long term care insurance cos screw their clients

they raise the payment after peole retire

then hope they cant afford it on a fixed imcome

BOOM

they save a shit load of money huh.


oh but its not their fault


they just created the product and priced it.

do you remember the type of practices ACA knocked the fuck down?


sociopthic tactics to save them yet more money to INCREASE PROFIT
 
I understood the math idiot


who calculated the cost of their product?


when they sold the insurance product did they warn the buyer of huge price increases in the future ?


I bet that was not one of the selling tactics huh

So you are just making moronic assumptions?

And no... you clearly do not understand the basic math.
 
they raise the payment after peole retire

then hope they cant afford it on a fixed imcome

BOOM

they save a shit load of money huh.


oh but its not their fault


they just created the product and priced it.

do you remember the type of practices ACA knocked the fuck down?


sociopthic tactics to save them yet more money to INCREASE PROFIT

odd... but haven't the ACA premiums continued to increase as well?

and no, the premiums have been going up on LTC contracts regardless of whether or not someone is retired. It has nothing to do with if they retired. It has to do with the actuarial numbers and what the insurance companies can afford to give out based on premiums received relative to cost outlays.
 
when did ANYONE claim that they would NEVER rise again asshole


what was their increases BEFORE ACA


fucking ass lump
 
Republicans say the average family health insurance premium has increased by $4,154 under President Obama. That’s right — and it’s a much slower rate of growth than under President George W. Bush. In fact, employer-sponsored premiums have been growing at moderate rates for the past few years.
This is a prime example of what we call a “true, but” claim: an assertion that’s technically correct, but changes in meaning or significance once it’s put in context or fully explained.
The Republican National Committee took to Twitter before Obama gave his State of the Union address to spread this statistic: “Under Obama, Average Family Premiums Have Increased $4,154.” Two days later, Rep. Barbara Comstock tweeted the same stat, and the RNC lists it, along with other premium numbers, in a State of the Union “fact check.”
The average employer-sponsored family premium has gone up by $4,154 under Obama, from 2008, before he took office, to 2014, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual employer survey conducted with the Health Research & Educational Trust. The catch? That’s relatively slow growth for premiums. The RNC may cast it as bad news, but it’s an improvement compared with the growth in premiums before Obama took office.
Under Bush, the average family premiums (including both what employers and employees pay) went up $4,677 in his last six years in office, from 2002 to 2008, an increase of 58 percent. That $4,154 growth under Obama is a 33 percent increase. If we look at Bush’s first six years, the discrepancy gets even bigger: From 2000, the year before Bush was first inaugurated, to 2006, the average family premium went up $5,042, or an increase of 78 percent. (See Exhibit 1.11 on page 31 of the KFF report for these numbers.)
In an online petition to repeal a tax on medical devices, the RNC goes so far as to claim average family premiums “have skyrocketed” under Obama. Skyrocketed? More like inched up. The RNC gives the stat after saying that “Obamacare has been a failure.” That’s the RNC’s opinion, but it’s not supported by this statistic, which includes premium growth before the law was even enacted.
If the RNC wanted to show what has happened to employer-sponsored premiums under the Affordable Care Act, it should have started the clock in 2010, the year the law was passed. But that makes Obama look better. The rate of growth in average premiums from 2010 to 2014 is 22 percent. Even then, the increase isn’t completely attributable to the ACA. Premiums have been going up every year since the KFF survey started measuring them in 1999.
Most of the major provisions of the law didn’t go into effect until 2014, but the growth in the average family premium for that year was a mere 3 percent. That doesn’t mean the ACA was responsible for the slowdown in growth, either.
The Kaiser Family Foundation’s 2014 report on its survey explains how the recent growth is low compared with the early 2000s: “Family premiums have increased 69% since 2004 and have more than doubled since 2002. However, the average family premium has grown less quickly over the last five years than it did between 2004 and 2009 or between 1999 and 2004.” Here’s the KFF’s graphical representation of the slowdown:
 
“Under Obama, Average Family Premiums Have Increased $4,154.” Two days later, Rep. Barbara Comstock tweeted the same stat, and the RNC lists it, along with other premium numbers, in a State of the Union “fact check.”
The average employer-sponsored family premium has gone up by $4,154 under Obama, from 2008, before he took office, to 2014, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual employer survey conducted with the Health Research & Educational Trust. The catch? That’s relatively slow growth for premiums. The RNC may cast it as bad news, but it’s an improvement compared with the growth in premiums before Obama took office.



you fucks lie
 
they need to study this countries history


why was SS created ?


because old people were dying hungry in the streets you fucking sociopathic assholes

If you think that's why SS was created, you're an idiot.

If you care as much for people as you claim, why are they still dying from things you say can be prevented? It's because you personally don't do for them what you say they deserve.
 
Back
Top