Obamacare increases. Sticking with my prediction

[JustRalph]

http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/own-small-business-brace-obamacare-pain

30-40 percent was my prediction. Mosties laughed at me.......and others.

Nevada reporting problems?

[Clocker]

Local insurance brokers are reporting spikes ranging from 35 percent to 120 percent on policies that renew from July to December.

Can't wait to see what the administration comes up with to delay those increases until after the election.

If they put half the effort into jobs and the economy as they put into CYA on ObamaCare, Benghazi, IRS scandals and other disasters, the unemployment rate and the GDP growth rate would both be about 4%.

[Clocker]

And the hits just keep on coming. Yet another unintended consequence of ObamaCare is that doctors are selling out their private practices to hospitals and becoming employees of large health care corporations. And this increases many costs of care (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/06/oncologists-move-to-out-patient-office-means-cancer-costs-more/8723365/). And as those costs go up, insurance premiums go up. As do out of pocket costs to patients.

Spending on cancer medications has risen dramatically in the past two years as doctors have moved away from small practices toward physicians' groups, according to a report released Tuesday.That's because hospital out-patient clinics can charge the government as much as double for an injectable drug than can a doctor's office, because hospitals have higher overhead costs, states the study from IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics.

"Reimbursed costs for hospitals are at least double those in doctors' offices," said Murray Aitken, IMS Health senior vice president. "This is bringing sharply higher costs to payers, particularly over the past two years."

For example, bevacizumab, or Avastin, which is used to treat colorectal, kidney and some lung cancers, costs about $2,500 per dose in the doctor's office and $8,500 a dose in an out-patient clinic. Pertuzumab, or Perjeta, which is used to treat breast cancer, costs about $4,000 in the doctor's office and $10,000 at the hospital.

Single-payer organizations, such as accountable-care organizations, paid less for medications because they carefully coordinate care to make sure each patient receives the best treatment at the lowest cost. That works for some insurers and Medicare systems that have already made the switch. But hospitals have bought out individual doctors, and doctors have moved into physicians' groups, in part to get ready for a shift from Medicare from fee-for-service to coordinated care. This places them in the higher billing category until they actually change from the fee-for-service system.

[classhandicapper]

And the hits just keep on coming. Yet another unintended consequence of ObamaCare is that doctors are selling out their private practices to hospitals and becoming employees of large health care corporations. And this increases many costs of care (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/06/oncologists-move-to-out-patient-office-means-cancer-costs-more/8723365/). And as those costs go up, insurance premiums go up. As do out of pocket costs to patients.

It seems we are being pushed in the exact opposite direction of where we should be going. Instead of getting more innovative and efficient, we are getting less so.

[HUSKER55]

what did you expect from BO?

[Dark Horse]

Corporation here has changed all full time workers to 2 days only. So they don't have to cover for Obamacare.

[Clocker]

It seems we are being pushed in the exact opposite direction of where we should be going. Instead of getting more innovative and efficient, we are getting less so.

Unintended consequences are seemingly inevitable when people try to manage things that they have no experience with. The medical profession has been complaining for years about the regulatory burden on their industry. ObamaCare is the straw that broke the camel's back for a lot of people.

As the regulatory burden increases, economies of scale make it more efficient for large operations to deal with it. Sole practitioner doctors or small group practices are increasingly selling their practices and either retiring or becoming salaried employees. These practices are being bought by private hospitals or by insurance companies, who consolidate them into large clinics, as discussed in the linked story above. The clinics can charge more and can operate more efficiently with a large office staff dedicated to regulatory compliance.

Another trend is insurance companies are not only buying medical practices, they are buying private hospitals. This could result in the ultimate narrow network. You buy our insurance, you can only see our doctors, and you can only go to our hospitals.

[boxcar]

what did you expect from BO?

Exactly! Plus the adjective "Affordable" in the name of the act was an iron-lock guarantee that that ObamaCare would be anything but. Whatever government says, you can bank on it going the opposite way.

Boxcar

[Dave Schwartz]

Below is part of the article about Nevada.

We have HPN instead of NV Health Co-Op but our experience has been similar to his in some ways.

Example: The agency that enrolled us (3rd party; signed us up, got commission, and now does not answer the telephone) has just become a waste of time. If I leave them a nasty message, in 4-5 days they call back but never follow up on whatever issue I tell them about. Kind of like "We've got the commission already, thanks."

The part about getting incorrect answers is also true. This is especially true of getting authorizations. Beth had an elective surgery yesterday. When the process of deciding which doctor to use first came up, she had narrowed it down to two, both of whom were "in our network." The two organizations quoted 2 different co-pay amounts received from our company: (You will love this.) One said that our portion would be $500 and the other said $5,000! The correct number was $500.

Thus far, EVERY approval we have had to get was wrong at least once.

Example: When I went for physical therapy for my shoulder, I was told that I was approved for 3x per week for 1 year at $10 co-pay per visit. The Physical therapy org was told that I would "probably be approved for 10 visits total." 52 x 3 was correct, although I actually only went 2x for about 7 weeks.

Example 2: I went for a hearing aid test to an in-network provider. Everything - exams, testing, etc. (most thorough I have ever had) was $10. However, when they went to quote on the hearing aid, they were told that my coverage demanded 50% of the cost or $75, whichever was more. The actual coverage turned out to be 50% of the cost or $75, whichever was LESS! The difference? About $2,700!

Of course, in this example, things are still messed up as it seems this organization is approved to do the testing but not actually sell the devices. LOL

In my opinion, the administration of the coverage demands a way too much from the insured. The days of going into the doctor's office and just getting your procedure approved without follow up by the insured is just gone from the arena.

As in the hearing aid example, when I was told $75 or 50%, whichever is MORE, I literally laughed because I knew it wasn't true. Why? Because we had already put in an hour on hold to get our own verification.

That is what it takes: personal time commitment. I am not so sure this is not intentional on the part of the insurance company. After all, how many people will simply accept the wrong answer and not get a procedure done, saving the insurance company money? Certainly many of those at the lower education/income levels will give up easier.

Of course, that translates to "poor people" often.

BTW, I think that has been a common denominator in most of the negative ACA posts: poor people who do not know they can follow up.

My bottom line opinion is:
We (personally) have the best health insurance and healthcare that we have ever had at a rate that is insanely expensive, that we can barely afford, but probably half of true market price. IOW, the coverage is just tremendous.

The administration of the policies are just horrible. People are treated unfairly. They pay for coverage that they cannot actually use and, without a great effort on their part, the wrongs are not being righted. (The insurance commissioner's office must be swamped with complaints.)

I think it a bit ironic that the less-healthy and/or poor you are now, the more likely you are to have access to good health care.

Lastly, I still do not see how the country can afford to pay for this.



■ Nevada Health Link exchange enrollee James Kurien wrote us after reading about locals getting billed by the system for coverage they didn’t have. We urged readers to consider sending in payments to ensure their plan stayed in place, with the idea that billing snafus would get worked out eventually.

Kurien wasn’t so sure about that: “My experience to date is I can’t get an email or call returned. Thus I’m loath to send them $1,000 I don’t owe them on the basis that at some point they’ll acknowledge and refund the overpayment.”

We forwarded Kurien’s email to local broker Tamar Burch, who has more than 20 clients with billing and effective-date issues. Kurien circled back to us to let us know Burch and the exchange still are working on his case, but he had fresh advice for others in his position.

He decided to call his carrier, Nevada Health CO-OP, to ask a few questions. The customer-service rep he spoke to corrected “a lot of misinformation” Kurien said he had received before. And that allowed him to go see a doctor for the first time since he submitted his application in December.

“My experience would suggest calling the carrier more than once with the same question to try to get a correct and consistent answer, rather than feel like the first (potentially misinformed) answer you get is final and that you’re stuck,” Kurien wrote.

[LottaKash]

Many parts of the "dreams from his father" are becoming true....:eek:

"The UnACA", is quickly becoming one of the master-keys to our future....Not in a good-way, imo..:(

[JustRalph]

Corporation here has changed all full time workers to 2 days only. So they don't have to cover for Obamacare.

We were told early on that this wasn't happening, stand by for Mosties to log in and call you a liar

[Clocker]

We were told early on that this wasn't happening, stand by for Mosties to log in and call you a liar

And if it is happening, it isn't because of ObamaCare. It is strictly the result of some greedy, heartless capitalist bastage screwing his employees and using ObamaCare as a convenient excuse.

[mostpost]

Corporation here has changed all full time workers to 2 days only. So they don't have to cover for Obamacare.
You post this but you don't give us the name of the corporation. Don't you think that would be an important part of the discussion. Tell us where you got this information from or was it something you heard at the bar?

[Ocala Mike]

Meanwhile, here in the Sunshine State, our future ex-governor has fired a staff member who failed to produce the necessary results from a recent trip to a senior center in Boca Raton.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-04-29/news/sfl-rick-scott-obamacare-20140429_1_medicare-advantage-rick-scott-volen-center

[JustRalph]

You post this but you don't give us the name of the corporation. Don't you think that would be an important part of the discussion. Tell us where you got this information from or was it something you heard at the bar?

A year ago I told you about my wife's company doing this to 3000 employees and you ignored it. Why would it matter now?

[mostpost]

A year ago I told you about my wife's company doing this to 3000 employees and you ignored it. Why would it matter now?
I remember you saying this but I don't recall the name of the company. So why don't you tell me that? Because there was a lot of talk about companies (all in the food service industry) which were going to cut employee hours. In the end most of them backed off.

I'm still waiting for Dark Horse to give me the name of his hours cutting corporation.

[mostpost]

While trying to learn the name of the company Mrs. JustRalph works for, I ran across this post from Tom. (Number 140 in the "Layoffs due to Obamacare thread.)
The election proved there is no hope for this country anymore.
Look for off shore to be the first choice for expansion from now on.
you wage war on business and they will leave. Billions of buck in Europe were poised to come back here for investment, but no longer.

Unemployment will top 15% in 18 months.
Missed it by that.............................................. ................................much

[davew]

While trying to learn the name of the company Mrs. JustRalph works for, I ran across this post from Tom. (Number 140 in the "Layoffs due to Obamacare thread.)

Missed it by that.............................................. ................................much

If you redefine people unemployed for multiple years and given up looking for work as no longer unemployed, you get numbers like we are seeing. If the truth hurts, baffle the easily fooled or brainwashed with crap.

[JustRalph]

I remember you saying this but I don't recall the name of the company. So why don't you tell me that? Because there was a lot of talk about companies (all in the food service industry) which were going to cut employee hours. In the end most of them backed off.

I'm still waiting for Dark Horse to give me the name of his hours cutting corporation.

My wife left the company and the way they treated the employees due to Obamacare was the last straw for her. There are others on this board who know who she worked for and the whole story.

You don't need to know any more info about my private life. Suffice it to say, you didn't care then, I'm sure you don't care now, about those 3000 employees that were cut from full time to part time and lost their health insurance. There are tons of other stories from other companies that went the same route.

This was all predicted. It will be worse next year. In fact some notices will be going out in late summer, early fall. Lots of mid size companies are going to pull their insurance plans and tell their employees to go to the exchanges. The companies won't be able to keep up with the 30-40 % increases over the next 12-18 months depending on their plan rollovers. The employees who are covered now will be at the mercy of the exchanges. Most employers will most likely provide the employees with a stipend or salary bump equal to what they are paying for insurance now. But don't forget, next year they will be paying taxes on healthcare benefits. The smart companies will reclassify the healthcare "raises" as regular raises to help employees with tax liabilities. But in the truly high end plans it won't help.

The bottom line is, somebody has to pay for this runaway train of hijinks and wholesale legislative bribery. There are going to be even more pissed off people come 2015 and tax time 2016. Not sure what's going to happen or how people will react, but there's a big event in November 2016

Look for Dems to go on a "delaying of the mandates" spree in 2015

[RunForTheRoses]

Don't want to start a new thread but just read this and thought I'd share:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2014/05/vha-healthcare-revisited.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/23/health/veterans-dying-health-care-delays/index.html

[JustRalph]

And so it begins

http://goo.gl/alerts/Hhw0

30% increases in Maryland......

[fast4522]

Not fixing this one legged duck will implode it to bits without the need for repeal, now is the time to write your Representative in the House telling him or her that you want no changes to ACA, and you want a new Speaker to the House of Representatives.

[mostpost]

And so it begins

http://goo.gl/alerts/Hhw0

30% increases in Maryland......
Yeah, it begins all right or rather it continues. JustRalph posting nonsense about the ACA. You're quick to point out that CareFirst is requesting* a 30% increase, but strangely silent on the 12% decrease requested by Kaiser Healthcare. Overall the average increase in Maryland is 7%, within the range of medical trend. Medical trend is the increase in the cost of medical services and procedures.

*it is important to remember that these are request which have not yet been approved by the state, Last year CareFirst requested a 25% increase but was granted 10% less.

In 2014 a 40 year old non smoker in the Baltimore area, for the lowest bronze plan would pay Kaiser $178.90 a month. That same person would pay CareFirst $185.30. Yet Kaiser is able to lower its rates while CareFirst needs to raise its rates

Several states have released rate filings. Almost all of them have requests for increases in the 20 to 30 percent range. but those are outliers. Average increases are in the single digits and not the high single digits.

[JustRalph]

Mosty, it's still early...........tick Tock.........

[Clocker]

According to the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-obamacare-subsidies-20140617-story.html), nearly 90% of the supposed 8 million people that signed up for ObamaCare are receiving subsidies. It was previously estimated that the subsidies would cost the federal government $10 billion this year. That number is now estimated to be $16.5 billion.

The large subsidies for health insurance that helped fuel the successful drive to sign up some 8 million Americans for coverage under the Affordable Care Act may push the cost of the law considerably above current projections, a new federal report indicates.Nearly 9 in 10 Americans who bought health coverage on the federal government’s healthcare marketplaces received government assistance to offset their premiums.

That assistance helped lower premiums for consumers who bought health coverage on the federal marketplaces by 76% on average, according to the new report from the Department of Health and Human Services.

[davew]

what's the latest CBO on how mch the government is going to make from 0care?

does that include the savings for counties and states who have enrolled the 'health risk' incarcerated?

[tucker6]

what's the latest CBO on how mch the government is going to make from 0care?

does that include the savings for counties and states who have enrolled the 'health risk' incarcerated?
The CBO said it was too convoluted to understand, and thus a number could no longer be given. however, they seemed to signal that matters were going south financially.

[classhandicapper]

Yeah, it begins all right or rather it continues. JustRalph posting nonsense about the ACA. You're quick to point out that CareFirst is requesting* a 30% increase, but strangely silent on the 12% decrease requested by Kaiser Healthcare. Overall the average increase in Maryland is 7%, within the range of medical trend. Medical trend is the increase in the cost of medical services and procedures.

*it is important to remember that these are request which have not yet been approved by the state, Last year CareFirst requested a 25% increase but was granted 10% less.

In 2014 a 40 year old non smoker in the Baltimore area, for the lowest bronze plan would pay Kaiser $178.90 a month. That same person would pay CareFirst $185.30. Yet Kaiser is able to lower its rates while CareFirst needs to raise its rates

Several states have released rate filings. Almost all of them have requests for increases in the 20 to 30 percent range. but those are outliers. Average increases are in the single digits and not the high single digits.

"The non-profit Kaiser Foundation Health Plan reported that the primary reason it opted to lower rates is the “assumed risk adjustment recoveries” for 2015. Risk adjustment provisions in Obamacare collect and redistribute payments from Obamacare insurers to those who have the sickest pool of patients. Experts believe risk adjustment measures are keeping Obamacare premiums artificially low now, but expect drastic premium hikes when two such provisions run out in 2017.

Kaiser Foundation also noted that higher patient co-payments also contributed to the decision to lower the rates".

[tucker6]

"The non-profit Kaiser Foundation Health Plan reported that the primary reason it opted to lower rates is the “assumed risk adjustment recoveries” for 2015. Risk adjustment provisions in Obamacare collect and redistribute payments from Obamacare insurers to those who have the sickest pool of patients. Experts believe risk adjustment measures are keeping Obamacare premiums artificially low now, but expect drastic premium hikes when two such provisions run out in 2017.

Kaiser Foundation also noted that higher patient co-payments also contributed to the decision to lower the rates".
Amazing how that always happens right after important elections. :rolleyes:

[JustRalph]

Amazing how that always happens right after important elections. :rolleyes:

Exactly right. You can only push it back so long. Someday the bill comes due

[Clocker]

The latest ObamaCare talking point (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/06/19/note-to-progressives-obamacares-subsidies-arent-free-theyre-financed-by-taxpayers/?partner=yahootix) from the left is that the coming big increases in premiums don't matter, because they are subsidized anyway.

Over the past twelve months, there has been an energetic debate among health policy researchers about the extent to which Obamacare will increase the underlying cost of individually-purchased health insurance: what observers have come to call “rate shock.” Yesterday, the Manhattan Institute published the most comprehensive study yet on the topic, analyzing premium data from 3,137 U.S. counties, and finding an average rate hike of 49 percent. In response, left-wing bloggers are trying out a new talking point: that rate shock doesn’t matter, because taxpayer-funded subsidies will bear the higher costs.

[JustRalph]

Tax payer funded subsidies?

I'm old enough to remember when they called that WELFARE

[davew]

85% of initial enrollees are entitled to 'rebates'

[JustRalph]

My buddy who signed up for Obammacare two months ago just got out of the hospital after 5 days. Gall bladder infection related possibly to a dental procedure( bacteria gets around) done 4 days earlier.

He had paid two premiums. 396 bucks a month. He's eligible for subsidies, but nobody can explain how much or when? The insurance company ( blue cross/shield) says they haven't figured it all out. He's up to 22k in bills, the hospital says 4-7k more to come. He called the assigned doctor here in Arlington Texas for a follow up (problems with side effects from drugs given while hospitalized) and they said they are not part of Obammacare.

They also asked him to forward the email with the info from Blue Cross, assigning him a doctor. He did. They called him back and told him Obamacare and Blue shield are mistaken and they were emphatic that they will never ever accept an Obamacare patient.

They told him to call blue cross again. Blue cross says they will get back to him. They haven't, day 14 now. He went back to work, suffering. He's finished the course of drugs a couple of days ago. The side effects are starting to get better.

Oh, btw....he ended up having to go to the hospital ER about a week ago. To treat one of the side effects, since he didn't have a family doctor to go to. They put him on Lasix, so I put an L next to his name in my phone. I took him to the ER. The clerk said it's happening everywhere........Obamacare enrolled, get a card, no doctor to see, go to the ER. It's working great....!!!

[Clocker]

My buddy who signed up for Obammacare two months ago just got out of the hospital after 5 days.

You certainly realize that this is anecdotal information, and that the validity is going to be rejected by "you know who" until you provide full details and personal information about this alleged buddy, including name, address, and phone number.

Just make it easy on yourself and post it all right now.

[Tom]

Just got notice today - mine is going up 17%.
Obama lied.

He said it would go down $2500.

[Clocker]

Just got notice today - mine is going up 17%.
Obama lied.

He said it would go down $2500.

He said it would go down $2500 for the average family. Apparently, you are not average. The libs will be along shortly to explain why you aren't. :p

[davew]

in many cases, premiums will be less than $100 per month, but there are provisions for all scenarios...

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/03/nbc-news-reporter-catches-jay-carney-in-a-truth/

[mostpost]

The latest ObamaCare talking point (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/06/19/note-to-progressives-obamacares-subsidies-arent-free-theyre-financed-by-taxpayers/?partner=yahootix) from the left is that the coming big increases in premiums don't matter, because they are subsidized anyway.
How convenient! Avik Roy authors a piece praising a study that Avik Roy and friends conducted. Thank God for Obamacare. Now Avik has insurance to pay for fixing the arm he broke patting himself on the back.

Too bad the study is flawed. Roy even admits it himself. The study compares bargain basement pre ACA plans with limited benefits to current ACA plans with no limits on lifetime payments and strict limits on lifetime and annual spending. It would be like trading in your five year old car with a standard engine and no air conditioning for this year's model with a hybrid engine and air conditioning and expecting your monthly payment to stay the same.

you should also note that the study compares Pre ACA rates with current rates. It says nothing about rates in 2015 or beyond.

I do admit that saying increases don't matter because they are being subsidized by taxpayers is not the best strategy for selling Obamacare. I am in favor of the subsidies and the fact is they are being paid for through savings in Medicare and taxes on medical devices and cadillac insurance plans, but the emphasis should be on the increased coverage and benefits the new plans provide

[newtothegame]

People just don't get it....( in reference to signing up for ACA) because they are "illiterate".......
This according to a Louisiana democrat......

Take note guys,....this is how liberals view you if you don't agree or don't want what they are selling......
Then you are just Illiterate......:lol:

http://louisianademocrats.org/2014/03/27/bill-cassidy-arrogantly-insults-uninsured-says-low-income-louisianians-dont-have-health-insurance-because-theyre-illiterate-less-sophisticated-less-educated/

[mostpost]

Just got notice today - mine is going up 17%.
Obama lied.

He said it would go down $2500.
Amazing how you understand nothing. Did you purchase your insurance through one of the new healthcare exchanges? I think not. Obama never said your insurance would go down $2500. He never mentioned your name. As I understand it the mention of the name "Tom" is forbidden in the White House and surrounding grounds.

He did say that a family could save $2500 and he was wrong about that. But I believe the last time that claim was made was around 2007. Long before the current law was formulated.

[Clocker]

Amazing how you understand nothing.

Yet another personal attack "rebuttal" to reality that defies the teachings of St. Obama. How is it that you know so much more about posters' situations and insurance details than they themselves? If I had that kind of psychic knowledge, I would put it to use betting horses, and not defending a feckless, inept, ineffective president.

[HUSKER55]

REFER TO post #40

you are illiterate! :D

[tucker6]

Here is personal anecdotal evidence of our health care industry. My wife dies last year, so I need to find my own coverage starting January 2014. I sign up for SC BC/BS plan with a $5k deductible. Costs $350/month, no subsidy (make too much money), and is clearly a catastrophic plan.

So I've been having a recurring lower back problem that has recently gotten much worse. Two doctors believe that my issue is a herniated disc in the L3 region. Lots and lots of shooting pain down my leg with perpetual numbness in the lower leg. They understand my situation, but describe the normal protocol as xray followed by PT followed by MRI. All at my expense of course. Xray's will not show a disc problem, and I already know the PT routine, so I want to skip direct to the MRI since it is my cost anyway. I figure I'll be paying it anyway, so I might as well cut to the chase. BC/BS say no way Jose. Start at step 1 and we'll let you know when we think you've spent enough on non-value products. I call up the MRI people and they say the MRI will cost me $395, and BC/BS won't recognize it toward my deductible. I have an MRI scheduled for 1pm today. I won't be held prisoner to some jackwipe who isn't in my pain.

One moral to this story is that care hasn't changed one iota under Obamacare. Obamacare still allows the insurance companies to overrule doctors in every manner possible to the financial and heath detriment of patients. The second moral to the story is that Obama didn't fix these underlying problems that are leading to double digit cost growth over time. Obamacare is simply a plan to redistribute the nation's wealth. We all said this, and it is true.

[Clocker]

And the beat goes on.

Health insurance premiums are shooting up for most Michigan residents that purchase their own coverage in the first year after Obamacare, state insurers have reported.

All insurers in the state are hiking their premiums, from 2.7 percent up to 21.6 percent. Michigan’s largest insurers, Blue Care Network and Blue Cross Blue Shield, are hiking premiums by an average of 9.3 percent and 9.7 percent in 2015 for a whopping three-quarters of Michigan residents that purchase their coverage on or off the state’s Obamacare exchange.

Blue Cross executive Terry Burke said the hikes are needed to account for ever-rising health care costs and uncertainty related to the Obamacare expansion bringing in sicker-than-average patients.

“We’ve got a big influx of people and we don’t know what their claims conditions are,” Burke told the South Bend Tribune. “The actuaries are concerned about that risk mix.”

The next largest insurer, Humana, is hiking rates by 18 percent on average for its 16,600 customers. Smaller insurers are upping their premium rates in a wider range, from around 3 percent to as high as 21 percent.

Full story here. (http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/michigan-obamacare-premium-hikes-up-to-20-percent/)

[mostpost]

And the beat goes on.

Quote:
Health insurance premiums are shooting up for most Michigan residents that purchase their own coverage in the first year after Obamacare, state insurers have reported.

All insurers in the state are hiking their premiums, from 2.7 percent up to 21.6 percent. Michigan’s largest insurers, Blue Care Network and Blue Cross Blue Shield, are hiking premiums by an average of 9.3 percent and 9.7 percent in 2015 for a whopping three-quarters of Michigan residents that purchase their coverage on or off the state’s Obamacare exchange.

Blue Cross executive Terry Burke said the hikes are needed to account for ever-rising health care costs and uncertainty related to the Obamacare expansion bringing in sicker-than-average patients.

“We’ve got a big influx of people and we don’t know what their claims conditions are,” Burke told the South Bend Tribune. “The actuaries are concerned about that risk mix.”

The next largest insurer, Humana, is hiking rates by 18 percent on average for its 16,600 customers. Smaller insurers are upping their premium rates in a wider range, from around 3 percent to as high as 21 percent.


http://www.michigan.gov/documents/difs/MI_Rate_Change_Requests-IND_460430_7.pdf

The above is a link to the state of Michigan's Department of Insurance and Financial Services rates filing page. It shows that the average increase is 8.8%. It also shows that more people are facing increases ranging from under 8% to a negative 21.6% (a decrease of 21.6%) than are facing increases over 10%. The numbers are 26,616 to 20,307.

Let's look at the statement made by Blue Cross executive Terry Burke.

Blue Cross executive Terry Burke said the hikes are needed to account for ever-rising health care costs and uncertainty related to the Obamacare expansion bringing in sicker-than-average patients.

There are two factors there. Rising health care costs and uncertainty about Obamacare. One is certain, the other is uncertain. We know that health care costs-the cost of medicines and surgeries and office visits and tests and hospital stays etc, etc, etc-are becoming more and more expensive. On the other hand we do not know what the effects of Obamacare and "sicker than average" patients will be. It is simply too early to tell.

If the insurance companies did have this information, they would have used it in their rate filings. Instead they are saying, "We're not sure; help us out so we don't lose money.

I am wondering what percentage of the increases can be laid at the door of rising costs of services and medications and what percentage can be blamed on a changing demographic. I am pretty sure that would be part of the filings, but not sure where to find the information.

Of course all of this ignores the fact that most people who purchase through the exchanges receive some form of subsidy. You may hate the subsidies, but that does not change the fact that they do help people.

It also ignores the fact that 90% of Americans do not use the exchanges and their increases are very small.

ETA: I just checked the DIFS page for small group plans in Michigan. One company affecting 6700 individuals has requested a 32.9% increase and one company affecting 11000 has asked for a 8.2% increase. Otherwise, all the other increases (175,000) are under 7% and most are way under.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/difs/MI_Rate_Change_Requests-SG_460432_7.pdf

[cj's dad]

I retired this past October 1st, health care is a nightmare. dealing with the Feds is beyond difficult! Good luck to those who haven't yet done so!

[JustRalph]

All 3.8 million are screwed........... oh yeah,,,,,,,, I forgot.........8 million signed up.....according to Barry

[Clocker]

There are two factors there. Rising health care costs and uncertainty about Obamacare. One is certain, the other is uncertain. We know that health care costs-the cost of medicines and surgeries and office visits and tests and hospital stays etc, etc, etc-are becoming more and more expensive. On the other hand we do not know what the effects of Obamacare and "sicker than average" patients will be. It is simply too early to tell.

There are a lot more factors and issues here, including the impact of ObamaCare on the cost of health care for everyone, and therefore the impact on the cost of health insurance for everyone.

All of which comes back to the basic concerns of any thinking person about ObamaCare from the beginning. Which is to say that virtually all of its premises and promises were nonsense.

The Affordable Care Act does absolutely nothing about providing more care or making care more affordable. Despite Obama's promise of significant decreases in the cost of health insurance to the average family, costs continue to increase. Despite the promises that the ObamaCare subsidies would be self-funded by premiums paid by the young and the healthy, they are being paid by tax payers. Everyone except the Kool Aid drinkers knew about the "sicker than average" folks signing up.

And they keep delaying the next stage of this train wreck, the employer mandate. Get the popcorn ready for that melodrama.

[Native Texan III]

All 3.8 million are screwed........... oh yeah,,,,,,,, I forgot.........8 million signed up.....according to Barry

Of course if you want efficient healthcare free at the point of use for every citizen and costing only 40% of USA's wasteful and dysfunctional system, then try to copy the socialist system of UK's NHS. Voted number one by a Washington based research foundation.


"The UK's NHS has been declared the best healthcare system by an international panel of experts who rated its care superior to countries which spend far more on health.

The same study also castigated healthcare provision in the US as the worst of the 11 countries it looked at. Despite putting the most money into health, America denies care to many patients in need because they do not have health insurance and is also the poorest at saving the lives of people who fall ill, it found.

The report has been produced by the Commonwealth Fund, a Washington-based foundation which is respected around the world for its analysis of the performance of different countries' health systems. It examined an array of evidence about performance in 11 countries, including detailed data from patients, doctors and the World Health Organisation.


"The United Kingdom ranks first overall, scoring highest on quality, access and efficiency," the fund's researchers conclude in their 30-page report. Their findings amount to a huge endorsement of the health service, especially as it spends the second-lowest amount on healthcare among the 11 – just £2,008 per head, less than half the £5,017 in the US. Only New Zealand, with £1,876, spent less.

In the Commonwealth Fund study the UK came first out of the 11 countries in eight of the 11 measures of care the authors looked at. It got top place on measures including providing effective care, safe care, co-ordinated care and patient-centred care. The fund also rated the NHS as the best for giving access to care and for efficient use of resources.

The only serious black mark against the NHS was its poor record on keeping people alive. On a composite "healthy lives" score, which includes deaths among infants and patients who would have survived had they received timely and effective healthcare, the UK came 10th. The authors say that the healthcare system cannot be solely blamed for this issue, which is strongly influenced by social and economic factors. Although the NHS came third overall for the timeliness of care, its "short waiting times" were praised. "There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialised services are inevitable. However, the Netherlands, UK and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to speciality services,", the report added.

The NHS also outperforms the other countries – which include France, Germany and Canada – in managing the care of people who are chronically ill, the report said.

Dr Mark Porter, leader of the doctors' union, the British Medical Association, said the fund's findings were "clear evidence that our much-maligned NHS is one of the top-performing healthcare systems in the world."

However, he warned that the service's achievements were now at risk. "We should not be complacent as we are facing pressures that are threatening the high-quality care that the Commonwealth Fund has rightly praised. A combination of rising patient demand, staff shortages and falling funding is undermining the very foundations of the NHS, as is the constant short-term interference from politicians of all colours."

Dr Peter Carter, chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing, said: "I'm absolutely thrilled to see this because it reinforces that this is a very good NHS, despite the fact that it has such a low level of funding relative to other countries."

The health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, who has been criticised by some senior doctors for painting an unfairly negative picture of NHS staff and the quality of care provided, welcomed the report. "NHS staff work incredibly hard to care for patients and these encouraging results pay testament to that," he said.

• This article was amended on 23 June 2014 to clarify the data sets that the survey used.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health

[mostpost]

There are a lot more factors and issues here, including the impact of ObamaCare on the cost of health care for everyone, and therefore the impact on the cost of health insurance for everyone.

All of which comes back to the basic concerns of any thinking person about ObamaCare from the beginning. Which is to say that virtually all of its premises and promises were nonsense.

The Affordable Care Act does absolutely nothing about providing more care or making care more affordable. Despite Obama's promise of significant decreases in the cost of health insurance to the average family, costs continue to increase. Despite the promises that the ObamaCare subsidies would be self-funded by premiums paid by the young and the healthy, they are being paid by tax payers. Everyone except the Kool Aid drinkers knew about the "sicker than average" folks signing up.

And they keep delaying the next stage of this train wreck, the employer mandate. Get the popcorn ready for that melodrama.

No one ever said that the subsidies would be self funded by premiums paid by the young and healthy. If you think that you are seriously misinformed. The subsidies were always intended to be paid through taxes. Those taxes are revenue neutral.

[Clocker]

The subsidies were always intended to be paid through taxes. Those taxes are revenue neutral.

:D

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

[mostpost]

No one ever said that the subsidies would be self funded by premiums paid by the young and healthy. If you think that you are seriously misinformed. The subsidies were always intended to be paid through taxes. Those taxes are revenue neutral.
For the most part, income taxes are not used to fund the subsidies.
half the costs are offset by projected savings in Medicare payments to insurers and hospitals. Another quarter is offset by added taxes on medical-device makers and drug companies.
"The other source of revenue is a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans," he says. "Those families with incomes above $250,000 a year will now have to pay more in Medicare payroll taxes."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/11/07/243584170/how-the-affordable-care-act-pays-for-insurance-subsidies

The increase in medicare tax for individuals earning over $200,000 (married filing jointly $250,000) is .9%. If you earn less than those amounts, you pay nothing extra. If you wish to cry for those wealthy people be my guest. But do not try to tell me you are speaking up for the average middle class person. That person is contributing nothing to the subsidies.

[davew]

I am also confused about the revenue neutral stuff, as it seems to me that the administration is not very efficient at anything. They find out something is broke and throw more money at it. They have groups and divisions who are getting bonuses for doing a crappy job and lying saying they are doing a great job with their falsified reports.

I do agree that it will probably take 3-4 years before it becomes apparent to most people whether this is good or bad - and whether rates double or cut in half.

[Clocker]

HHS unable to resolve 2.6 million out of 2.9 million sign-up "inconsistencies".

The Obama administration (http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/265370291.html) has been struggling to clear up data discrepancies that could potentially jeopardize coverage for millions under the health overhaul, the government's health care fraud watchdog reported Tuesday.

The Health and Human Services inspector general said the administration was not able to resolve 2.6 million so-called "inconsistencies" out of a total of 2.9 million such problems in the federal insurance exchange from October through December 2013.

[LottaKash]

The only serious black mark against the NHS was its poor record on keeping people alive. On a composite "healthy lives" score, which includes deaths among infants and patients who would have survived had they received timely and effective healthcare, ....................................

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health

England's NHS sounds a bit like our current VA way of administering healthcare...

From the "real world", I know several people who live in GB, and we visit each other occasionally, and if you asked them to give the NHS either a thumbs up or thumbs down....They would give it a :ThmbDown: ...

[JustRalph]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/brace-for-the-next-round-of-obamacare-rate-shock/article/2550736

Lots of speculation on rate hikes.

The time is nigh.......

[Clocker]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/brace-for-the-next-round-of-obamacare-rate-shock/article/2550736

Lots of speculation on rate hikes.

The time is nigh.......

The actual hikes will be known before Election Day this year.

In the immortal words of Obama's mentor, the chickens will come home to roost.

[JustRalph]

The actual hikes will be known before Election Day this year.

In the immortal words of Obama's mentor, the chickens will come home to roost.

Not in Minnesota

The Governor won't let them be released before the election. Protecting himself and Franken

[lamboguy]

of course everything is going up. if you have been to a doctor you will know exactly why.

i went to a podiatrist last week to cut off a callus. i showed up in the doctors office, he had 6 other rooms with patients waiting to see him. he cut my callus off with a razor and was done in less than a minute. i asked the doctor how much the charge is for this, he told me a regular office visit runs $250. it took place in the hospital, i asked him how much of the $250 does he get to stick in his pocket, he told me less than $50. that is the whole problem with healthcare in a nutshell, its a basic ripoff and people are buying blind items that they have no clue how much they should cost. its like a guy walking into a liquor store that has no idea what he is doing and he wants to buy a bottle of wine. they can name any price on that bottle of wine and the sucker walking into the liquor store has no idea how bad his deal is.

when it comes to Obama, i really don't know if he shoved the health insurance reform down our throats because he was trying to do the right thing for people that can't afford to pay or if he was just trying put us on our knees to make the banks, insurance company's, hospital's and whomever gets the money on this one richer.

[Clocker]

when it comes to Obama, i really don't know if he shoved the health insurance reform down our throats because he was trying to do the right thing for people that can't afford to pay or if he was just trying put us on our knees to make the banks, insurance company's, hospital's and whomever gets the money on this one richer.

Obama didn't have a clue what he was doing or what was in that bill. He had a grand concept of universal health care that covered everyone and "bent the cost curve down". He said it would cut the premiums for the average family by $2500 a year and if you like your plan and liked your doctor, you could keep them. Then he passed the buck on to Reid and Pesoli to write the bill and get it passed, while he went on to do other good things.

[davew]

Obama didn't have a clue what he was doing or what was in that bill. He had a grand concept of universal health care that covered everyone and "bent the cost curve down". He said it would cut the premiums for the average family by $2500 a year and if you like your plan and liked your doctor, you could keep them. Then he passed the buck on to Reid and Pesoli to write the bill and get it passed, while he went on to do other good things.

Reid and Pelosi didn't write or read the bill - it had to have been the 'experts' that 0bama relies so heavily on...

[Clocker]

Reid and Pelosi didn't write or read the bill - it had to have been the 'experts' that 0bama relies so heavily on...

Obama left the actual content of the bill to the Democrats in Congress, who were totally clueless as to what to do. The details were handed to the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, who was also clueless as to how to proceed.

Baucus handed the job to his staff, headed by Elizabeth Folwer, his chief health policy counsel, a former lobbyist for WellPoint, the nation's largest health insurance provider. In brief, the bill was written by insurance company lobbyists going back and forth through the standard revolving door between lobbying and government staff positions.

When the legislation that became known as "Obamacare" was first drafted, the key legislator was the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, whose committee took the lead in drafting the legislation. As Baucus himself repeatedly boasted, the architect of that legislation was Elizabeth Folwer, his chief health policy counsel; indeed, as Marcy Wheeler discovered, it was Fowler who actually drafted it. As Politico put it at the time: "If you drew an organizational chart of major players in the Senate health care negotiations, Fowler would be the chief operating officer."

What was most amazing about all of that was that, before joining Baucus' office as the point person for the health care bill, Fowler was the Vice President for Public Policy and External Affairs (i.e. informal lobbying) at WellPoint, the nation's largest health insurance provider (before going to WellPoint, as well as after, Fowler had worked as Baucus' top health care aide). And when that health care bill was drafted, the person whom Fowler replaced as chief health counsel in Baucus' office, Michelle Easton, was lobbying for WellPoint as a principal at Tarplin, Downs, and Young.



Story (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/05/obamacare-fowler-lobbyist-industry1)

[JustRalph]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025950291

These poor Democrats

[Clocker]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025950291

These poor Democrats

Imagine what will happen on DU when they finally learn about this guy Gruber! :eek:

[sammy the sage]

A little humor ..
The American Medical Association has weighed in on Obama's new health care package.
The Allergists were in favor of scratching it, but the
Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the
Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
Meanwhile, Obstetricians felt certain everyone was laboring under a misconception, while the
Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.
Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the
Pediatricians said, "Oh, grow up!"
The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the
Radiologists could see right through it.
Surgeons decided to wash their hands off the whole thing and the
Internists claimed it would be a bitter pill to swallow.
The Plastic Surgeons opined that this proposal would "put a whole new face on the matter".
The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the
Urologists were PlSSED OFF at the whole idea.
Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and those lofty
Cardiologists just didn't have the heart for it
In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the A.$.$.H0LES in Washington.