If all you get is the specific data, and its data you can't check, than your essentially relying on an argument from authority with the provider of the data as the authority.
In that case you should pay attention to the person giving the information. Arguments from authority are pretty weak anyway, but arguments from biased or unreliable authorities are even weaker.
But the post didn't just provide the conclusion. When you have more than just the conclusion you can analyze the reasoning behind the conclusion.
And the important points that where mostly simply asserted seem to be pretty solid.
"you had an increase from the underlying rate of medical costs—inflation from hospitals, physicians, drugs, devices, technology. You then had the fact that as a result of the economy, healthy members who had been insured for some time but found themselves in tight economic circumstances were canceling their insurance. So you lose the subsidy that is keeping the premium affordable for the insurance pool. At the same time you had a third factor: Healthy young members, as a result of the economy, not entering the insurance pool."
Seems hard to dispute.
"If you're a small plan and you experience costs that you simply weren't able to price for, there could very well be insolvencies."
is true, the only question is its relevance. How much are the costs of providing insurance going to be increased by new coverage regulations? If past experience (see New York State, and I think MS, and NJ) is anything to go buy the increase will likely be large. |
