ratio, which they brag about. At the same time, complaining that the new law requires at least an 80% loss ratio. (And their 80.9% was on ALL policies, the will be allowed as low as a 75% loss ratio on individual policies.)

Insurance companies make money when they can. I don’t suspect the new law will do much more than slightly slow the increases in premiums. And the insurance companies won’t make less under the new law, they’ll make more. Afterall, they wrote the law.(Who do you think insisted on mandatory coverage? That was not an idea borne in the halls of congress.) But we certainly weren’t promised any declines in premiums, before the law even takes effect. Anyone that was expecting that wasn’t paying attention.

(As an afterthought….did you move into a new age bracket? Comanies have different brackets, but if your age now ends in a 5, a 6, 0, or a 1, that may explain the increase. Particularly moving from the late 30’s through the early 60’s, the increases are stunning.)

[quote=bearishgurl]Unfortunately, the loss of full-time jobs will continue to be the fallout from the HCRA. I see many firms with just over 50 employees begin to pare down their workforces to <49 employees before 2014 to avoid being mandated to offer health coverage.[/quote]

That makes no sense. Why would any company intentionally shrink now, because of costs that may rise 3 years from now? I'm not disputing that you're seeing it, but I'm in contact with a few dozen businesses every month in that same size range, and not a single one has moved in that direction. Some of those currently under 50 employees are ecstatic with the new tax credits that will help them pay their employees insurance, beginning this year.

I'm not, by the way, in favor of that mandate. I think it's a huge mistake to link health care with employment, and this law strengthens that link. Insurance companies love it. De-linking is a part of the long term solution. With the undue influence of the insurance industry (and in a broader sense, the entire finance industry, of which insurance is a part) on both parties in congress, the likelihood of that happening any time soon is slight.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Well, air_ogi, how else do you explain this huge YoY increase?? I started with this plan in 2004 and it has NEVER increased this much YoY. The “form letter” I was sent in August implementing the 10/1/10 increase stated that they were complying with the new HCRA. It gave me the “option” of giving up my plan for a lesser plan ($10,000 co-insurance for hospitalization) for the same premium I had but I would lose my “grandfathered” benefits and my *newly chosen* plan would be subject to be “reworked” to comply with their new requirements under HCRA.
[/quote]

If you haven’t had these sorts of YOY increases in the past you’re unique. I don’t even consider it huge. My premiums increased 311% over the last 9 years (for a policy year beginning 7/1/10). Three times over that period, premiums increased by more than 25% in a single year. My experience was only slightly higher than most because of my particular employee census. That you’ve never had those kinds of increases is almost shocking. Twenty percent a year has been pretty typical and any argument, on the part of the insurance companies is disengenuous at best, and outright lie at worst. The only significant part of the new law that will affect this policy year is insurance companies inability to cancel coverage, and mandatory of allowance of children up to age 26 (though there are certain extensions on the applicability of that part of the law.) And that’s a part of the law that insurance companies LOVE. There are no better customers than 22-26 year olds, they don’t get sick and they don’t go to the doctor.

The reason for the increase this year is the same as it has been over the last 15 years. To increase profits. Certainly the possiblity exists that increases were accelerated in anticipation of some price controls under the new law which won’t take effect for a few years.

United Health just came out with their earnings. Beat the street by a huge margin. Came in with an 80.9 loss ratio, which they brag about. At the same time, complaining that the new law requires at least an 80% loss ratio. (And their 80.9% was on ALL policies, the will be allowed as low as a 75% loss ratio on individual policies.)

Insurance companies make money when they can. I don’t suspect the new law will do much more than slightly slow the increases in premiums. And the insurance companies won’t make less under the new law, they’ll make more. Afterall, they wrote the law.(Who do you think insisted on mandatory coverage? That was not an idea borne in the halls of congress.) But we certainly weren’t promised any declines in premiums, before the law even takes effect. Anyone that was expecting that wasn’t paying attention.

(As an afterthought….did you move into a new age bracket? Comanies have different brackets, but if your age now ends in a 5, a 6, 0, or a 1, that may explain the increase. Particularly moving from the late 30’s through the early 60’s, the increases are stunning.)

[quote=bearishgurl]Unfortunately, the loss of full-time jobs will continue to be the fallout from the HCRA. I see many firms with just over 50 employees begin to pare down their workforces to <49 employees before 2014 to avoid being mandated to offer health coverage.[/quote]

That makes no sense. Why would any company intentionally shrink now, because of costs that may rise 3 years from now? I'm not disputing that you're seeing it, but I'm in contact with a few dozen businesses every month in that same size range, and not a single one has moved in that direction. Some of those currently under 50 employees are ecstatic with the new tax credits that will help them pay their employees insurance, beginning this year.

I'm not, by the way, in favor of that mandate. I think it's a huge mistake to link health care with employment, and this law strengthens that link. Insurance companies love it. De-linking is a part of the long term solution. With the undue influence of the insurance industry (and in a broader sense, the entire finance industry, of which insurance is a part) on both parties in congress, the likelihood of that happening any time soon is slight.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Well, air_ogi, how else do you explain this huge YoY increase?? I started with this plan in 2004 and it has NEVER increased this much YoY. The “form letter” I was sent in August implementing the 10/1/10 increase stated that they were complying with the new HCRA. It gave me the “option” of giving up my plan for a lesser plan ($10,000 co-insurance for hospitalization) for the same premium I had but I would lose my “grandfathered” benefits and my *newly chosen* plan would be subject to be “reworked” to comply with their new requirements under HCRA.
[/quote]

If you haven’t had these sorts of YOY increases in the past you’re unique. I don’t even consider it huge. My premiums increased 311% over the last 9 years (for a policy year beginning 7/1/10). Three times over that period, premiums increased by more than 25% in a single year. My experience was only slightly higher than most because of my particular employee census. That you’ve never had those kinds of increases is almost shocking. Twenty percent a year has been pretty typical and any argument, on the part of the insurance companies is disengenuous at best, and outright lie at worst. The only significant part of the new law that will affect this policy year is insurance companies inability to cancel coverage, and mandatory of allowance of children up to age 26 (though there are certain extensions on the applicability of that part of the law.) And that’s a part of the law that insurance companies LOVE. There are no better customers than 22-26 year olds, they don’t get sick and they don’t go to the doctor.

The reason for the increase this year is the same as it has been over the last 15 years. To increase profits. Certainly the possiblity exists that increases were accelerated in anticipation of some price controls under the new law which won’t take effect for a few years.

United Health just came out with their earnings. Beat the street by a huge margin. Came in with an 80.9 loss ratio, which they brag about. At the same time, complaining that the new law requires at least an 80% loss ratio. (And their 80.9% was on ALL policies, the will be allowed as low as a 75% loss ratio on individual policies.)

Insurance companies make money when they can. I don’t suspect the new law will do much more than slightly slow the increases in premiums. And the insurance companies won’t make less under the new law, they’ll make more. Afterall, they wrote the law.(Who do you think insisted on mandatory coverage? That was not an idea borne in the halls of congress.) But we certainly weren’t promised any declines in premiums, before the law even takes effect. Anyone that was expecting that wasn’t paying attention.

(As an afterthought….did you move into a new age bracket? Comanies have different brackets, but if your age now ends in a 5, a 6, 0, or a 1, that may explain the increase. Particularly moving from the late 30’s through the early 60’s, the increases are stunning.)

[quote=bearishgurl]Unfortunately, the loss of full-time jobs will continue to be the fallout from the HCRA. I see many firms with just over 50 employees begin to pare down their workforces to <49 employees before 2014 to avoid being mandated to offer health coverage.[/quote]

That makes no sense. Why would any company intentionally shrink now, because of costs that may rise 3 years from now? I'm not disputing that you're seeing it, but I'm in contact with a few dozen businesses every month in that same size range, and not a single one has moved in that direction. Some of those currently under 50 employees are ecstatic with the new tax credits that will help them pay their employees insurance, beginning this year.

I'm not, by the way, in favor of that mandate. I think it's a huge mistake to link health care with employment, and this law strengthens that link. Insurance companies love it. De-linking is a part of the long term solution. With the undue influence of the insurance industry (and in a broader sense, the entire finance industry, of which insurance is a part) on both parties in congress, the likelihood of that happening any time soon is slight.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Well, air_ogi, how else do you explain this huge YoY increase?? I started with this plan in 2004 and it has NEVER increased this much YoY. The “form letter” I was sent in August implementing the 10/1/10 increase stated that they were complying with the new HCRA. It gave me the “option” of giving up my plan for a lesser plan ($10,000 co-insurance for hospitalization) for the same premium I had but I would lose my “grandfathered” benefits and my *newly chosen* plan would be subject to be “reworked” to comply with their new requirements under HCRA.
[/quote]

If you haven’t had these sorts of YOY increases in the past you’re unique. I don’t even consider it huge. My premiums increased 311% over the last 9 years (for a policy year beginning 7/1/10). Three times over that period, premiums increased by more than 25% in a single year. My experience was only slightly higher than most because of my particular employee census. That you’ve never had those kinds of increases is almost shocking. Twenty percent a year has been pretty typical and any argument, on the part of the insurance companies is disengenuous at best, and outright lie at worst. The only significant part of the new law that will affect this policy year is insurance companies inability to cancel coverage, and mandatory of allowance of children up to age 26 (though there are certain extensions on the applicability of that part of the law.) And that’s a part of the law that insurance companies LOVE. There are no better customers than 22-26 year olds, they don’t get sick and they don’t go to the doctor.

The reason for the increase this year is the same as it has been over the last 15 years. To increase profits. Certainly the possiblity exists that increases were accelerated in anticipation of some price controls under the new law which won’t take effect for a few years.

United Health just came out with their earnings. Beat the street by a huge margin. Came in with an 80.9 loss ratio, which they brag about. At the same time, complaining that the new law requires at least an 80% loss ratio. (And their 80.9% was on ALL policies, the will be allowed as low as a 75% loss ratio on individual policies.)

Insurance companies make money when they can. I don’t suspect the new law will do much more than slightly slow the increases in premiums. And the insurance companies won’t make less under the new law, they’ll make more. Afterall, they wrote the law.(Who do you think insisted on mandatory coverage? That was not an idea borne in the halls of congress.) But we certainly weren’t promised any declines in premiums, before the law even takes effect. Anyone that was expecting that wasn’t paying attention.

(As an afterthought….did you move into a new age bracket? Comanies have different brackets, but if your age now ends in a 5, a 6, 0, or a 1, that may explain the increase. Particularly moving from the late 30’s through the early 60’s, the increases are stunning.)

[quote=bearishgurl]Unfortunately, the loss of full-time jobs will continue to be the fallout from the HCRA. I see many firms with just over 50 employees begin to pare down their workforces to <49 employees before 2014 to avoid being mandated to offer health coverage.[/quote]

That makes no sense. Why would any company intentionally shrink now, because of costs that may rise 3 years from now? I'm not disputing that you're seeing it, but I'm in contact with a few dozen businesses every month in that same size range, and not a single one has moved in that direction. Some of those currently under 50 employees are ecstatic with the new tax credits that will help them pay their employees insurance, beginning this year.

I'm not, by the way, in favor of that mandate. I think it's a huge mistake to link health care with employment, and this law strengthens that link. Insurance companies love it. De-linking is a part of the long term solution. With the undue influence of the insurance industry (and in a broader sense, the entire finance industry, of which insurance is a part) on both parties in congress, the likelihood of that happening any time soon is slight.

[SK in CV]

[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]
Bottom line, the Tea Party wants Christianity taught in schools. That’s what they are after.[/quote]

Your liberal friends in the CA school system want to teach Islam in school. Do you have a problem with this?[/quote]

I don’t usually comment on this particular comment subject I kinda like the idea of bigots going ape shit when their hypocrisy is layed out for all to see. But the truth is, I hang out with a lot of liberals, both in real life and on liberal blogs and I’ve never seen any support for the teaching of Islam in public schools, other than as part of a comprehensive comparative religion curriculum, or as an integral part of world history or current events. I certainly don’t approve of the methods outlined in the links you provided, and I don’t know of any liberals that do.

Just as, looking back, I don’t approve of saying the lords prayer every day in school, as was done in my classes in elementary school. Or the strong focus of teaching about Christmas when my kids were in elementary school, with the exclusion of instruction about comparable celebrations of other world religions.

If these classes on Islam are as portrayed (which I am certainly not disputing), it is not as part of a far reaching liberal ideology, but rather misguided teachers and administrators using highly inappropriate methods of instruction for a subject that does warrant coverage in a different manner.

For what it’s worth, I am one liberal athiest who supports your opposition. That doesn’t diminish, in any way, the value of the assertion that there are many on the right who want Christianity taught in our public schools. Both are equally inappropriate.

[SK in CV]

[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]
Bottom line, the Tea Party wants Christianity taught in schools. That’s what they are after.[/quote]

Your liberal friends in the CA school system want to teach Islam in school. Do you have a problem with this?[/quote]

I don’t usually comment on this particular comment subject I kinda like the idea of bigots going ape shit when their hypocrisy is layed out for all to see. But the truth is, I hang out with a lot of liberals, both in real life and on liberal blogs and I’ve never seen any support for the teaching of Islam in public schools, other than as part of a comprehensive comparative religion curriculum, or as an integral part of world history or current events. I certainly don’t approve of the methods outlined in the links you provided, and I don’t know of any liberals that do.

Just as, looking back, I don’t approve of saying the lords prayer every day in school, as was done in my classes in elementary school. Or the strong focus of teaching about Christmas when my kids were in elementary school, with the exclusion of instruction about comparable celebrations of other world religions.

If these classes on Islam are as portrayed (which I am certainly not disputing), it is not as part of a far reaching liberal ideology, but rather misguided teachers and administrators using highly inappropriate methods of instruction for a subject that does warrant coverage in a different manner.

For what it’s worth, I am one liberal athiest who supports your opposition. That doesn’t diminish, in any way, the value of the assertion that there are many on the right who want Christianity taught in our public schools. Both are equally inappropriate.

[SK in CV]

[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]
Bottom line, the Tea Party wants Christianity taught in schools. That’s what they are after.[/quote]

Your liberal friends in the CA school system want to teach Islam in school. Do you have a problem with this?[/quote]

I don’t usually comment on this particular comment subject I kinda like the idea of bigots going ape shit when their hypocrisy is layed out for all to see. But the truth is, I hang out with a lot of liberals, both in real life and on liberal blogs and I’ve never seen any support for the teaching of Islam in public schools, other than as part of a comprehensive comparative religion curriculum, or as an integral part of world history or current events. I certainly don’t approve of the methods outlined in the links you provided, and I don’t know of any liberals that do.

Just as, looking back, I don’t approve of saying the lords prayer every day in school, as was done in my classes in elementary school. Or the strong focus of teaching about Christmas when my kids were in elementary school, with the exclusion of instruction about comparable celebrations of other world religions.

If these classes on Islam are as portrayed (which I am certainly not disputing), it is not as part of a far reaching liberal ideology, but rather misguided teachers and administrators using highly inappropriate methods of instruction for a subject that does warrant coverage in a different manner.

For what it’s worth, I am one liberal athiest who supports your opposition. That doesn’t diminish, in any way, the value of the assertion that there are many on the right who want Christianity taught in our public schools. Both are equally inappropriate.

[SK in CV]

[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]
Bottom line, the Tea Party wants Christianity taught in schools. That’s what they are after.[/quote]

Your liberal friends in the CA school system want to teach Islam in school. Do you have a problem with this?[/quote]

I don’t usually comment on this particular comment subject I kinda like the idea of bigots going ape shit when their hypocrisy is layed out for all to see. But the truth is, I hang out with a lot of liberals, both in real life and on liberal blogs and I’ve never seen any support for the teaching of Islam in public schools, other than as part of a comprehensive comparative religion curriculum, or as an integral part of world history or current events. I certainly don’t approve of the methods outlined in the links you provided, and I don’t know of any liberals that do.

Just as, looking back, I don’t approve of saying the lords prayer every day in school, as was done in my classes in elementary school. Or the strong focus of teaching about Christmas when my kids were in elementary school, with the exclusion of instruction about comparable celebrations of other world religions.

If these classes on Islam are as portrayed (which I am certainly not disputing), it is not as part of a far reaching liberal ideology, but rather misguided teachers and administrators using highly inappropriate methods of instruction for a subject that does warrant coverage in a different manner.

For what it’s worth, I am one liberal athiest who supports your opposition. That doesn’t diminish, in any way, the value of the assertion that there are many on the right who want Christianity taught in our public schools. Both are equally inappropriate.

[SK in CV]

[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]
Bottom line, the Tea Party wants Christianity taught in schools. That’s what they are after.[/quote]

Your liberal friends in the CA school system want to teach Islam in school. Do you have a problem with this?[/quote]

I don’t usually comment on this particular comment subject I kinda like the idea of bigots going ape shit when their hypocrisy is layed out for all to see. But the truth is, I hang out with a lot of liberals, both in real life and on liberal blogs and I’ve never seen any support for the teaching of Islam in public schools, other than as part of a comprehensive comparative religion curriculum, or as an integral part of world history or current events. I certainly don’t approve of the methods outlined in the links you provided, and I don’t know of any liberals that do.

Just as, looking back, I don’t approve of saying the lords prayer every day in school, as was done in my classes in elementary school. Or the strong focus of teaching about Christmas when my kids were in elementary school, with the exclusion of instruction about comparable celebrations of other world religions.

If these classes on Islam are as portrayed (which I am certainly not disputing), it is not as part of a far reaching liberal ideology, but rather misguided teachers and administrators using highly inappropriate methods of instruction for a subject that does warrant coverage in a different manner.

For what it’s worth, I am one liberal athiest who supports your opposition. That doesn’t diminish, in any way, the value of the assertion that there are many on the right who want Christianity taught in our public schools. Both are equally inappropriate.

[SK in CV]

The changes to the OTC rules don’t start until 2011. So stock up now. You can still use HSA funds for physician prescribed OTC medications. Your HSA debit card probably won’t work for them, but you can submit a manual reimbursement form.

[SK in CV]

The changes to the OTC rules don’t start until 2011. So stock up now. You can still use HSA funds for physician prescribed OTC medications. Your HSA debit card probably won’t work for them, but you can submit a manual reimbursement form.

[SK in CV]

The changes to the OTC rules don’t start until 2011. So stock up now. You can still use HSA funds for physician prescribed OTC medications. Your HSA debit card probably won’t work for them, but you can submit a manual reimbursement form.

[SK in CV]

The changes to the OTC rules don’t start until 2011. So stock up now. You can still use HSA funds for physician prescribed OTC medications. Your HSA debit card probably won’t work for them, but you can submit a manual reimbursement form.

[SK in CV]

The changes to the OTC rules don’t start until 2011. So stock up now. You can still use HSA funds for physician prescribed OTC medications. Your HSA debit card probably won’t work for them, but you can submit a manual reimbursement form.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
So the state takes my tax money, and I have either the choice of a state mandated secular humanist education or I can forfeit it and pay after tax dollar on a private school…Sounds a bit like state coercion towards the secular humanist school. And the notion that our schools must be absent any mention of God as a real and important part of our lives is indeed a federal mandate…

[/quote]

You can choose to view it as coercion, or state provided choices. The state (little “s”) also provides you with police and fire protection, national defense, regulatory bodies for banks and investment houses, to help protect and ensure the foods and products you buy are safe, park and recreation facilities, roads and public transportation and much more. Some of these you will use directly, some indirectly, some not at all. Some you may support, some you may vehemently disagree with. But you don’t get to choose whether you pay for them, you only get to choose, through the election process, whether those services will be funded. If enough people feel the same way as you, maybe some of these services will be defunded. Public schools are one of the services that have been provided for many generations. And for more than 60 years, the constitution has been interpreted to prohibit the funding of religious instruction in public schools. There is nothing prohibiting you from providing that instruction outside the public school system. Just as there is nothing prohibiting you from providing outside isntruction for many subjects which have also (though for different reasons) been defunded in many school districts. Like music, art, drama, and physical education. No coercion involved. Nobody is coercing you, or your children to be godless athiests. That’s the point of the separation. There is no government coercion.

I don’t really know much about secular humanism. I’m reasonably sure it is not a subject taught in public schools. Certainly not in my kid’s schools. Unless you classify science as secular humanism, that argument fails.

[Author]

Posts