Play up your clinical experiences, even if it was just pushing old folks in wheelchairs, they really want to know that you have spent time around sick folks you aren't related to. If you don't make it this year, adding another type of volunteer clinical experience is really helpful. Don't try to pretend you were diagnosing patients or anything, but just let them know your comfortable being around sick patients.

I'd disregard any cost problem that has to do with implementing the Health Care bill over not implementing it, because health care was going to cause casualties regardless.

Our 15% year over year health company insurance increases started in 2004.

Ours hasn't been as bad, but there was a big hit immediately now (with some estimated back down to the typical 9% of before, then rising again).

Another simple example is dividends/capital gains tax rates possibly changing.

Maybe it's just because it's an anecdote and not based on a very large sample size?

Here's some more anecdotes and/or data:

Aetna Seeking 10 Percent Price Decrease As Medical Spending Falls
May 11, 2011
And

Some firms see health insurance rates drop
November 18, 2011
And

Medicare premiums drop, enrollment rises in health care law
9/16/2011
I don't know, maybe your CFO should be replaced? I mean, I've worked with CFOs who were writing checks to themselves and pocketing the president's AMEX card from the mail and taking a vacation to Venezuela with it and on it. True story. You never know.

At the very least, your CFO should shop around for a better insurance deal. But it also depends on which state your business is located in. State regulators can enforce Medical Loss Ratios better than other states if they want to, it depends on how corrupt they are. Further, I doubt very much that your company, or any company, offshores workers based solely on the health care reform legislation. That's bs, but I don't doubt that your CFO and upper mgt told you that that was the reason. Perfect time to use that excuse before everyone's premiums start falling. I mean, you'd have to see a massive increase in premium costs before that would become a legit reason.

Sounds high. So your monthly payment in 2012 is about 120% of the 2004 monthly payment?

And

New Report: Health Insurance Premiums Decrease in Massachusetts
November 22nd, 2011

And so it goes, even in one of those states with mandated coverage, and 98% coverage of adults and virtually 100% coverage for children, and pretty much the best medical care quality in the country. It's amazing what happens when everyone pays and you get rid of the freeloaders.

YAY RomneyCare!?!?

YAY ObamaCare!!??

Correct. Last year was 55%. Welcome to the world of real small businesses who try to provide health insurance.


Edit: Actually, that's not quite true. We raised deductibles and changed providers 4 times along the way, so we're not nearly as high as we could've been. Plus, some people have dropped off the plan so our portion of the premium payment has dropped because we're not carrying as many people as we could.

You can't tout the one year that it went down from HIGHEST in the nation to ninth as some major success and complete vindication of the mandate. From the post you show above, insurance companies have to ask regulators to lower their premiums! Doesn't that sound wrong to you? Besides the fact that the Govt. is limiting our freedom, they are issuing price controls which every student learns is terrible in Econ 101.

How do we know that regulators didn't force premiums to go down, for the exact reason that people like you could claim a victory for your policies while ultimately causing decreases in the wealth of society?

Insurance companies have had to ask state insurance regulators for premium changes long before Obama or Romney ever came onto the national political scene.

So, you are not happy that Massachusetts has fallen to 9th? It's strange, but it sounds like you are unhappy about that. Why?

And, yeah, they teach a lot of rudimentary knowledge of economics in Econ 101. It's not until mid and upper level courses that you actually begin to learn more complex economic theories and analysis. And then it takes another 5 or 10 years before you begin to realize that you don't know everything, but you know enough to understand what is really going on.

Michael Moore: Compensated Tin Foil endorser.

(and his less than enthused cat)

Seriously.

If 30 million more Americans, or ideally all of Americans, have health care coverage and lead healthier, longer and more productive lives, is not the wealth of society increased?

What is societal wealth? The most profit for a few or the longest, healthiest, and most productive lives for all?

I think you mean - is not the healthiest, longest, most productive monstrosity rammed down the throats of the American people?

Also... CLASS WARFARE!

The fact that insurance companies have to ask regulators to change their prices shows how our governments do not support the free market.

Price controls are bad whether it be Econ 101 or Graduate school economics. I have yet to see one economic study, paper, or news article that supports the use of price controls.

Does helping the people have healthier and longer lives increase wealth in the economy as you ask? Yes it does, but you have not supported the assertion that the mandate has helped accomplished those goals.

Your posts make a lot of assertions and has a small amount of facts to back them up.

This makes you look so naive.

My point is, insurance premiums going down may be a good thing but you cannot claim that the one year it goes down vindicates the entire healthcare mandate for both Romneycare and Obamacare.

That is one statistic, it does not give us an idea on quality of care, the speed of advancements in medicine, or the ultimate value of the coverage Massachusetts' residents now have.

How do we know Mass. residents didn't change to lower premium plans which provide worse coverage and higher deductibles?

Why do you care about market principles when there are people dying from lack of coverage or having their entire lives ruined by health care costs?

Don't you get it? The government WANTS you to lead healthier, more productive lives so it can tax you more! You're just playing into their hands. Wake up, sheeple!

There are so many variables to look at in Mass health care you can't begin to extrapolate nationally. Most states wouldn't start with their higher income levels allowed for Medicaid and schip. They had very generous waivers as well on Medicaid policy. Those alone kept a lot of expensive to manage and expensive to insure people out of the pool. The hard reality of health care reform is that barring massive repeat R or D wave elections this is the only structure change will allow politically.

Expansion of Medicaid in a very limited way

Foisting high deductible, worthless plans on young adults

Subsidizing the same high deductible plans to families in the 3x-6x range.

Allowing drug companies to not face competition or negotiation if they play nice on Med D and poor kids

Letting hospitals keep the link between cost and Med A reimbursement if they jig the numbers to indigent care to maximize federal reimbursement.

It's the same old policy trap in Mass as ever, but some incremental improvement until inflation overwhelms budgets again.

He is afraid a minority will get health care

Because it is the ignorance of those market principles which causes insurance to cost more than it should and causes people to die from lack of coverage.

Price controls cause insurance to cost more?

That's pretty false if you look around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

Could you provide some type of citation for why you think the cause of high insurance prices being a lack of government control? When other countries are clearly able to do a much better job than the country with the least government control.

This should be good.

No, but it causes shortages and it also means the market is not getting the most economic surplus.