Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see that you decided to start a duplicate thread.
Here was my response on that other thread. While you are not hawkeye, it still applies to you:
First, I shall explain something that I hope you can understand.
In law, during a trial, attorneys will call ‘witnesses’ to the stand to testify.
When an attorney calls a witness to the stand, the attorney is said to be ‘sponsoring’ the witness; i.e., the attorney, by putting the person on the stand under oath, is essentially warranting to the court that said witness will give truthful testimony.
For instance, I once represented a criminal defendant who wanted to take the stand on his own behalf. I knew that he was going to lie. Now, he had the utter right to take the stand in his own defense, but I, as an ‘officer of the court’ (as attorneys like to be known) could not ‘sponsor’ his testimony, since he was going to lie. My solution (the common solution by those in the same situation): I called the defendant to the stand, and I said “Mr. Jones, do you have anything to say to the jury”. I then stepped back and let the defendant talk. The District Attorney then got to cross-examine the witness.
Now, why did I tell this story?
Because I believe that when a person starts a thread and posts a link to a news story, blog, etc., the poster is ‘sponsoring’ the facts or opinions contained in the link. That is why I rarely ever provide a link: I cannot truthfully vouch for the veracity of the contents.
Now, you created a thread that provides a link to a website that contains a story. The headline of said story is “Health Actuaries: Obamacare Rates Will Soar”.
The ‘sub’ headline is: “But health law supporters are pushing back, noting ties between the actuaries making the forecasts and an insurance industry that has been complaining about taxes”.
You have refused to explain the ‘conflict’ in the linked story, which makes me believe you did not read it, beyond the large headline. I shall now discuss the story.
Now, what to ‘actuaries’ do. According to the Occupational Outlook Handbook:
“Actuaries analyze the financial costs of risk and uncertainty. They use mathematics, statistics, and financial theory to assess the risk that an event will occur and help businesses and clients develop policies that minimize the cost of that risk. Actuaries' work is essential to the insurance industry.”
The Handbook also states:
“Most actuaries work at insurance companies, where they help design policies and determine the premiums that should be charged for each policy. They must ensure that the premiums are profitable, yet competitive with other insurance companies.”
Note that I do have confidence in my link, since I use this Occupational Outlook Handbook frequently in my work.
The article you link to states that, on the one hand, the actuaries that work for the health insurance companies are forecasting large health care cost increases, citing that ‘medical claims per member will rise 32 percent in the individual plans’.
Yet, the main thrust of the article is this: many (but not all) of these actuaries actually work for the health insurance industry. In states like Texas these health insurance companies must get state approval to raise rates. How much they may raise rates is, in large part, determined by the forecasts of health actuaries.
The insurance companies wish to make a profit. They do not desire that their profits decrease; indeed, they desire an increase. The actuaries that work for these insurance companies are forecasting a large increase in future health care costs, which means that the insurance companies try to raise their rates accordingly (although in many states the size of the increase will be limited by law).
In a nutshell: an actuary will claim: “Next year, I forecast that you (the insurance company) will have to pay out $1,000.00 in health care benefits”.
The insurance company responds: “Thank you actuary. We will set our rates so that we take in gross income of $1,200.00, so that at the end of the year we have $200.00 in profit”.
Now, if the forecast of the future increase in costs is overstated (which the article is claiming, in part), then the insurance company’s profits will be more. So, if the actual benefits paid out are, say, $800.00, then the insurance company will have a profit of $400.00, instead of $200.00. Part of the article is claiming that the actuaries are overstating the future rise in cost, so that the insurance companies may actually earn more.
Now, one of the ‘linked’ articles within your original article notes that while the study by the Society of Actuaries predict that the payout by health insurance companies are expected to rise by 32 percent next year, that does not mean that premiums will rise by that much. From the sub-linked site:
“Q: Does the study predict health insurance premiums will go up 32 percent by 2017?
No. First, it’s only forecasting the individual insurance market. That’s where millions of Americans newly covered under the ACA are expected to find policies. The report says nothing about costs for employer-based health insurance.
Equally important, the 32 percent forecast is for medical expenses paid by insurers, not what insurers will charge in premiums, and not what consumers will pay.”
I do not ‘sponsor’ the foregoing link. However, since several other posters herein claim that the ‘read the other links’ in the original article, I thought it well to examine it.
The original article also notes that some proponents of Obamacare claim that the actuaries are ignoring the fact that due to the rather large number of new insured people entering the marketplace, that competition among the health care insurance provides will act to keep any increase to consumers down.
I will note that while many of those, presently uninsured, entering the new insurance pool will have pre-existing health problems that will cause an immediate new expense to the health care insurance companies, many healthy, younger people will also be entering the pool, who will not require the payout of benefits for many years.
Now, I believe that health care rates will increase. Of course, my rates have increased over the past two-plus decades, without Obamacare. My real estate taxes also rise each year, to cover the cost for the local county hospital that provides care (emergency and clinical) to those who do not have any health insurance.
Believe me, in my job, I review disability cases on a daily basis concerning claimants whom go to the emergency room claiming a headache and receiving MRI brain scans and a host of other diagnostic tests, all of which the local real estate owners pay for. An alarming percentage of these people seem to have money for cigarettes, liquor and cell phones, but then claim they can’t afford health insurance. I hope that Obamacare will get these deadbeats to tossing in some of their own money.
I have eaten up most of my lunch writing this response. However, I say: if you are going to link to an article, have the gonads to read the article and explain to other posters what the article is about.
The implication of the above post-
Actuaries are liars and attorneys tell the truth. Got it!
More like a kick in the pants. I feel bad for the businesses in which this stupid law has already kicked in. Many folks are facing fewer hours of work and smaller paychecks. This is going to hurt a lot of businesses because people will not be able to afford these higher costs. The so-called "Affordable" Health Care Act is not what it says it is.
Less hours = smaller paychecks = smaller tax revenues = more government subsidy of health insurance = more debt and deficits.
It would be hilarious if it weren't so ******** stupid!
Less hours = smaller paychecks = smaller tax revenues = more government subsidy of health insurance = more debt and deficits.
It would be hilarious if it weren't so ******** stupid!
So what you are saying is that you have no idea what it says in the article and you are simply spouting talking points that your talking heads have told you what to say and think. Figures.
So what you are saying is that you have no idea what it says in the article and you are simply spouting talking points that your talking heads have told you what to say and think. Figures.
And what you're saying is you cant support the bill, so you'd rather attack other posters for posting what will be the obvious outcome of crap YOU called for..
Evidently some people thought free healthcare for everyone would be free. Interesting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
