Comments on: PREMIUM BS FROM THE LA TIMES

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:45:19 +0000

I’m self insured and my cost for coverage increased 27% from 2007 to 2008. Just sayin…

By: Matt Horn

Matt Horn — Mon, 05 May 2008 15:05:44 +0000

Been pretty busy so sorry for the AWOL. Marc, it depends. In reform markets, differentials are considered discriminatory and are illegal. In non-reform markets, there is sometimes a differential. This differential in every case that I have seen is regressive, meaning that the higher compensated employees pay a larger portion of their premiums.

By: Marc Brown

Marc Brown — Sun, 04 May 2008 21:30:35 +0000

Are you saying that employer contributions are totally independent of salary?

By: Joe C.

Joe C. — Sun, 04 May 2008 03:00:21 +0000

Well, they adsorb the increase by way of wage stagnation. 3% in a 4 year period? That’s piss poor.

By: Catron

Catron — Sat, 03 May 2008 22:12:01 +0000

Cut the crap, Marc. The Times is obviously trying to create the impression that families absorbed a $2,500 increase.

If they were playing it straight, they would have used the figures I provided, and their title would not have shouted “Workers’ health insurance costs soar.”

This should be obvious—even to you.

By: Marc Brown

Marc Brown — Sat, 03 May 2008 14:58:13 +0000

‘The average cost nationally of family coverage during the period increased nearly $2,500, to $10,728 from $8,281.

Man that seems like a big jump. And it would be—-if it were true. ‘

Er, it is true. You seem to think it refers to what employees pay - it clearly says ‘family coverage’, which is both employer/employee contributions. The point of course is that the overall cost increases has led to many employers dropping their coverage.

By: Susan

Susan — Sat, 03 May 2008 13:39:54 +0000

Just found your blog. Really like your emphasis on the numbers. Sadly lacking in the current debate which is all based on emotion and demagoguery. If we are going to have a debate on health care, on medicine, well we should at least try to base our conclusions on science. I lost all respect for the public health community’s abuse of statistics when I found out one of the ways they measure the health status of Americans when compared to the health status of citizens of other countries was by comparing the amount of money spent on health by the government! I can’t remember a more foolish abuse of statistics. My health status is NOT a function of how much money is spent on my health, preventive or otherwise. That may be a rough measure for Third World countries struggling to immunize their populations, it is ludicrous when talking about the U.S.