Union pulls support for Obamacare, a sign of things to come?

[BanginJimmy]

Exactly my point above. If you can't set rates based on pre-existing conditions, they can't determine risk at an individual level and thus large businesses lose their negotiating advantage. This will lead to more flat rates for everyone regardless of whether they work for a megacorp or if they are a business of one. This will encourage entrepreneurship and a more mobile workforce since people won't be so afraid to lose their company health benefits.

No, it will lead to FAR higher rates for most people that either wouldnt qualify, or wouldnt be able to afford health care without the unbrella of their employer. Part of most employer coverage plans is a waiver from pre-existing conditions limitations.

I really do understand your POV. We both recognize it COULD be better. Our main disagreement is that you have given up on government to EVER get better at efficiency, whereas I have not. Unfortunately, I fear your 17% to 25% GDP numbers will be true whether we have a single payer system or not.

It will only go so high under the current system. At some point the costs will become too restrictive and as a result, constrict the market. When the govt is printing money as fast as the presses will go, you dont have that restriction and as a result, you wont limit the market.

[David88vert]

As I said before. It's actually irrelevant. Employees recognize that company health care benefits have a lot of value even if they don't know the exact dollar amount. People definitely take benefits into account when looking at jobs, not just salaries. Yes the opacity of health care costs can make it more difficult to judge but it is very much a factor.

At my current level, health care benefits are still a major part of employee compensation. I know that lower paid employees have less emphasis on them, as I used to be one, but my point is that what the company pays out is relevant if you are looking to see if the employee is still getting the same compensation for their job as before. If you cut $2K out from what the employer pays out, but only give the employee $500 more, then the employee is then receiving less compensation for the same work. Right now, they don't know what the employer is paying out.

If salary negotiations are actually just dictates from employers, why would they pay anyone more than minimum wage? I think your argument makes sense for minimum wage jobs but I don't see how it applies to better paying jobs.

Lower wage earners don't tend to be good negotiators of compensation. If they were, they would not be lower wage earners. Aren't these the people that Obama wants to help?

But companies didn't just get rid of pensions, they replaced them with 401(k)s. Now you can argue that the value of 401k contributions did not match up with pension benefits but that is a hard case to prove and is rather subjective. For example, if your company went bust, you may lose your entire pension. A 401(k) is yours even if your company goes under. Also, as you mentioned, some companies still have pensions. Why didn't they just get rid of them and thus lower their costs as you suggest would happen with health care benefits? It's because they know it will attract employees who consider a pension a valuable addition to their salary.

Funded Pensions are usually used by private employers and were paid into plans. Unfunded ones are usually state governments. If the company went belly up, the pension plan still was in place, and you still get your benefits as the pension was funded.
Do you realize that most of the pension plans have been killed off since 2008? They are being replaced or eliminated very quickly now at an accelerated pace. The only reason that the last 30 companies haven't replaced them is that they haven't had HR do it yet.

Sure, in the short term it may work like that on an individual company basis, but over time, their employees will switch to other jobs that provide them more total compensation. My main argument is that company health benefits are not totally different from salary. They are both forms of compensation that employees care about and take into their decision making.

I agree that they are both compensation - that's what I have said this whole time.
Employees won't switch jobs much when the economy is down - fear keeps them in place. Companies take advantage and reduce benefits when the economy is down. When the economy is booming, and its hard to find employees, then they will add in more benefits to attract more employees.
You can see it with raises right now - many employees have not been getting raises for several years, yet they stay in place.

We are having the same problem here in our quasi-free market system. Health care costs are becoming overbearing. So while you are right that a single payer system won't solve that problem, our free market system isn't solving it either.

Correct. Costs will rise until the demand for healthcare services starts to decline. Supply and demand.

Individual plans are only difficult to do because you have to look into those individuals medical history. If pre-existing conditions can not be used as a basis for policies, there is no longer a need to do that laborious work.

If you can't access medical history, then you have no way to assign risk, other than a vague, generic amount. We see this with car insurance. Right now, they can look at your DMV record - what happens if they no longer can look and see how many points that you have? The answer is that they will raise the rates across the board. They will still cover their bases - they won't operate at a loss. Someone has to pay for it all - all you are doing is shifting the cost to someone who should have had a lower rate.

[Sinfix_15]

Insurers predict 100%-400% Obamacare rate explosion | WashingtonExaminer.com

[.blank cd]

Just had an insurance meeting. Our premiums went down again!

Whatever Obamacare is, I need more of it!

[Sinfix_15]

I'm a moron, i eat whatever father government puts on my plate

edit

[David88vert]

Huff Post is reporting that young men will pay more under Obamacare. No surprise.
Young Men Will Pay More Under Obamacare

Obamacare is so good that Congress is talking about exempting themselves from it:
Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption - John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

[.blank cd]

edit

Cheaper insurance. I'll eat it.

[.blank cd]

Huff Post is reporting that young men will pay more under Obamacare. No surprise.
Young Men Will Pay More Under Obamacare

"Particularly those who aren't covered by their employers"

That's gotta be about 1% of everybody. Lol

[Sinfix_15]

Cheaper insurance. I'll eat it.

Are you gonna support the next democrat elected president as much as you do Obama????

you know...... sometime around 2040 when it happens....

There will be no denying who perfumed up this pig..... its all you, democrats.

[.blank cd]

Are you gonna support the next democrat elected president as much as you do Obama????

you know...... sometime around 2040 when it happens....

There will be no denying who perfumed up this pig..... its all you, democrats.

Why do you think I support Obama so much?

You mean in 2016? Doubt you see a republican president this time around. Unless they changed up their act. But they could surprise me

[Sinfix_15]

Why do you think I support Obama so much?

Because i'm not blind and can read.

[.blank cd]

Because i'm not blind and can read.

Overstatement of the day.

[Sinfix_15]

Overstatement of the day.

Just be yourself kid, it's easier that way.

[bu villain]

Because people that employ higher wage earners know what the market dictates for someone with a particular resume. In fields that still negotiate salary, competition for the best and brightest go a long way to decide salary and benefit packages.

Exactly, David was saying that no other form of compensation would take the place of health care benefits if a company got rid of them. I agree with you, competition for employees would force them to compensate in another way to make up for it. The labor force still generally behaves according to market principles with or without health insurance being one particular form of compensation in the mix.

Surprisingly, you are correct. You are forgetting one aspect though. Without doing any research, I am willing to bet that most, if not all, of the companies still offering a defined benefit pension are union shops. You can also add mobility in the workforce has really lessened the usefulness of a traditional pension. People just arent staying in a job for 30 or 40 years and retiring like they used to. I used to work with a guy that started there in the late 60's. It was his first job after he got out of the military, and the military was his first job period. People simply dont do that anymore, so you will see that fewer and fewer hourly employees actually see it as the benefit they used to see it as.

I'm not forgetting it, I just don't see it as that relevant. Compensation was not cut across the board when companies started shifting to 401(k)s. That is my argument. Your statement about mobility is one of the reasons I think single payer is an option to be considered. Company health benefits are a barrier to mobility. We shouldn't dictate what benefits companies can give, but we can have an alternative that makes it less of an issue.

This may happen, but probably not in the numbers it would take to force companies to change their practices.

Then those companies will not be able to attract the best talent. That's fine. The labor market won't collapse.

Most of the reasons for the rise in healthcare costs are caused by the govt. You can look at tort laws, you can look at medicare/medicaid, or you can look at state directed mandated coverage. Can you think of a single govt program that brings the cost of health care down? I know I cant.

If you go back and read what I wrote again, I specifically stated that single payer would not solve our health care cost problem. I also stated that our free market system isn't solving it either though.

And if you cant look at their history, how are you going to accurately quote a price for the coverage? Just like when you apply for car insurance, they look at your history to assess the risk, then charge in accordance with that risk.

You do it exactly the same way they do now for large companies. You base it on averages.

[David88vert]

"Particularly those who aren't covered by their employers"

That's gotta be about 1% of everybody. Lol

It's a lot more than 1% - come into the real world. You are looking at minimum 25% of the work force. Go out on Cobb Parkway and see how many business and people will be affected.

And it's funny how you ignored my second link - Congress working to exempt themselves from Obamacare, and you have nothing to say about it?

[Vteckidd]

Just had an insurance meeting. Our premiums went down again!

Whatever Obamacare is, I need more of it!

What kind of plan do you have, and why did it go down. What company do you have?

Im sorry, but you are not representative of the entire country. The Raw data shows how costly it is.

Health Insurance Premiums Rise Sharply in 2011 - ABC News

Smallest increase of 4%, 5% expected next year.
Health insurance premiums see smallest increase in 15 years - Nov. 14, 2012

I mean using your critical thinking skills, covering MORE PEOPLE without charging for it will cause prices to rise. Im betting theres something more to your situation or you are in the extreme extreme minority of people seeing a decrease.

Health Insurance Premium Increases Vowed By Companies For 2014

"The Congressional Budget Office projects that health insurance premiums will increase by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent as a result of the health care law, not including the effect of the subsidies. "



Facts are Facts, premiums are up, despite Obamacare being law and all signs point to more cost as the law gets more an more implemented

[bu villain]

I responded to most of this within my response to Jimmy but just to add a few more details

At my current level, health care benefits are still a major part of employee compensation. I know that lower paid employees have less emphasis on them, as I used to be one, but my point is that what the company pays out is relevant if you are looking to see if the employee is still getting the same compensation for their job as before. If you cut $2K out from what the employer pays out, but only give the employee $500 more, then the employee is then receiving less compensation for the same work. Right now, they don't know what the employer is paying out.

If the employees won't know the difference, why don't they just cut their $2k health benefits and give those employees $500 more right now?

Lower wage earners don't tend to be good negotiators of compensation. If they were, they would not be lower wage earners. Aren't these the people that Obama wants to help?

Same response as above. Why are they currently giving these benefits if their employees don't know the difference.

Funded Pensions are usually used by private employers and were paid into plans. Unfunded ones are usually state governments. If the company went belly up, the pension plan still was in place, and you still get your benefits as the pension was funded.
Do you realize that most of the pension plans have been killed off since 2008? They are being replaced or eliminated very quickly now at an accelerated pace. The only reason that the last 30 companies haven't replaced them is that they haven't had HR do it yet.

But how does that support your argument that the replacement of pensions with 401(k) resulted in lower overall compensation for employees?

I agree that they are both compensation - that's what I have said this whole time.
Employees won't switch jobs much when the economy is down - fear keeps them in place. Companies take advantage and reduce benefits when the economy is down. When the economy is booming, and its hard to find employees, then they will add in more benefits to attract more employees.
You can see it with raises right now - many employees have not been getting raises for several years, yet they stay in place.

Yes companies can often reduce benefits in compensation and salary in a bad economy. But that is true whether you have health care benefits or not so I fail to see how health care benefits deserve any special consideration here.

Correct. Costs will rise until the demand for healthcare services starts to decline. Supply and demand.

Good then we can agree this is a separate topic for the time being.

If you can't access medical history, then you have no way to assign risk, other than a vague, generic amount. We see this with car insurance. Right now, they can look at your DMV record - what happens if they no longer can look and see how many points that you have? The answer is that they will raise the rates across the board. They will still cover their bases - they won't operate at a loss. Someone has to pay for it all - all you are doing is shifting the cost to someone who should have had a lower rate.

Yes, that is exactly what I expect to happen. Many people will receive higher rates to cover those with preexisting conditions. The whole point of insurance is to shift costs. Coming from a young, healthy person, I fully understand my premiums will undoubtedly go up but I still believe it is a better option for society as a whole.

[Vteckidd]

"Particularly those who aren't covered by their employers"

That's gotta be about 1% of everybody. Lol

you should step into reality more.

The percentage of people covered through employer-sponsored health care plans fell to a record low 55.3% in 2010. That's a drop from 56.1% in 2009 and continues a trend of annual decreases that began in 2001.

Correspondingly, the number of people enrolled in employment-based plans dropped to 169.3 million in 2010, down from 170.8 million in 2009.

Employment-based coverage peaked in 2000, when 181.9 million people were covered by employer-sponsored plans, according to the Census Bureau.

Source of coverage Percent

Employment based
55.3

Direct purchase
9.8

Medicare
14.5

Medicaid
15.9

Military health care
4.2

Uninsured
16.3

[Sinfix_15]

The IRS Is Accessing Your Health Records. You Trust Them? - Forbes

[David88vert]

I responded to most of this within my response to Jimmy but just to add a few more details

If the employees won't know the difference, why don't they just cut their $2k health benefits and give those employees $500 more right now?

Same response as above. Why are they currently giving these benefits if their employees don't know the difference.

But how does that support your argument that the replacement of pensions with 401(k) resulted in lower overall compensation for employees?

Yes companies can often reduce benefits in compensation and salary in a bad economy. But that is true whether you have health care benefits or not so I fail to see how health care benefits deserve any special consideration here.

Good then we can agree this is a separate topic for the time being.

Yes, that is exactly what I expect to happen. Many people will receive higher rates to cover those with preexisting conditions. The whole point of insurance is to shift costs. Coming from a young, healthy person, I fully understand my premiums will undoubtedly go up but I still believe it is a better option for society as a whole.

It's really very simple.

Employers currently know that if they give health benefits, they are more likely to retain their employees for a longer period of time. They don't hire the best employees - they hire the ones that are the most profitable for the company. If they simply wanted the best, there would be no such thing as outsourcing. They want those that can make them profit, and if they can use health benefits to keep the employee there longer, they will. If you take that away nationwide, then they simply won't offer that benefit anymore. They aren't going to give out $500 more in salary and cut the health benefits, as that does not succeed in tying the employee to the company as tightly as health insurance does.
The employee doesn't know the cost, but he does know that if he leaves, he loses his health insurance - and many are afraid to lose it with the high cost of emergency care.

Healthcare benefits have a psychological impact on the employee more so than just salary, as people get attached to a doctor/physician, and many do not want to change to a company that may not have that same doctor/physician listed on their health care provider plans. For this reason, it is different than straight salary or vacation days.

Two things that you do not seem to have contemplated is that, while you are willing to pay more to help cover others insurance costs, not everyone feels the same way as you. Many think that there is no problem to pay extra to help cover others, but others think that each should cover their own family and costs. Why should one group force their will on the other group?
The other thing is that many of those that will end up suddenly insured, are not currently insured - by choice. They currently choose to spend their money on other luxury items - TVs, cars, better housing, etc (non-necessities). I used to see it all the time when I had a retail business. I sold car audio systems back then, and I saw many people that chose to spend their money on amps and subs, rather than get health insurance. These are a lot of the people that you will be insuring under Obamacare.

[BanginJimmy]

You do it exactly the same way they do now for large companies. You base it on averages.

How do you average 1 person or 1 family?

[.blank cd]

What kind of plan do you have, and why did it go down. What company do you have?

Im sorry, but you are not representative of the entire country. The Raw data shows how costly it is.

We're with Aetna. Im not a representative sample, but you cant really ignore the fact that at the very least, 200 people have lower premiums this year.

I mean using your critical thinking skills, covering MORE PEOPLE without charging for it will cause prices to rise. Im betting theres something more to your situation or you are in the extreme extreme minority of people seeing a decrease.

If more people are contributing, how do prices rise? I think you're forgetting the end result of getting more people on healthcare. This isn't just a bunch of people getting healthcare for nothing through the insurance system.

Facts are Facts, premiums are up, despite Obamacare being law and all signs point to more cost as the law gets more an more implemented

Except for me and pretty much the rest of the company, who's premiums went down last year, and are down this year. And I severely doubt we're the ONLY company who's premiums went down.

So either A: this premiums rising for everyone rhetoric is BS, or B: Premiums went up and the company....gasp....absorbed the costs! How non business-like of them. Lol.

[Vteckidd]

We're with Aetna. Im not a representative sample, but you cant really ignore the fact that at the very least, 200 people have lower premiums this year.

If more people are contributing, how do prices rise? I think you're forgetting the end result of getting more people on healthcare. This isn't just a bunch of people getting healthcare for nothing through the insurance system.

Except for me and pretty much the rest of the company, who's premiums went down last year, and are down this year. And I severely doubt we're the ONLY company who's premiums went down.

So either A: this premiums rising for everyone rhetoric is BS, or B: Premiums went up and the company....gasp....absorbed the costs! How non business-like of them. Lol.

Its not rhetoric, i just gave you charts and examples of how everyone from liberals and conservatives and the Govt itself knows premiums are rising. Its not even debatable.

You dont know what you are talking about, you should go read the law.

The first thing Obamacare did was cover Contraception for women, and extend Health Insurance to kids till 26. That is covering MORE people without charging for it.

We have not seen the effects of the Mandatory Insurance Clause yet as it is not in effect. I cant give you those numbers because they dont exist. But, I hypothesize that most businesses will do what they do now, pay the fine and not cover people, and then people will be forced to go buy their own insurance or pay a fine/tax.

Again, its not even an argument, premiums are at record heights , despite 3 years of Obamacare being implemented.

[bu villain]

It's really very simple.

Employers currently know that if they give health benefits, they are more likely to retain their employees for a longer period of time. They don't hire the best employees - they hire the ones that are the most profitable for the company. If they simply wanted the best, there would be no such thing as outsourcing. They want those that can make them profit, and if they can use health benefits to keep the employee there longer, they will. If you take that away nationwide, then they simply won't offer that benefit anymore. They aren't going to give out $500 more in salary and cut the health benefits, as that does not succeed in tying the employee to the company as tightly as health insurance does.
The employee doesn't know the cost, but he does know that if he leaves, he loses his health insurance - and many are afraid to lose it with the high cost of emergency care.

Healthcare benefits have a psychological impact on the employee more so than just salary, as people get attached to a doctor/physician, and many do not want to change to a company that may not have that same doctor/physician listed on their health care provider plans. For this reason, it is different than straight salary or vacation days.

This doesn't refute any of my points which to reiterate are:

(1) Total compensation would not significantly decrease if health care is not an offered benefit - you actually give evidence that bolsters my stance by saying that health benefits are worth more than the monetary face value to employers because they tie the employer more closely to the company.

(2) We should have a health care policy that removes barriers for the labor force to be more mobile/entrepreneurial

Two things that you do not seem to have contemplated is that, while you are willing to pay more to help cover others insurance costs, not everyone feels the same way as you. Many think that there is no problem to pay extra to help cover others, but others think that each should cover their own family and costs. Why should one group force their will on the other group?

It's not forcing my will because it must be implemented through a democratic process. If we only had to follow the laws we agree with on an individual level, that would be rather chaotic.

The other thing is that many of those that will end up suddenly insured, are not currently insured - by choice. They currently choose to spend their money on other luxury items - TVs, cars, better housing, etc (non-necessities). I used to see it all the time when I had a retail business. I sold car audio systems back then, and I saw many people that chose to spend their money on amps and subs, rather than get health insurance. These are a lot of the people that you will be insuring under Obamacare.

As I stated above, there will always be people who wish a certain law did not apply to them. If we can carve out reasonable exceptions, then that makes sense to do but in the case of health insurance, you really need everyone in from the beginning. It is the only way to avoid people from jumping on the wagon only after they get sick. Having everyone in the pool is an unfortunate necessity.

[bu villain]

How do you average 1 person or 1 family?

How do they do it now when they write a policy for a large company? Think of it this way, the whole country is now a large company. The insurance company's actuarial team looks up medical statistics including their own data from over the years and determines the average cost of payments. The next year they analyze again and raise or lower premiums accordingly. This is basically how they determine premiums now in a large company policy.

[David88vert]

We're with Aetna. Im not a representative sample, but you cant really ignore the fact that at the very least, 200 people have lower premiums this year.

If more people are contributing, how do prices rise? I think you're forgetting the end result of getting more people on healthcare. This isn't just a bunch of people getting healthcare for nothing through the insurance system.

Except for me and pretty much the rest of the company, who's premiums went down last year, and are down this year. And I severely doubt we're the ONLY company who's premiums went down.

So either A: this premiums rising for everyone rhetoric is BS, or B: Premiums went up and the company....gasp....absorbed the costs! How non business-like of them. Lol.

Perhaps its because Aetna is avoiding Obamacare.
Aetna Seeks To Avoid Obamacare Rules Next Year

[eraser4g63]

Blank you premiums may have gone down, what about you actual coverage and co-pays?

[BanginJimmy]

How do they do it now when they write a policy for a large company? Think of it this way, the whole country is now a large company. The insurance company's actuarial team looks up medical statistics including their own data from over the years and determines the average cost of payments. The next year they analyze again and raise or lower premiums accordingly. This is basically how they determine premiums now in a large company policy.

They use company wide averaging like you said. They also look at the industry you work in and the type of work you do. An engineering firm that does most of its work on a computer is going to have a cheaper plan for the exact same coverages than an industrial firm whose employees work on heavy objects and in tight spaces.

Why cant you do the same for the entire country? Differences in the cost of health care in different regions is one. individual under writing would be too expensive is another.

[David88vert]

This doesn't refute any of my points which to reiterate are:

(1) Total compensation would not significantly decrease if health care is not an offered benefit - you actually give evidence that bolsters my stance by saying that health benefits are worth more than the monetary face value to employers because they tie the employer more closely to the company.

(2) We should have a health care policy that removes barriers for the labor force to be more mobile/entrepreneurial

It's not forcing my will because it must be implemented through a democratic process. If we only had to follow the laws we agree with on an individual level, that would be rather chaotic.

As I stated above, there will always be people who wish a certain law did not apply to them. If we can carve out reasonable exceptions, then that makes sense to do but in the case of health insurance, you really need everyone in from the beginning. It is the only way to avoid people from jumping on the wagon only after they get sick. Having everyone in the pool is an unfortunate necessity.

I think that you think that I am trying to refute all of your argument - I am not. I am pointing out some realities that have to be addressed.

Total compensation would decrease, there is no question of that; however, if the employee is receiving health benefits from another source, they may or may not perceive these changes/decreases. The employers might find other benefits to attract employees to stay for long periods, that is certainly possible, and in some fields, I would say even likely. Regardless, the employee would see a decrease in compensation if the employer is no longer paying out part of the healthcare plan, and does not add in some other type of compensation.

I do not have a problem with the concept of healthcare being decoupled from employment - it is empowering to the employee. It's something to be very careful on though.

As to the democratic process, you can claim that if you want, but it is hardly bi-partisan when a particular party completely overrides the other. Obamacare was pure Democratic Party platform.

If Obamacare is so good, why was it only Democrats that voted for it, and now those same Democrats are talking about exempting THEMSELVES from the plan that they passed?
Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption - John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

[BanginJimmy]

Perhaps its because Aetna is avoiding Obamacare.
Aetna Seeks To Avoid Obamacare Rules Next Year

The new ACA requirements also will mean some health benefit plans that customers have selected previously will not be available to them in 2014."

But I thought we could keep our current plan if we like it?

Let me double check.



Yep. We can keep out plan if we like it. Obama says so.

[Vteckidd]

Blank you premiums may have gone down, what about you actual coverage and co-pays?

damnit, that was my other point. His premiums could go down and his plan could be worth less than it was last year. That is totally possible as well.

[.blank cd]

Its not rhetoric, i just gave you charts and examples of how everyone from liberals and conservatives and the Govt itself knows premiums are rising. Its not even debatable.

The piece of paper that shows what they're withholding from my check and 200 others this year would like to debate with you. Lol.

[.blank cd]

Blank you premiums may have gone down, what about you actual coverage and co-pays?

Nothing decreased this year or last year except my premium. Exact same coverage.

[.blank cd]

And as a matter of fact, they had to add my wife in the middle of her pregnancy since maternity isn't a pre existing condition. But I have to give Clinton credit for that one, not Obama (sorry brah)

[Sinfix_15]

Perhaps its because Aetna is avoiding Obamacare.
Aetna Seeks To Avoid Obamacare Rules Next Year

I guess blank is going to pretend this post didnt happen.

Reality welcomes you blank, whenever you decide to become a part of it.

[Vteckidd]

The piece of paper that shows what they're withholding from my check and 200 others this year would like to debate with you. Lol.

So , are you really attempting to say that you dont believe Premiums are rising because you, and a select other few have not seen an increase? Thats like saying the economy is great because your Uncle got hired at Burger King.

I thought you ran your own business?

[.blank cd]

I guess blank is going to pretend this post didnt happen.

Reality welcomes you blank, whenever you decide to become a part of it.

All I get out of this post was noise. What was your point? I read the post.

[Vteckidd]

Nothing decreased this year or last year except my premium. Exact same coverage.

I still dont believe it, there is something that has changed. Post a copy of this years statement vs last. I also have Aetna and my premium (single male 30+) rose this year.

Even AETNA, sees your premiums rising
Aetna CEO Warns of Approaching Health Insurance

I actually know the reason why your premium decreased after doing some minor research. Wonder if you know what it is.

[Sinfix_15]

All I get out of this post was noise. What was your point? I read the post.

Ignorance is bliss. Keep your blinders on if it makes you happy.

[.blank cd]

So , are you really attempting to say that you dont believe Premiums are rising because you, and a select other few have not seen an increase? Thats like saying the economy is great because your Uncle got hired at Burger King.

I thought you ran your own business?

I'm saying that before I make a hasty generalization, I like to know all the details. That's how I run a business.