Health care costs going up

[zico20]

Well, I for one am absolutely shocked by this. I really believed the president when he said health care costs would drop under his plan. :D

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/many-health-insurers-go-big-with-initial-2016-rate-requests/ar-BBkxQdn?ocid=mailsignout

Looks like some companies are going for 20% or more in rate increases.

[LottaKash]

Well, I for one am absolutely shocked by this. I really believed the president when he said health care costs would drop under his plan. :D

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/many-health-insurers-go-big-with-initial-2016-rate-requests/ar-BBkxQdn?ocid=mailsignout

Looks like some companies are going for 20% or more in rate increases.

"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" - Mark Twain

[Clocker]

It's only going to get worse.

Ominous signs are proliferating among 22 Obamacare health insurance co-ops of imminent financial collapses that could leave more than a million Americans without coverage, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group analysis.

All but one of the federally funded co-ops are experiencing accelerating net losses. President Obama’s signature health care reform program established the co-ops to provide non-profit competition to private sector health insurance providers.

Many of the 22 co-ops could soon follow an Obamacare co-op that defaulted earlier this year, suffering $163 million in operating losses in a single year. That collapse left 120,000 customers without coverage on Christmas Eve.

“We’re certainly going to have fewer co-op’s by the end of the year,” Thomas Miller, a resident health care fellow at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, told DCNF.

New figures compiled by Miller and Marie-Grace Turner, president of the Galen Institute, show that net losses for the co-ops reached a record $614 million in 2014.

The figure is nearly three times the $234 million in losses suffered through the first three quarters of 2014 as reported by Standards & Poor’s in a February 2015 report. It means that the burn rate for the experimental Obamacare co-ops is quickening.



Read more at http://spectator.org/blog/63146/are-obamacare%E2%80%99s-22-health-insurance-co-ops-near-financial-collapse

[JustRalph]

Every family in America will save $2500

_o65vMUk5so

qpa-5JdCnmo

[classhandicapper]

It was inevitable this nonsense would fail. It was just a matter of how well and for how long they could hide it. Politicians along with a complicit media can hide the truth for a very long time. The real problem is going to be finding someone competent and politically strong enough to do the right things and put this issue behind us for a long time and in an economically sound way.

[Inner Dirt]

It seems some hospitals just pick numbers out of the sky. I saw a study (forget where) of costs to visit an Emergency room with nothing but a sprained ankle, the costs varied from $300 to $10,000. I can understand maybe a variation of 500% because of high cost of living areas but over 3,000%, give me a break. I had a heart stress test done. I was in the hospital 3 hrs in Richmond Virginia, not exactly New York City, most of it was waiting between two procedures for drugs to take effect or wear off. The bill was $12,000. Waiting for MP to come in here and call me a liar.

[Clocker]

Waiting for MP to come in here and call me a liar.

Or stupid for not getting that test done someplace statistically less expensive.

Like Mississippi!

[mostpost]

Well, I for one am absolutely shocked by this. I really believed the president when he said health care costs would drop under his plan. :D

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/many-health-insurers-go-big-with-initial-2016-rate-requests/ar-BBkxQdn?ocid=mailsignout

Looks like some companies are going for 20% or more in rate increases.
The very story you linked above explains why this doesn't mean what you say it does. One; insurance companies only have to disclose rate requests when there is an increase of more than ten percent. So if they are increasing rates less than ten percent or lowering them, we would not know about them. It would be like calculating batting averages and only counting at bats where the player gets a hit. Two; the story only refers to policies bought through the exchanges and the individual market. Employer provided policies are not considered. Those comprise a very large percentage of total insurance policies-in excess of 90%. Three; regulators will not necessarily approve the requested increases.

[mostpost]

"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" - Mark Twain
That is true. I have tried for years to convince you that you are being fooled. All to no avail.

[Tom]

Have you gotten your $2500 yet?
I haven't seen mine.
I got a 12% increase instead.

O lied and you are lying.

[classhandicapper]

Employer provided policies are not considered. Those comprise a very large percentage of total insurance policies-in excess of 90%.

So maybe we should have left things alone and instead of creating a system where loads of people got forced off the plans they liked and forced onto the exchanges where companies are going under and there will be some huge rate increases.

[Tom]

Or maybe we should have addressed health care instead of insurance,
Not thing has been done yet to decrease HC costs.

[jballscalls]

I have to buy my own insurance and was pretty unhappy to have a $40 a month boost from 2014 to 2015. I have Moda and according to this article should be expecting a 25% bump next year.

http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2015/06/oregon_health_insurance_premiu.html#incart_2box_

[Clocker]

One; insurance companies only have to disclose rate requests when there is an increase of more than ten percent. So if they are increasing rates less than ten percent or lowering them, we would not know about them. It would be like calculating batting averages and only counting at bats where the player gets a hit. Two; the story only refers to policies bought through the exchanges and the individual market. Employer provided policies are not considered. Those comprise a very large percentage of total insurance policies-in excess of 90%. Three; regulators will not necessarily approve the requested increases.

One: this is the federal reporting requirement. Any and all proposed changes are filed with the states and are available to the public.

Two: this is the whole issue. These rate increases are on ObamaCare policies which are supposed to be "affordable" and which have an individual mandate.

Three: if state regulators don't approve necessary rate increases, the insurance company will pull out of the market, resulting in less competition and higher rates. Many companies have dropped out of this market already.

[lamboguy]

how come its always the health insurance that goes up for this rotten overpriced healthcare that is full of nothing but quacks and drug pushers?

i find it interesting that a big portion for the cost of healthcare is insurance for malpractice. i do get it that people need to sue these health care providers to keep them in some type of lose order.

like everything else in this country the healthcare system is a mess and is bringing us all down.

[mostpost]

All these predictions of draconian increases will prove to be false again. Last year at this time we had predictions of disaster overwhelming these boards. 28% to 88% increases in California; 100% in Delaware, nationwide, we were told premiums would double or worse. The average nation wide increase was 4%. That is the official number as found here.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/10/31/key-study-on-obamacare-2015-premium-rates-is-out-and-you-wont-believe-whats-going-to-happen/

Two articles in Forbes magazine illustrate what is happening. The first article by conservative columnist Scott Gottlieb was published April 7, 2014 and warns of coming large premium increases; increases of 100% in Delaware, 53% in California, 37% in Florida and 28% in Pennsylvania.

The second article by liberal columnist Rick Ungar was published Oct. 31, 2014. It shows the actual increases in those states after the rates had been approved by the various regulatory agencies. In Delaware there was 0% increase. In California the increase was between 5% and 10%. In Florida, the increase was between 5% and 10%. In Pennsylvania it was over 15%, which is the only state in which the actual increase even approaches the predicted increase.

[Tom]

we have already seen many large increase and many more are already documented as going to happen.

Did you get your $2500 savings yet?
Can you name be 10 people who have?

It is a lie and you are lying when you deny it.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Basically the take away is, you were supposed to get a fairy tale utopia, you got the opposite, but the boy who cried wolf predicted even worse so stop yer griping.

[tucker6]

Basically the take away is, you were supposed to get a fairy tale utopia, you got the opposite, but the boy who cried wolf predicted even worse so stop yer griping.
any unicorn sightings??

[Clocker]

any unicorn sightings??

I think the insurance company execs are dining on unicorn steaks these days. They certainly have to be happy about ObamaCare.

The Obama administration cannot account for nearly $3 billion in subsidies paid to insurance companies in 2014, according to a government watchdog.

Those dollars are untraceable because the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) did not have “effective” methods to do so, according to a report (http://oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region2/21402006.pdf) from the department’s inspector general.That lack of internal control means "a significant amount of federal funds are at risk," the report, released Tuesday, warns, though government health officials said they have resolved, or are working to resolve, most of the issues.

For four months in ObamaCare’s first year of offering insurance subsidies, HHS officials could not confirm that payments were made “to confirmed enrollees and in the correct amounts,” according to the report. State-run marketplaces also had no way of submitting enrollee eligibility data.

Part of the problem is that the department relies too heavily on insurance companies to say which customers have paid their premiums and therefore who should receive subsidies, the report states.

The payments occurred during the rollout of ObamaCare’s insurance exchanges, a tumultuous period for the administration.

Officials from HHS dismissed the findings but acknowledged they have “not established a computerized payment system.”



Five years later and ObamaCare still doesn't have a computerize back end to pay insurers. Trust us. :rolleyes:

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/245257-audit-government-cant-explain-3b-in-obamacare-payments

[classhandicapper]

The second article by liberal columnist Rick Ungar was published Oct. 31, 2014. It shows the actual increases in those states after the rates had been approved by the various regulatory agencies. In Delaware there was 0% increase. In California the increase was between 5% and 10%. In Florida, the increase was between 5% and 10%. In Pennsylvania it was over 15%, which is the only state in which the actual increase even approaches the predicted increase.

In what universe are increases that are a huge multiple of the official inflation rate considered a success for a plan that was just put in place to hold down costs and should be getting its best result now?

[fast4522]

Have you gotten your $2500 yet?
I haven't seen mine.
I got a 12% increase instead.

O lied and you are lying.

Before law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRQ5Ov3aKPs

In September 2009, Wilson received international attention when he interrupted a speech by U.S. President Barack Obama to the joint session of Congress by shouting "You lie!"[4][5] The incident resulted in a formal rebuke by the House of Representatives largely along party lines.[6]

Wilson was re-elected in 2010 by a comfortable 9 percentage points over his nearest challenger and when he ran unopposed in the 2012 general election he was re-elected with 96% of the vote.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

we have already seen many large increase and many more are already documented as going to happen.

Did you get your $2500 savings yet?
Can you name be 10 people who have?

It is a lie and you are lying when you deny it.

As the official Marxist troll on the board, Mostie hardly allows the truth to get in the way. Let's cherry pick the published propaganda, because the goal is to preserve the bureaucracy. Big GOV solves everything. Nevermind the fact he ignores the health care industry's monopoly, the fact it's an outrageous 20% of GDP, that Obummer Care is really unconstitutional and of course those future pesky death panels.

Mostie will get his in a few years when he needs a triple bypass and gets the DECLINED notice in the mail, as irony would have it.....

[zico20]

All these predictions of draconian increases will prove to be false again. Last year at this time we had predictions of disaster overwhelming these boards. 28% to 88% increases in California; 100% in Delaware, nationwide, we were told premiums would double or worse. The average nation wide increase was 4%. That is the official number as found here.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/10/31/key-study-on-obamacare-2015-premium-rates-is-out-and-you-wont-believe-whats-going-to-happen/

Two articles in Forbes magazine illustrate what is happening. The first article by conservative columnist Scott Gottlieb was published April 7, 2014 and warns of coming large premium increases; increases of 100% in Delaware, 53% in California, 37% in Florida and 28% in Pennsylvania.

The second article by liberal columnist Rick Ungar was published Oct. 31, 2014. It shows the actual increases in those states after the rates had been approved by the various regulatory agencies. In Delaware there was 0% increase. In California the increase was between 5% and 10%. In Florida, the increase was between 5% and 10%. In Pennsylvania it was over 15%, which is the only state in which the actual increase even approaches the predicted increase.

I don't know about your comments after the latest figures that have just been released. It is worse than expected. Here is the updated requests. Many insurance companies LOST money last year. Of course Obama has a different take on the subject.

President Obama, on a trip to Tennessee this week, said that consumers should put pressure on state insurance regulators to scrutinize the proposed rate increases. If commissioners do their job and actively review rates, he said, “my expectation is that they’ll come in significantly lower than what’s being requested.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us/health-insurance-companies-seek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html

[Clocker]

President Obama, on a trip to Tennessee this week, said that consumers should put pressure on state insurance regulators to scrutinize the proposed rate increases. If commissioners do their job and actively review rates, he said, “my expectation is that they’ll come in significantly lower than what’s being requested.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us/health-insurance-companies-seek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html

So as predicted by our local ObamaCare expert/fan boy, state regulators are keeping those big proposed increases much lower than requested.

The Oregon insurance commissioner, Laura N. Cali, has just approved 2016 rate increases for companies that cover more than 220,000 people. Moda Health Plan, which has the largest enrollment in the state, received a 25 percent increase, and the second-largest plan, LifeWise, received a 33 percent increase.

But as the Times points out, consumers can take steps so that their rate increases are not as bad as they might be.

A study of 11 cities in different states by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that consumers would see relatively modest increases in premiums if they were willing to switch plans. But if they switch plans, consumers would have no guarantee that they can keep their doctors. And to get low premiums, they sometimes need to accept a more limited choice of doctors and hospitals.

So if you switch to a plan with lower benefits and higher out of pocket costs and more restrictive networks, your rate increase will be moderate.

If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan. (Oops, there's the small print: If you can afford it.)

[Hoofless_Wonder]

.... Three; regulators will not necessarily approve the requested increases.

True dat. Sometimes they add on to the request.....

After public hearings and a rigorous review, Ms. Cali, the Oregon insurance commissioner, found that the cost of providing coverage to individuals and families in 2014 was $830 million, while premiums were only $703 million. She directed some carriers to raise rates in 2016 even more than they had proposed.

Health Net, for example, requested rate increases averaging 9 percent in Oregon. The state approved increases averaging 34.8 percent. Oregon’s Health Co-op requested a 5.3 percent increase. The state called for a 19.9 percent increase.

[classhandicapper]

So if you switch to a plan with lower benefits and higher out of pocket costs and more restrictive networks, your rate increase will be moderate.

If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan. (Oops, there's the small print: If you can afford it.)


This one totally cracks me up.

It reminds me of a gimmick they pulled with the calculating the rate of inflation (I mean lying about the rate of inflation).

If people eat X amount of steak, but the price goes up a lot and they eat chicken instead, the government uses the price of chicken to calculate the inflation rate instead of steak. They call it "substitution". They don't consider "why" you are substituting, just that people are eating more chicken so it should be weighed heavier. Taken further, if they can no longer afford chicken and start eating Alpo then they will start using the price of Alpo.

It's comical.

[FocusWiz]

All these predictions of draconian increases will prove to be false again. Last year at this time we had predictions of disaster overwhelming these boards. 28% to 88% increases in California; 100% in Delaware, nationwide, we were told premiums would double or worse. The average nation wide increase was 4%. That is the official number as found here.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/10/31/key-study-on-obamacare-2015-premium-rates-is-out-and-you-wont-believe-whats-going-to-happen/

Two articles in Forbes magazine illustrate what is happening. The first article by conservative columnist Scott Gottlieb was published April 7, 2014 and warns of coming large premium increases; increases of 100% in Delaware, 53% in California, 37% in Florida and 28% in Pennsylvania.

The second article by liberal columnist Rick Ungar was published Oct. 31, 2014. It shows the actual increases in those states after the rates had been approved by the various regulatory agencies. In Delaware there was 0% increase. In California the increase was between 5% and 10%. In Florida, the increase was between 5% and 10%. In Pennsylvania it was over 15%, which is the only state in which the actual increase even approaches the predicted increase.One of the problems with statistics (which we should all know if we are members of this board) is that there are always outiers with any set of numbers. Another thing that seems mysterious to many of us is that the news media reports things they consider newsworthy not the mundane. A winning 200/1 shot might make headlines even in papers that rarely cover horse racing, but an even money favorite might only be written up if the race itself is deemed important. Thus, any major news organization might be able to show someone who would have died without the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or someone who could not get the care they needed because of the insurance they lost because of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

For me, I experienced more than a 30% increase in the cost of my medical insurance between last year and this year. I am sure that there are others whose insurance cost declined. However, these concepts alone mean nothing since there is no indication of what the coverage changes were. In my case, the deductible increased from a family maximum of $1,500 to a family maximum of $3,000 and there seems to be some major changes to the prescription formulary (which I could not get them to send me...it is hundreds if not thousands of pages) as well. Plus physical therapy was reduced from a per-visit subsidy to having all visits subject to the $1,000 per person overall medical deductible. So I have experienced an even larger increase, if I actually have any medical expenses. However, actual medical expenses are not the cost of insurance, so "technically" the increase in out-of-pocket costs is not an increase in the cost of insurance. Similar things may be going on with those whose insurance costs declined. As with the automobile insurers, nearly any agent can save you money if you are willing to deal with less coverage.

No one, not even the consumer organizations, has figured out a reasonable way of determining whether the price of medical insurance is really going up or down since the coverages, deductibles, maximum lifetime benefits amounts, and maximum loss amounts keep changing as well. We can compare last year's averages to this year's averages, or we can weight the averages by the number of people choosing them, or we can use last year's coverages and try to determine what that would cost this year. We could assume the ages of the population last year stayed the same, or add a year and use those increased ages this year, or we might take the average age of everyone last year and the average age of everyone this year. We could apply an inflation rate so we can get an adjusted cost without regard to the general inflation rate. We could use an inflation rate without the impact of fuel costs (since fuel seems to be unrelated to healthcare...or because the cost of fuel has gone down and will make health insurance look more expensive). I could go on and on. In short, we can pick any set of assumptions and come up with almost any figure we want to prove.

[FocusWiz]

This one totally cracks me up.

It reminds me of a gimmick they pulled with the calculating the rate of inflation (I mean lying about the rate of inflation).

If people eat X amount of steak, but the price goes up a lot and they eat chicken instead, the government uses the price of chicken to calculate the inflation rate instead of steak. They call it "substitution". They don't consider "why" you are substituting, just that people are eating more chicken so it should be weighed heavier. Taken further, if they can no longer afford chicken and start eating Alpo then they will start using the price of Alpo.

It's comical.This is actually a necessary evil, but I agree with you that it distorts the picture. However, this is one of the reasons why, when computing consumer price indices, they compute so many of them. There are some with a prior "market basket" and some with a more current one. There are those which might contain entertainment items which might be obsolete if they contain vinyl records or cassette tapes or meaningless if they don't contain cell phones and video games.

The real distortion comes from the news media. They never report all of the indices and generally pick the one that they think is most newsworthy and/or the one the government wants them to report. When they were trying to convince us that prices were declining even though the cost of fuel was skyrocketing, they reported the index excluding the cost of fuel. I am sure they are including the cost of fuel now in their reports because they want credit for the declining costs there.

[Rookies]

Well, I for one am absolutely shocked by this. I really believed the president when he said health care costs would drop under his plan. :D

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/many-health-insurers-go-big-with-initial-2016-rate-requests/ar-BBkxQdn?ocid=mailsignout

Looks like some companies are going for 20% or more in rate increases.

You can't have a multiple payer, public health system. and expect costs to go down. Completely, counter intuitive! You must have a single payer system to ensure success, buoyed by the enormous purchasing power of that entity to contract properly and keep costs down.

Obama chose 1/2 a loaf, believing that he could not overturn the billion- trillion dollar American Health Insurance industry and Medical system (including Doctors, Nurses, etc.)

[FocusWiz]

You can't have a multiple payer, public health system. and expect costs to go down. Completely, counter intuitive! You must have a single payer system to ensure success, buoyed by the enormous purchasing power of that entity to contract properly and keep costs down.

Obama chose 1/2 a loaf, believing that he could not overturn the billion- trillion dollar American Health Insurance industry and Medical system (including Doctors, Nurses, etc.)Not only that, there would be some consistency in what was and what was not covered and you could at least write to a Congressman if you felt that the system was wrong. I have spent over 200 hours since October fighting with my insurance providers over mistakes that they have (possibly deliberately) made.

I was in favor of HillaryCare and did not like what Newt Gingrich proposed back in 1993 (which is far more like ObamaCare than the Republicans would like us to believe).

[Secondbest]

You think its bad now wait until the takeover of humana by Aetna goes through.Somebody has to pay for it and guess who that will be.Not to mention that competition is now lessened.More mergers are going to take place and a few giant companies will rule.Can you spell oligopoly?

[Clocker]

You think its bad now wait until the takeover of humana by Aetna goes through.Somebody has to pay for it and guess who that will be.Not to mention that competition is now lessened.More mergers are going to take place and a few giant companies will rule.Can you spell oligopoly?

It is all part of the grand plan. When ObamaCare becomes overwhelmingly unpopular due to high rates and scarcity of providers, the libs will once again try for a public option, health insurance sold by the government. They wanted this in ObamaCare, but couldn't get the votes. The public option was seen as a migratory phase in the road to single payer, which is still the ultimate goal for the left.

[Rookies]

It is all part of the grand plan. When ObamaCare becomes overwhelmingly unpopular due to high rates and scarcity of providers, the libs will once again try for a public option, health insurance sold by the government. They wanted this in ObamaCare, but couldn't get the votes. The public option was seen as a migratory phase in the road to single payer, which is still the ultimate goal for the left.

As it should be- at least for the issue of Public Health!

There is simply an inevitable Lose-Lose outcome that will ensue. This does not mean that, under a public, one payer, run by Government option (OR one private enterprise payer completely controlled by government... I obviously trust this one far less) that money can't be made. Just examine the stocks of Pharmas, Medical care industries, etc.

It's just that it won't be a grotesque, ever increasing number, where the multiple payers get to squeeze the little, individual payee.

[Clocker]

As it should be- at least for the issue of Public Health!

There is simply an inevitable Lose-Lose outcome that will ensue. This does not mean that, under a public, one payer, run by Government option (OR one private enterprise payer completely controlled by government... I obviously trust this one far less) that money can't be made. Just examine the stocks of Pharmas, Medical care industries, etc.

So the answer is to nationalize everything connected to health care? Doctors, hospitals, drug companies, everything down to the manufacturing of Band-Aids?

Yeah, that's the solution. Because the government can do everything so much more efficiently and economically than the greedy private sector.

[Tom]

Her'e a though,. just send everyone up over the border and take advantage of all the free stuff in Canada. they have figured it all out, and borders mean nothing anymore.

Leave HC to the experts.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

....I have spent over 200 hours since October fighting with my insurance providers over mistakes that they have (possibly deliberately) made....

Nothing possible about it. The health care industry is fraught with corruption. I had a similar experience after a motorcycle accident 6 years ago - battling over fraudulent charges, "wrong" codes for treatment to deny coverage, and duplicate billings. It wasn't until BCBS mailed me another patient's claim records (denying coverage for cancer treatment) I had a stick to hit them with and get it straightened out. And they still acted like they were doing me a big favor.

A single payer system would not fix this problem. If you want to get health care costs down, the monopoly of the insurers and providers needs to be broken, and let the free market run its course.

[davew]

It is all part of the grand plan. When ObamaCare becomes overwhelmingly unpopular due to high rates and scarcity of providers, the libs will once again try for a public option, health insurance sold by the government. They wanted this in ObamaCare, but couldn't get the votes. The public option was seen as a migratory phase in the road to single payer, which is still the ultimate goal for the left.

Couldn't get the votes? Did anyone in Congress read the bill and understand it?

[davew]

0bamacare is bending the cost curve

http://www.cnbc.com/id/

[Clocker]

While rates are going up, ObamaCare coverage is getting a lot worse.

A new report from Avalere Health finds that enrollees in ObamaCare plans have access to 34% fewer providers than those who buy a commercial plan outside the exchange. On average, it found, ObamaCare enrollees had 32% fewer primary care doctors and 24% fewer hospitals from which to choose.

Worse, ObamaCare plans covered 42% fewer oncologists and cardiologists than non-ObamaCare plans.

Deductibles are steeper under ObamaCare, too. ...before ObamaCare, consumers accepted these high deductibles in exchange for very low premiums. In Iowa, for example, a $5,000-deductible plan could cost as little as $442 in annual premiums. Not anymore.The average Bronze plan today costs more than $3,500 a year in premiums (http://www.healthpocket.com/healthcare-research/infostat/2016-obamacare-premium-rates#.ValNG2D5iTA) while imposing a $5,181 deductible.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/071715-762256-patients-can-see-a-third-fewer-doctors-on-obamacare.htm#ixzz3gRPpDdb7 (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/071715-762256-patients-can-see-a-third-fewer-doctors-on-obamacare.htm#ixzz3gRPpDdb7)

[zico20]

Down goes Hawaii! Down goes Hawaii! The first state to fail in the state exchange. They are turning it over to the federal government. They can't sustain the costs. Look for more to turn it over soon.

http://news.yahoo.com/state-health-insurance-markets-struggle-cost-challenges-115732129.html

[Clocker]

Down goes Hawaii! Down goes Hawaii! The first state to fail in the state exchange. They are turning it over to the federal government. They can't sustain the costs. Look for more to turn it over soon.


Unlike the federal government, the states cannot throw unlimited funds down a black hole to prop up a program that was unsustainable from the start. Welcome to the death spiral.

[fast4522]

Down goes Hawaii! Down goes Hawaii! The first state to fail in the state exchange. They are turning it over to the federal government. They can't sustain the costs. Look for more to turn it over soon.

http://news.yahoo.com/state-health-insurance-markets-struggle-cost-challenges-115732129.html

It is always better to have a view of things.

[davew]

So the answer is to nationalize everything connected to health care? Doctors, hospitals, drug companies, everything down to the manufacturing of Band-Aids?

Yeah, that's the solution. Because the government can do everything so much more efficiently and economically than the greedy private sector.

and the government has better unions

[davew]

Down goes Hawaii! Down goes Hawaii! The first state to fail in the state exchange. They are turning it over to the federal government. They can't sustain the costs. Look for more to turn it over soon.

http://news.yahoo.com/state-health-insurance-markets-struggle-cost-challenges-115732129.html


$350 million for 8200 insured policy's

roughly $40,000 spent for each insurance policy
cost of acquisition seems rather high

[mostpost]

$350 million for 8200 insured policy's

roughly $40,000 spent for each insurance policy
cost of acquisition seems rather high
That makes as much sense as building an airport and basing the cost per passenger on the first 8200 passengers. You have heard of amortization of costs, right?

[mostpost]

While rates are going up, ObamaCare coverage is getting a lot worse.
There are fewer providers because insurance companies are decreasing their networks. When insurance companies decrease their networks in the non-Obamacare area, (And it does happen) we hear nothing about it. It's the almighty free market at work. All hail capitalism! Nothing in the Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to narrow their provider networks.

[Clocker]

Nothing in the Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to narrow their provider networks.

Yes there is. It's called economics and unintended consequences. If you distort the economics of the industry with artificial and unrealistic restrictions, the insurance companies are very limited in the options they have to remain viable. Unable to set premiums to reflect risks, they must look to other methods to cut costs so that they can stay in business. Narrow networks is one of the few, and obvious, answers under the burdensome regulation of the law.

A lot of people saw that coming long before Congress passed the bill and found out that was in there.

[mostpost]

It is all part of the grand plan. When ObamaCare becomes overwhelmingly unpopular due to high rates and scarcity of providers, the libs will once again try for a public option, health insurance sold by the government. They wanted this in ObamaCare, but couldn't get the votes. The public option was seen as a migratory phase in the road to single payer, which is still the ultimate goal for the left.
You are right, up to a point. Single payer is the best option and the ultimate goal. That doesn't mean the providers should work for the government. Medicare for all is the answer.

[Clocker]

Another factor causing increasing costs and decreasing networks is that the economics of ObamaCare is driving the industry to extensive consolidation. This leads to lack of competition and to narrower networks.

The networks are going to get even narrower in the future. Many doctors are selling their private practices and going to work as employees of the buyers rather than try to deal with ObamaCare. The practices are being bought by private hospitals and by insurance companies. Insurance companies are also buying private hospitals. Once an insurance company becomes fully vertically integrated, it will be the ultimate narrow network. You will be treated by the insurance company's doctors and go to their hospitals.



A new wave of insurance mega-mergers is fueling fears that ObamaCare is crushing competition. Despite initial claims that the law would bring down costs, Republican critics and others say it's driving the industry to consolidate -- which could end up costing consumers more.



The latest announcement came Friday when Anthem Inc. announced it agreed to acquire rival Cigna Corp. for $48.4 billion. If approved, the new insurance giant would have an estimated revenue north of $115 billion and serve the health needs of more than 53 million people.

The Anthem-Cigna news comes on the heels of another mega-merger announced earlier this month, when Aetna Inc. agreed to buy Humana for $37 billion.

If both mergers go through, only three major players in the U.S. insurance industry would be left competing for customers: Anthem, Aetna and UnitedHealth.




http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/24/mega-insurance-mergers-could-mean-mega-hikes-for-consumers/

[classhandicapper]

"If both mergers go through, only three major players in the U.S. insurance industry would be left competing for customers: Anthem, Aetna and UnitedHealth. "

If we can get those 3 to merge we will practically have single payer. :lol:

[zico20]

You are right, up to a point. Single payer is the best option and the ultimate goal. That doesn't mean the providers should work for the government. Medicare for all is the answer.

How do you propose we pay for this single payer plan you advocate?

[Clocker]

How do you propose we pay for this single payer plan you advocate?

That's why we have ObamaCare and not single payer. Single payer would require significant new taxes to fund it. ObamaCare hides the funding in the form of over-priced mandatory insurance for young and healthy customers and less obvious new taxes on things like medical devices.

[davew]

That makes as much sense as building an airport and basing the cost per passenger on the first 8200 passengers. You have heard of amortization of costs, right?


nope I haven't - does it mean something like for the 2 years the operation was in business, they get to claim losses for the next 20 years so that the $350 million disappears and the actual cost is nothing?


so where did the $350 million go?

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Apparently the ACA is designed to reduce employment, as well as increase costs....

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-newest-obamacare-fail-penalties-of36500-per-worker-2015-07-23?siteid=nwtpm

Hey, employers, don’t even think about reimbursing your workers’ health-insurance premiums.

Beginning this month, the IRS can levy fines amounting to $100 per worker per day or $36,500 per worker per year, with a maximum of $500,000 per firm.

This Internal Revenue Service penalty is not written into the Obamacare law. The amount is over 12 times the statutory amount in the Affordable Care Act of $3,000 per worker per year. That is what an employer is charged when one of its employees gets subsidized care on one of the health-care exchanges. It’s 18 times the $2,000 penalty for not offering adequate health insurance.

The $100 fine is applicable not only to large firms, but also those with fewer than 50 workers that are exempt from the $2,000 and $3,000 employer penalties. Firms with one worker are exempt. The penalty for S-corporations will take effect on Jan. 1, 2016. The new rule is broad, sweeping and overly punitive.

This new IRS penalty does not assist in the ACA’s stated goal of expanding health insurance in the United States. Rather, it does the opposite. It discourages people from finding and purchasing the insurance that suits them. It also discourages companies from hiring. Consider that 14% of businesses that do not offer group health insurance have some sort of arrangement to reimburse their employees for insurance costs, according to the National Federation of Independent Business.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
That makes as much sense as building an airport and basing the cost per passenger on the first 8200 passengers. You have heard of amortization of costs, right?

BS. We were supposed to get $2500 reductions.
Where are they?

God, you're dense.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

BS. We were supposed to get $2500 reductions.
Where are they?

God, you're dense.

Mostie isn't dense. He's like Napoleon in "Animal Farm".

[fast4522]

How do you propose we pay for this single payer plan you advocate?

He does not care, he figures he will be dead before the costs impact him.

[tucker6]

He does not care, he figures he will be dead before the costs impact him.
Likely the honest answer

[Clocker]

Over two-thirds of ObamaCare enrollees say that their coverage sucks.

Obamacare has offered insurance to millions of people, but they’re unhappy with the coverage they’re getting and are particularly upset about the costs, according to a survey released Monday that suggests the health care law continues to struggle to win over Americans.

Just 30 percent of customers on Obamacare’s exchanges were satisfied with their coverage, the health care research arm of the Deloitte consulting firm said.

Only a quarter of Obamacare customers in the survey were confident that they could get care when they needed it, and just 16 percent felt “financially prepared” to handle future health care costs, Deloitte said.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/3/obamacare-enrollees-less-satisfied-others-survey/

[davew]

That makes as much sense as building an airport and basing the cost per passenger on the first 8200 passengers. You have heard of amortization of costs, right?


If the airport gets closed down after the first 8200 passengers, then I agree.

[Clocker]

But if you like your doctor, and if you can afford your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you can find a doctor.

This past weekend, one hundred medical professionals met in California for the 33rd Doctors for Disaster Preparedness meeting and they all warned that healthcare as we have known it is over, thanks to increasing federal regulations and taxes. And as Obamacare rolls across the land, it is leaving in its wake a shortage of doctors and surgeons.

According to a Breitbart report, orthopedic surgeon Dr. Lee Hieb told the conference, "What do I mean by medical meltdown? Well, sadly, I’m here to tell you that the medical care you’ve enjoyed in the past in your life is simply not going to be there in the future.”

Here's why: We have so much regulation that almost no medical care gets out. We have over 160,000 pages of Medicare regulation and counting. Obamacare is Medicare on steroids.

Hieb explained that the shortage of doctors is stemming from "the great gurus of government" deciding that specialists were getting too big a piece of pie and so they put limitations on the profession. She added that the number of new general surgeons the U.S. receives each year (350) doesn't even reach replacement rate of those surgeons leaving the business. High tax rates and poor training are also to blame for the decrease, according to Hieb.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/medical-meltdown-obamacare-ushers-doctor-shortages

[don]

Worst case of fraud ever perpetrated on the American People.

[dartman51]

Worst case of fraud ever perpetrated on the American People.

Calling it FRAUD, is being WAY too kind. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

Calling it FRAUD, is being WAY too kind. :rolleyes:

I would start with Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Obama and many others in his administration are certainly guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

While that part of the Constitution only directly applies to the Executive Branch, many others are equally as guilty of the same things, including Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and John Roberts.

[mostpost]

The Kaiser Foundation has issued a study based on actual premiums from actual states; not, as Captain Obvious would say, people who lie on the internet.
http://files.kff.org/attachment/issue-brief-analysis-of-2016-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces

Table one shows the monthly benchmark silver premiums for a forty year old non smoker making $30,000 a year for the major cities in ten states and the District of Columbia. It compares 2016 premiums with 2015 premiums.

Hartford, Connecticut plus 2%.
Washington, DC plus 2.8%.
Portland, Maine plus 2.9%.
Baltimore, Md. plus 4.6%
Detroit, Mi. minus 1.8%
Albuquerque, NM plus 11%, but Albuequerque's 2016 rates are still lower than the other cities' 2015 rates.
New York, NY, plus 0.5%
Portland, Or. plus 16.2%
Burlington, Vt. plus 9.2%
Richmond, Va. plus 10.8%
Seattle, Wa. minus 10.1%

The average increase is 4.4%, not the 25-30% increase that has been suggested here. Here is another thing to consider. The increases and decreases shown above are before the tax credits (subsidies) are applied.

After they are applied rates increase uniformly by 0.2% in all the areas except Albuquerque.

Table five show the number of companies offering plans on the exchanges in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Only in Washington D.C. are there fewer companies offering plans in 2016 than in 2014. Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Virginia and Washington have more companies offering plans while New York, Oregon and Vermont have the same number.

[Clocker]

What is really happening with health insurance premiums.

There is nothing in those pretty little numbers that show anything conclusive about reality.

The plans with the lower premiums from 11 cities? Not a shred of evidence as to why those are representative of the country. Not a clue about out of pocket costs or the network of health care providers they include. Low premiums mean nothing to someone that can't afford the out of pocket costs, or to someone that has to pay higher premiums to keep his doctor or to find care within a manageable distance.

[mostpost]

There is nothing in those pretty little numbers that show anything conclusive about reality.

The plans with the lower premiums from 11 cities? Not a shred of evidence as to why those are representative of the country. Not a clue about out of pocket costs or the network of health care providers they include. Low premiums mean nothing to someone that can't afford the out of pocket costs, or to someone that has to pay higher premiums to keep his doctor or to find care within a manageable distance.
They show a lot more than your cherry picked increases from one or two insurers. My evidence is based on the complete and approved premiums from the areas described. Your so called evidence is based on one insurer in states that have many insurers. If one insurer raises rates 20% and six others lower them 5% each, that means rates went down. But I never said that premiums will go down. Some will, while some will remain the same. Others will go up appreciably. The point is that last year (2015), when you all said there would be 20% to 30% premium increases, the actual average increase nationwide was less than 5%. I predict this will be the case for 2016 also.

When you talk about out of pocket costs, I assume you are referring to things like deductibles and copays, because premiums are also out of pocket costs. A $6,000 deductible costs you nothing until you go to the doctor and incur a charge. Money spent on a deductible counts toward the $6800 annual cap on health care spending.

Let's look at two opposite scenarios. Person A has insurance with a $6,000 deductible. He never gets sick and never visits the doctor. His out of pocket expense is whatever he pays for premiums. Because he receives a subsidy, he should be able to afford those premiums. Person B also has insurance with a $6,000 deductible. His health deteriorates and he spends several week in the hospital with a mysterious illness. The hospital bill comes to $250,000. If he had no insurance, he would be responsible for the entire $250,000. But he does have insurance :jump: :jump: :jump: :jump: :jump: so he is only responsible for the first $6.800.* The $6,000 of his deductible plus the extra $800 needed to reach his annual cap. Obamacare has saved him $243,200.
From healthcare.gov
*The most you pay during a policy period (usually one year) before your health insurance or plan starts to pay 100% for covered essential health benefits. This limit must include deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, or similar charges and any other expenditure required of an individual which is a qualified medical expense for the essential health benefits. This limit does not have to count premiums, balance billing amounts for non-network providers and other out-of-network cost-sharing, or spending for non-essential health benefits.

The maximum out-of-pocket cost limit for any individual Marketplace plan for 2015 can be no more than $6,600 for an individual plan and $13,200 for a family plan.

[Inner Dirt]

What I find comical is the biggest supporter of the ACA doesn't even use it and calls people who have and people who know people who have liars. Kind of like the hard core wealthy liberal greenie who drives a huge SUV, lives in a giant house with a huge lawn in California, while telling everyone else to conserve.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

They show a lot more than your cherry picked increases from one or two insurers. My evidence is based on the complete and approved premiums from the areas described.

Indeed. 10 states and DC. Like that's not cheery picking? :rolleyes:


Premium changes for 2016 will vary substantially across areas and across insurers within a given region. At this time, with complete premium information only available in 10 states plus DC, and still awaiting final reviews by state regulators, it is too soon to draw conclusions about the premiums nationally.

Get back to us when you have real, comprehensive data, and not the cheery picked analysis from one of the insiders.


Let's look at two opposite scenarios. Person A has insurance with a $6,000 deductible. He never gets sick and never visits the doctor. His out of pocket expense is whatever he pays for premiums. Because he receives a subsidy, he should be able to afford those premiums. Person B also has insurance with a $6,000 deductible. His health deteriorates and he spends several week in the hospital with a mysterious illness. The hospital bill comes to $250,000. If he had no insurance, he would be responsible for the entire $250,000. But he does have insurance :jump: :jump: :jump: :jump: :jump: so he is only responsible for the first $6.800.* The $6,000 of his deductible plus the extra $800 needed to reach his annual cap. Obamacare has saved him $243,200.

Obamacare didn't "save" this guy anything. Let's look at a scenario in which the free market is allowed to operate, and the government actually enforces the anti-monopoly laws on the books.

Person A has no insurance, is in good health and "saves" $6000 from being picked from his pocket.

Person B has no insurance, comes down with a "mysterious" illness, which is treatable for $6800, and goes on his merry way.

The only entities that lose out in this scenario are the leeches from government and insurance agencies, and the health care oligarchy.

[Clocker]

Person A has insurance with a $6,000 deductible. He never gets sick and never visits the doctor. His out of pocket expense is whatever he pays for premiums. Because he receives a subsidy, he should be able to afford those premiums.

He "should be able to afford" ObamaCare as long as he doesn't use it. :D

[johnhannibalsmith]

He "should be able to afford" ObamaCare as long as he doesn't use it. :D

Yeah I was sure I had misread that line. What an advertisement for health insurance under this system. The premise seems to be that all we need is a shit load of Patient A to never ever get sick or ever go to the doctor and never ever miss a payment so that Patient B can be saved and the world will be happy. Good luck there.

[Clocker]

What an advertisement for health insurance under this system. The premise seems to be that all we need is a shit load of Patient A to never ever get sick or ever go to the doctor and never ever miss a payment so that Patient B can be saved and the world will be happy. Good luck there.

Exactly. The Democrats got really creative this time. It is a Ponzi scheme welfare program dressed up to look like health insurance.

And the unintended consequences include rising health care costs, growing shortages of doctors, shrinking health care networks available to those that actually do use it, and increasing consolidation of the health care industry into vertically integrated mega-insurance companies that also own medical practices and hospitals. And it has economic consequences affecting hiring practices and work schedules in the private sector.

[mostpost]

Indeed. 10 states and DC. Like that's not cheery picking? :rolleyes:
It isn't because it is data available from all the states which have reported completely.




Get back to us when you have real, comprehensive data, and not the cheery picked analysis from one of the insiders.
I plan to do just that and when I do you will deny the evidence just as you always do.




Obamacare didn't "save" this guy anything. Let's look at a scenario in which the free market is allowed to operate, and the government actually enforces the anti-monopoly laws on the books.
The free market doesn't exist and it doesn't work unless it is regulated. You are right that the enforcement of the anti-monopoly laws has been haphazard lately. I do not know to what extent, if any, the insurance companies are breaking the anti-trust laws.

Person A has no insurance, is in good health and "saves" $6000 from being picked from his pocket.
Person A is in good health until he is not or until he gets hit by a school bus while crossing the street. Then he has to file bankruptcy because he has no insurance and can't pay the hospital and medical bills.

Person B has no insurance, comes down with a "mysterious" illness, which is treatable for $6800, and goes on his merry way.
Or it can't be treated for that amount and he dies.

The only entities that lose out in this scenario are the leeches from government and insurance agencies, and the health care oligarchy.
Your whole scenario is ridiculous. You want an unfettered free market, yet you complain that the government is not enforcing the anti-trust laws. In an unfettered free market there are no anti-trust laws to enforce. Nor does the government regulate premiums and such.

In your world, nobody has insurance and nobody gets sick except a few who get illnesses that never cost over $7,000. The real world does not work that way.

[mostpost]

He "should be able to afford" ObamaCare as long as he doesn't use it. :D
Once again you get it wrong. (You know, I should have a stamp made so I don't have to type that every time.) The deductible is not an automatic expense. You don't pay $6,000 at the start of the year. You pay against your deductible as you incur medical expenses. If you incur only $500 in medical expenses in a year, you keep $5500. So, in essence, your deductible for that year is $500.
I am pretty sure the deductible does not roll over to the next year. By pretty sure, I mean absolutely certain beyond a doubt.

[Clocker]

Once again you get it wrong. (You know, I should have a stamp made so I don't have to type that every time.) The deductible is not an automatic expense.

Getting that out of anything I said requires cruel and unusual torture of logic and language.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Your whole scenario is ridiculous. You want an unfettered free market, yet you complain that the government is not enforcing the anti-trust laws. In an unfettered free market there are no anti-trust laws to enforce. Nor does the government regulate premiums and such.

In your world, nobody has insurance and nobody gets sick except a few who get illnesses that never cost over $7,000. The real world does not work that way.

Mostie, you really should read up on the definition of free market, which includes the exclusion of "any price fixing monopoly". Government intervention is one thing, preventing private businesses from rigging the markets is quite another.

On the contrary, it's your scenario which is ridiculous. You're quick to drink the Kool-Aid and be so supportive of the ACA which is a government "solution" required due to a "problem" of the government's own making. It takes some mighty twisted logic to see the benefit of "saving" $243,200 in a system where the treatment should really only be $6800 (or less). It's like thanking the Fire Department for stopping by, starting your house on fire, putting it out, and then billing you for their trouble.

In my world, I don't give credit for solutions which don't address the root cause of the problem. In our lifetimes, health care went from something that most people did pay out of pocket to a mandatory requirement, with the driving force behind it the insane rise in health care costs, due to numerous mechanisms of monopoly.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/12/22/the-cost-of-health-care-1958-vs-2012/

In my world, health insurance would be voluntary with reasonable prices, more like what we see in the dental industry. In your world, the solution is to continue to feed the leeches in government and pay off the gangster's extortion demands in the insurance industry in a self-destructive death spiral....

[zico20]

They show a lot more than your cherry picked increases from one or two insurers. My evidence is based on the complete and approved premiums from the areas described. Your so called evidence is based on one insurer in states that have many insurers. If one insurer raises rates 20% and six others lower them 5% each, that means rates went down. But I never said that premiums will go down. Some will, while some will remain the same. Others will go up appreciably. The point is that last year (2015), when you all said there would be 20% to 30% premium increases, the actual average increase nationwide was less than 5%. I predict this will be the case for 2016 also.

When you talk about out of pocket costs, I assume you are referring to things like deductibles and copays, because premiums are also out of pocket costs. A $6,000 deductible costs you nothing until you go to the doctor and incur a charge. Money spent on a deductible counts toward the $6800 annual cap on health care spending.

Let's look at two opposite scenarios. Person A has insurance with a $6,000 deductible. He never gets sick and never visits the doctor. His out of pocket expense is whatever he pays for premiums. Because he receives a subsidy, he should be able to afford those premiums. Person B also has insurance with a $6,000 deductible. His health deteriorates and he spends several week in the hospital with a mysterious illness. The hospital bill comes to $250,000. If he had no insurance, he would be responsible for the entire $250,000. But he does have insurance :jump: :jump: :jump: :jump: :jump: so he is only responsible for the first $6.800.* The $6,000 of his deductible plus the extra $800 needed to reach his annual cap. Obamacare has saved him $243,200.
From healthcare.gov
*The most you pay during a policy period (usually one year) before your health insurance or plan starts to pay 100% for covered essential health benefits. This limit must include deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, or similar charges and any other expenditure required of an individual which is a qualified medical expense for the essential health benefits. This limit does not have to count premiums, balance billing amounts for non-network providers and other out-of-network cost-sharing, or spending for non-essential health benefits.

The maximum out-of-pocket cost limit for any individual Marketplace plan for 2015 can be no more than $6,600 for an individual plan and $13,200 for a family plan.

Mostie,

can you defend this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/us/most-health-insurance-co-ops-are-losing-money-federal-audit-finds.html?ref=us

[Clocker]

can you defend this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/us/most-health-insurance-co-ops-are-losing-money-federal-audit-finds.html?ref=us


As predicted from the start by anyone not overdosed on Kool Aid:

In February, the Iowa insurance commissioner moved to shut down a nonprofit co-op insurer, CoOportunity Health, created with $145 million in federal loans, and a state court found it insolvent because of “adverse claims experience.”

[Hoofless_Wonder]

http://techscience.org/a/2015081104/

These guys are some sort of Harvard based group. Looks more complete than other data in this thread, with results from 34 states, and an average increase of 17.7% between 2014 and 2015. Consolidation of providers is resulting in the largest ones boosting prices more....75% more than other same state providers.

... Our findings suggest that even after the Affordable Care Act, the largest on-exchange issuers may be in a better position to practice anti-competitive pricing compared to their same-state counterparts.

[mostpost]

http://techscience.org/a/2015081104/

These guys are some sort of Harvard based group. Looks more complete than other data in this thread, with results from 34 states, and an average increase of 17.7% between 2014 and 2015. Consolidation of providers is resulting in the largest ones boosting prices more....75% more than other same state providers.
What makes your study any better than this one, which shows much smaller increases and appears to be just as complete?
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/aca-state-exchanges.jhtml

Among the seventeen states and DC with final rate announcements, the average premium (across metal tiers and ages) is about $361, and the average premium increase from 2014 is 3.7%. By contrast, the average premium increase across all reporting states is 5.4%, and the average premium is $389.

The Harvard study makes this statement.
Relative to other same-state issuers, this study finds that the average largest issuer of each state had a 75% higher premium increase from 2014 to 2015 and that their rate increases affects a larger proportion of plans. Yet the largest issuers’ higher premium raises do not seem justified from the standpoint of incurred claims-to-premium ratio.
So, if there are premium increases they are not caused by Obamacare, but by insurance companies trying to increase their profits.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

What makes your study any better than this one, which shows much smaller increases and appears to be just as complete?
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/aca-state-exchanges.jhtml

I was referring to the earlier link you provided from Kaiser, which only had data from 10 states and DC. This link from Price Waterhouse appears to have data from most states.

But, now that you ask, on the surface I'd put more stock into a study from a group of academics versus a Fortune 100 company that doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds it. I'll have to look closer at the data for each state - there appears at first glance to be significant differences in the data sets.

One of many problems with Obummer Care is the lack of metrics in the law to gauge its impact, positive or negative. This is of course intentional, as covering up its colossal and predictable failure is one of the main goals.


The Harvard study makes this statement.

So, if there are premium increases they are not caused by Obamacare, but by insurance companies trying to increase their profits.

This is hardly surprising, and I would argue absolutely is caused by Obamacare. Rather than break the monopolies of the insurance and heath care juggernauts, Obamacare re-enforced their death grip on the system - A result of implementing legislation the juggernauts wrote, and of course CONgress had to pass just to find out what was really in it....

[davew]

reality started to set in.....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/democrats-begin-long-tortuous-retreat-093000257.html

I suppose more companies will be pulling out of state exchanges when government support of losses discontinues.

[Saratoga_Mike]

So, if there are premium increases they are not caused by Obamacare, but by insurance companies trying to increase their profits.

...and back to reality, the ACA addresses the issue of MLRs, placing an effective cap on profits (outside of SG&A leverage of course).

Google: medical loss ratios and CMS

[Clocker]

...and back to reality, the ACA addresses the issue of MLRs, placing an effective cap on profits (outside of SG&A leverage of course).
ss
Google: medical loss ratios and CMS

And state insurance regulators are finding the rate increases to be justified. This just announced:

Minnesotans who use the state’s health exchange to buy medical insurance are in for some sticker shock. The Minnesota Department of Commerce announced Thursday monthly premium rates for MNsure users ranging from 14 percent to a whopping 49 percent.



http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/10/01/major-hikes-expected-as-state-releases-2016-insurance-rates/

[Clocker]

A huge shortfall in the Obamacare "risk corridors", designed to protect insurance companies during the start-up years, could be big trouble for insurers, and for future rates.

Insurers requested $2.87 billion in so-called "risk corridors" payments for 2014, but will only receive $362 million, or 12.6%, said the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees Obamacare.

The risk corridors program's goal is to help insurers transition into the individual exchanges, which opened in 2014. Insurers had a tough time setting premiums since they didn't know how sick their new customers would be.

Under the three-year program, insurers whose premiums exceeded claims pay into the fund, while their peers who didn't charge enough premiums to cover claims could draw from it.



http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/02/news/economy/obamacare-insurers/

[Clocker]

Faced with much higher than expected payouts, insurance companies are also increasing deductibles on their basic policies in 2016.

ObamaCare costs will jump next year for exchange customers, one way or the other. Premiums are set to spike by more than 20% in at least 16 states. But, for many, the real sticker shock will be soaring deductibles that mean they'll get few benefits until they've racked up huge bills.

Low-end bronze plans have deductibles hitting $6,850 in 2016. Now insurers are hiking silver-plan deductibles as high as $6,500 as a way to keep a lid on premiums. The downside isn't just more out-of-pocket costs for patients; it also will have a ripple effect of reducing taxpayer subsidies for cheaper plans.

Take Indiana, where average premiums are set to rise just under 1% on average, tied for the lowest in the nation, according to ACASignups.net. The cheapest silver plan in Indianapolis will actually fall by 6%, but that doesn't necessarily mean customers will get a better deal.


This year's cheapest silver plan, from CareSource, has a $3,500 deductible. But in 2016 the cheapest plan, from Ambetter, will have a $6,500 deductible — an 86% jump.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/100915-774951-obamacare-deductibles-will-get-you-if-not-premiums.htm#ixzz3oCmPclMx (http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/100915-774951-obamacare-deductibles-will-get-you-if-not-premiums.htm#ixzz3oCmPclMx)

[Dave Schwartz]

We have not seen the precise coverage yet for 2016 but it did appear that the premium was going up another 23% from last year. That would put us at $2,338 for next year except for the fact that I am moving to medicare, and, as such, will have the issue of which "Advantage Plan" I add.

The good news is that it appears (based upon last year's coverages) that medicare, when combined with Senior Care Plus, the cost of MY health care will drop to around $297 per month for "similar" coverage.

Okay... not so similar, really - but looks very good; not at all what I was expecting.

That would leave Beth's single premium at around $1,200 for her Obama Care Platinum.

I will post precise figures and coverages when we get them.

[DRIVEWAY]

We have not seen the precise coverage yet for 2016 but it did appear that the premium was going up another 23% from last year. That would put us at $2,338 for next year except for the fact that I am moving to medicare, and, as such, will have the issue of which "Advantage Plan" I add.

The good news is that it appears (based upon last year's coverages) that medicare, when combined with Senior Care Plus, the cost of MY health care will drop to around $297 per month for "similar" coverage.

Okay... not so similar, really - but looks very good; not at all what I was expecting.

That would leave Beth's single premium at around $1,200 for her Obama Care Platinum.

I will post precise figures and coverages when we get them.


Before you decide on an Advantage Plan, check out the Part D coverages and
Supplement Plan F. It will cost more but no more "simon says may I" with the insurance company.

Know what you're giving up with an Advantage Plan.

[dartman51]

I guess no one remembers when the push for passing Obama care began, the insurance companies were against it. Then Obama had a meeting with the top dogs, then all of a sudden, they were for it. It was all part of the deal to get them on board. Premiums would be low in the beginning, to get all the dumb asses, to buy into it, then once they're hooked, you can jack the prices up, and, in the meantime, we, the Government, will subsidise your losses. :rolleyes: It's unbelievable what some people will believe. :eek:

[Dave Schwartz]

Dartman,

At $1,901 per month, I could not call our cost "low." However, before signing the first year I priced what would have been comparable and it was about $3,700 for similar coverage.

But going up 20% and more each year will certainly wind up making it impossible: Crazy for the premium payer and crazy for those subsidizing (the taxpayers).

As I have said all along, this has worked out well for us but I just do not see how it can be paid for in the long run.

[whodoyoulike]

Dartman,

At $1,901 per month, I could not call our cost "low." However, before signing the first year I priced what would have been comparable and it was about $3,700 for similar coverage.

But going up 20% and more each year will certainly wind up making it impossible: Crazy for the premium payer and crazy for those subsidizing (the taxpayers).

As I have said all along, this has worked out well for us but I just do not see how it can be paid for in the long run.

Your numbers sound very high. I never realized even with an Advantage Plan.

This is for two and you compared prices, correct?

Isn't just basic Medicare coverage, the cheapest?

[Dave Schwartz]

That coverage is for ACA platinum, what we have had for the last 2 years. Next year on go to medicare.


Isn't just basic Medicare coverage, the cheapest?

Of course.

My point was that the Advantage Supplement I have chosen is around $300 for "similar" although not as good coverage. (Some is actually better.)

[RaceBookJoe]

Just got a letter last week informing me that my plan is going from $501/month to $943/month. think I will be looking for something different

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Just got a letter last week informing me that my plan is going from $501/month to $943/month. think I will be looking for something different

Don't tell Mostie - he'll accuse you of spreading lies on the internet. He's sticking to his 3-5% increases, since that fits in more closely to the official government version.

I'm not sure what the increase will be for next year for myself, since that's a "hidden cost" that HR doesn't share. But I can tell you that it's impacting hiring of additional staff, which is something we desperately need, with the result of more and more work heaped on my plate.

Since I'm in my mid 50s, I'm sure the squeeze I saw at IBM will begin shortly.....pressure the older workers to leave, replace them with lower cost units, which of course are younger and less experienced.

[Saratoga_Mike]

And state insurance regulators are finding the rate increases to be justified. This just announced:



http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/10/01/major-hikes-expected-as-state-releases-2016-insurance-rates/

I'm still waiting for Most to admit he had no idea about MLR caps. I'm sure he's Googled it by now.

[LottaKash]

Don't tell Mostie - he'll accuse you of spreading lies on the internet.

My yearly tribute to PA's very own internet-genius....


http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp137/lottakash/71526_646259543797_26601968_36542940_4125886_n_zps 7058b802.png (http://s405.photobucket.com/user/lottakash/media/71526_646259543797_26601968_36542940_4125886_n_zps 7058b802.png.html)

[Dave Schwartz]

Medicare Advantage Supplement

Uh-oh. Things have changed.

Today I got the information about my chosen Medicare Advantage Supplement. Apparently, there are only 2 available to me: Senior Care Plus and Senior Dimensions.

Senior Care Plus (SCP) is the only one that works in my network of providers.

I received the benefits list and rate quotes from the 2015 plan, which I commented upon a couple of days ago. I was extremely pleased to spend the $247 per month (even with the anticipated increase) that would give me coverage approaching the level of the ACA Platinum Plan I currently have.

Today, when I reviewed the SCP plan I was astounded to find some horrible changes:

1. The no longer offer a PPO (preferred provider) plan. The only thing available is an HMO.

2. Although the rate has dropped to $168, the coverage is pure crap in comparison to what they offered last year. The deductibles have gone up substantially.

#2 bothers me the most. For example, SCP and SD both used to cover fitness club memberships. The alternative is to reach into my pocket and spend $50-$60 per month!

Another example: Dental care used to cover 4 cleanings per year; now only 2.

The list goes on and on, but the point is clear: It does not bode well for seniors.

[Tom]

Uh-oh. Things have changed.

.

[classhandicapper]

This is just the warmup. We aren't even into the first inning yet. As the population ages and the demographics change things are going to get worse and worse, especially for medicare patients. The government has made MASSIVE promises that are cannot be funded at anything even close to current tax rates. So taxes rates are going rise very significantly, there are going to be massive cuts to benefits (and more out of pocket), or both. Yet somehow the democrats think all this won't have any impact on economic growth. I'm sure the same issues will impact private insurance companies.

[forced89]

They no longer offer a PPO (preferred provider) plan. The only thing available is an HMO.

I visited with a Health Insurance Agent yesterday. My recollection is that when discussing the AARP (United Healthcare) Medicare Advantage Programs that the monthly premium for the HMO version was $0 and the premium for the PPO was $32 per month. My point isn't that taking co-pays, deductibles, choice of doctors, etc. into consideration that either is a good deal or not, just that there was a PPO option available.

[ebcorde]

from the private sector is out of their mind. Recall the "public option" it was removed , the public option would have helped keep the private sector under control.

If people die because of lousy healthcare they're crazy. I assure you I won't be going down with a whimper because I can't pay. I'll steal them , go to Canada and buy them. Instead of heroin, it'll be a black market for prescription drugs. Tests? try negotiate them. My sister in law gets MRI's for $300 cash.


I'm not joking. One of my immigrants buddies escaped from North Vietnam made it to Hong Kong. A ship a mile out in the water was headed to the USA. he's 14 and he was told," wanna go to America? you have to swim to that ship" and he told me "I've got nothing to lose". Same with healthcare. I'll scam this system to the max if I have too. I'm not going to lay down and die.

another thing , I'm on company healthcare right now, so I don't know medicare costs. I was told by an immigrant that he pays $300 a month to put his for his old Indian father on medicare. so why are you guys paying so much?

[Dave Schwartz]

just that there was a PPO option available.

Apparently it depends upon the area in which you live.

[Clocker]

Recall the "public option" it was removed , the public option would have helped keep the private sector under control.



While there was no federal public option, many states formed co-ops, with federal funding. They are generally not doing well, and are not competitive with the private sector.

Tennessee will become the sixth state to shut down its Obamacare-funded insurance co-op, announcing Wednesday it will not offer insurance coverage in 2016.

The decision comes a few weeks after the federal government warned Tennessee of financial problems with the co-op including failing to pay agents and brokers and rising patient complaints. Tennessee's planned closure comes less than a week after Kentucky decided to also close its doors after financial troubles.

The decision means only 17 insurance co-ops are left. The co-ops were created by the Affordable Care Act to offer more competition in the insurance marketplace exchanges.

But the co-ops have been plagued by financial troubles since they went online. Co-ops received more than $2 billion in federal funding as of December 2014.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tennessee-to-shut-down-obamacare-co-op/article/2574113

[Richie]

I am an administrator at a VNA in CT, so what I am saying is fact. The paperwork and tracking to the Fed Govt because of the ACA is unbelievable. We now have to pay to have all the employee hours tracked by our payroll service for hours worked, including per diem (paid by visit). Its all reported to the govt, and everyone in a 50 plus FTE company will be getting a new tax form to file with their w2.

In addition, we will have to offer health insurance to any employee averaging 30 hours a week over an 10 month span or face big fines. In our business, as well as many others (restaurants, grocery, etc). This is not good.

And, our current renewal plans from anthem jumped 15% and more. The whole USA will be moving to high deductible plans, basically the model has changed from "paying for just in case" to paying for "as you go", so you will paying from 1000-3000 deductibles to 3000-6000 per family, with high maxes.

In closing, on our new bills they show our share of the premium going to OBAMACARE per month, our is around 4000, so our premium increase includes 48k for that. This is such a disgrace, I can't begin to tell you the other stuff, I can go on and on, this is going to be a real bumpy ride, fasten your seat belts

[elysiantraveller]

...

My family owns a moderately sized staffing company and have had to create new positions in HR and Accounting just to track and administer implementation. Fines and costs aside that is 6 figures gone that could have been spent on growth. The argument that it doesn't hurt business is preposterous.

[Clocker]

I am an administrator at a VNA in CT, so what I am saying is fact. The paperwork and tracking to the Fed Govt because of the ACA is unbelievable.

Is all that additional paperwork for all employers, or is it because you are in the health care industry?

The whole USA will be moving to high deductible plans, basically the model has changed from "paying for just in case" to paying for "as you go", so you will paying from 1000-3000 deductibles to 3000-6000 per family, with high maxes.



But as the Fan Boys here cheerfully point out, you never have to pay the deductibles unless you actually use the insurance. So it actually is affordable, as long as you don't use it.

[classhandicapper]

My family owns a moderately sized staffing company and have had to create new positions in HR and Accounting just to track and administer implementation. Fines and costs aside that is 6 figures gone that could have been spent on growth. The argument that it doesn't hurt business is preposterous.

This kind of stuff is obvious to people with some business knowledge, but I can assure you there are hired gun economists out there that will collect misleading data and present the case that none of this is true (ahem Krugman). Most of the media (who is also in the tank) will then focus on those reports instead of using common sense business knowledge supported by the actual experience of business owners like you. In Krugman's world, not only are there free lunches, there are free breakfasts, dinners, healthcare, and anything else he can dream up.

[Clocker]

This kind of stuff is obvious to people with some business knowledge, but I can assure you there are hired gun economists out there that will collect misleading data and present the case that none of this is true (ahem Krugman).

Krugman would point out that at least 2 new jobs were created in that company. Multiply that by the thousands of companies similarly affected and we are finally on the road to full employment. :D

[Richie]

any company with 50 FTE's is required to do all the extras, you can have 10 full timers and 80 part timers but if all the hours combined is equivalent to 50 full timers , you lose, it applies to all companies

[sammy the sage]

any company with 50 FTE's is required to do all the extras, you can have 10 full timers and 80 part timers but if all the hours combined is equivalent to 50 full timers , you lose, it applies to all companies

wrong...the prez. gave exemptions to over 1200 of THE largest companies...the fact that they were big campaign donors...well it smells like all the rest of politics...

[Clocker]

wrong...the prez. gave exemptions to over 1200 of THE largest companies...the fact that they were big campaign donors...well it smells like all the rest of politics...

Those were 1 year waivers granted about 5 years ago to companies that were providing mini-med programs, especially to part time workers. They have all expired long ago.

[elysiantraveller]

Krugman would point out that at least 2 new jobs were created in that company. Multiply that by the thousands of companies similarly affected and we are finally on the road to full employment. :D

Sadly that is some of the logic. Those funds could have hired 4 sales people that in turn grow the business and force us to hire out of growth not regulation and compliance.

[classhandicapper]

This is the problem the way I see it.

The Keynesian folk primarily focuses on economic activity in the short term. By that I mean GDP, mostly driven by "consumption".

To make it clearer.

Imagine a family makes 75k per year. If they spend the entire 75K, borrow another 10K and spend that, they'll have a grand time.

Imagine another family makes 75K, spends 65K, and saves and invests 10K. This family isn't having nearly as much fun as the other right now, but it's getting wealthier. It will eventually be able to have massively more fun while the other is bogged down by debt and retrenching.

The Keynesians encourage consumption via government spending and easy credit to get economic activity up. It's very short term thinking when it comes to economics, perhaps driven by politics. Politicians that spend and encourage credit expansion will show the population a good time for a while and get reelected.

The idea is to encourage savings and investment. To do that you need sound money, balanced budgets, stable and low taxes on capital etc... The Keynesians are too worried about a short term recession to do the right things for the long term.

[Clocker]

Another ObamaCare co-op bites the dust. Another 83,000 people who liked their plan can't keep their plan, joining the nearly 500,000 who have lost their plans in previous shut-downs in other states. Only 23 states opted to set up exchanges under ObamaCare, and now 7 of them have shut down because they were not financially sustainable, even with federal support.

The Colorado Division of Insurance has cut Colorado HealthOP from the state insurance exchange, effectively shutting down the low-cost insurance cooperative and leaving 83,000 members looking for new coverage.

After receiving only $2 million of the $16.2 million in reimbursements promised by the federal Centers for Medicaid and Medicare promised, Colorado HealthOP no longer meets the state's minimum capital and surplus requirements, state regulators said Friday.



http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_28979488/colorado-healthop-says-its-being-decertified-by-state

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Medicare Advantage Supplement...

The list goes on and on, but the point is clear: It does not bode well for seniors.

It does not bode well for anyone. Seniors have gotten a relatively free and easy ride up to this point. Just be glad you've got a few years to get some benefits.

For the rest of us, getting to age 65 is going to get us a ticket on iceberg, Eskimo style, like in the movie "The Savage Innocents". Or, maybe a more green solution. As in soylent green.....

[Tom]

Cradle to grave coverage by the democrats - kill the babies, let the elderly die off. Break your back with taxes in between.

Good plan. More suitable to CROPS than PEOPLE.

[davew]

Cradle to grave coverage by the democrats - kill the babies, let the elderly die off. Break your back with taxes in between.

Good plan. More suitable to CROPS than PEOPLE.


they are not babies until they are born - before then they are just parasites

between the premiums and high deductibles, most people can not afford to use this insurance - they just support the chronically sick who previously could not get insured.

[Clocker]

Good plan. More suitable to LIVESTOCK than PEOPLE.

Fixed for accuracy.

Now quit your whining and eat your Soylent Green.

[Clocker]

The death spiral continues.

As of this week, nine of the law’s 23 state co-ops — nonprofit health-insurance companies set up to help people enroll in Obamacare — have collapsed. Over 600,000 people who enrolled in co-op health plans will lose their insurance at the end of this year. Many of them were forced into the co-ops to begin with when Obamacare canceled their private insurance policies in 2013, meaning they will have lost their health insurance twice because of the law.

All this is despite, of course, Obama’s now-infamous promise that if you liked your health plan, you could keep it.

The bad news shows no sign of abating. According to recent news reports, eleven more co-ops are on the verge of failure. Twenty-two of the 23 co-ops lost money in 2014 despite receiving $2.4 billion in taxpayer support. The nine that have already failed received over $1 billion combined. Not even that was enough to keep them alive.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425953/obamacare-health-insurance-co-ops-failing?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Conten t&utm_content=562b181104d3015b45000001&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

[Dave Schwartz]

Had my appointment with an insurance agency that has handled us for several years. Found some interesting stuff.

For example, there are several "medi-gap" supplements offered in my area. At the highest end of the spectrum (i.e. best coverage), they range in price from like $60 @ month to about $175 @ month.

The amazing thing is that (by law) the coverage is exactly the same no matter which carrier you choose! Only the price changes!

That is just nuts.

[Clocker]

The amazing thing is that (by law) the coverage is exactly the same no matter which carrier you choose! Only the price changes!

That is just nuts.

People don't know what is good for them. Big Brother protects them from the consequences of making choices on their own. Otherwise you might pick a cheaper plan just because it provides all the coverage that you need. :eek:

[Hoofless_Wonder]

In spite of MostPost's prediction, all I'm seeing are a constant stream of mostly double-digit increases.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/us/politics/many-may-find-unpleasant-surprise-on-healthcaregov-high-rate-increases.html

The company I work for kept our premium increases to around 5%, but the deductibles jumped 20-50%.

In Minnesota, officials approved increases averaging 49 percent for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, the largest insurer in the market. Even with the increases, the company said, “Blue Cross is likely to experience continued significant financial losses through 2016.”

Gov. Mark Dayton of Minnesota, a Democrat, said he was “extremely unhappy” with the high rate increases.

That certainly makes me feel better, to know that a politician is unhappy about it..... :rolleyes:

[jballscalls]

I've always gotten my insurance privately (well atleast for last few years)
saw 15% increase the first year of using the exchange. then last year another 20%.

I moved states this year so will be interesting to see if it goes up again. Income is less tho so I might fall into subsidy range now.

[Clocker]

Health insurance co-ops were created by 23 states under ObamaCare, designed to provide competition to private insurance companies. The administration has announced that 12 of them will not be offering insurance next year, shutting down due to big losses. Of the remaining 11, 9 are in financial trouble. The common problem is that benefits payed out exceed the income from premiums, because not enough young and healthy people are buying insurance, which is needed to pay the benefits of older, less healthy people who do buy the insurance. Somehow this comes as a shock to supporters of the law.

The co-ops have already gotten some $2.5 billion in federal aid, and the White House has announced that it will do nothing further to prop up the failed or failing co-ops. Hundreds of thousands of people will once again not be able to keep their plans next year.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-white-house-wont-be-saving-the-failing-obamacare-co-ops-2015-11

[Tom]

Simple fix - just raise taxes on the evil 1%.
And don't forget those Hedge Funds......

[mostpost]

I just received my 2016 premium notice from the American Postal Workers Union Health Plan. I have Medicare Part A, but instead of signing up for Medicare Part B, I kept the APWU plan after I retired. It made more sense financially.

Anyway, I am unhappy to say that my premium went up 26%. This after years in which the increases were low or middle single digits. Unlike most here, I am not going to blame this on Obamacare. Nor will I blame it on Cigna, the carrier for my plan. It is clear who the culprit is-or who the culprits are.

In the last year, the cost of one of my medications has risen 21%. Another has risen 56%. An MRI in American costs $1080 on average. In France it costs $280

Drug companies have a profit margin of 20%. Less than half of that goes back into R&D.

I know you are all going to be worried about me, :rolleyes: :rolleyes: so I will reassure you. Even with the increase, my premiums are well below what I have seen at the exchanges and my deductibles and copays are fantastic.

[Tom]

For every paying patient at a hospital, that bill has to cover all those who are not paying.

So thank your own party for that.

Drug companies also make many meds available world-wide to people who cannot afford to pay for them, so the bill is picked up by those who can afford to pay.

mostie, THIS is the system you have dreamed of, only this time, YOU are one the evil 1%ers.

I can live with it...what are we to do, deny the less fortunate the medicines they need?

[Clocker]

Even with the increase, my premiums are well below what I have seen at the exchanges and my deductibles and copays are fantastic.
In other words, insurance under the Affordable Care Act is not very affordable.

Who would have thought that would happen, with the government making sure that people got what is good for them. :eek:

[Saratoga_Mike]

Anyway, I am unhappy to say that my premium went up 26%. This after years in which the increases were low or middle single digits. Unlike most here, I am not going to blame this on Obamacare. Nor will I blame it on Cigna, the carrier for my plan. It is clear who the culprit is-or who the culprits are.

Drug companies have a profit margin of 20%. Less than half of that goes back into R&D.

.

First, hats off to your transparency/honesty. But let's exam your thought pattern. You believe drugs companies earn too much, or at least their margins are too high. But wasn't that the case this year and last yr, too? Yes, so how can you blame the 26% premium increase on drug companies?

[Saratoga_Mike]

In spite of MostPost's prediction, all I'm seeing are a constant stream of mostly double-digit increases.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/us/politics/many-may-find-unpleasant-surprise-on-healthcaregov-high-rate-increases.html

The company I work for kept our premium increases to around 5%, but the deductibles jumped 20-50%.



That certainly makes me feel better, to know that a politician is unhappy about it..... :rolleyes:

And your source is the NY Times, not some right-wing media organization, so Most can't reject your argument out of hand. Therefore, he pivots and now places the blame on drug companies.

[mostpost]

For every paying patient at a hospital, that bill has to cover all those who are not paying.
That is the purpose of the Affordable Care Act. To reduce the percentage of uninsured so everyone can pay their hospital and health care bills. Even if I have to pay a few hundred a year for insurance, it is worth it if I save thousands on tests, medicines and procedures.

So thank your own party for that.
I don't think it was my party in 2003 that forbade Medicare from negotiating price with the drug companies.

Drug companies also make many meds available world-wide to people who cannot afford to pay for them, so the bill is picked up by those who can afford to pay.

mostie, THIS is the system you have dreamed of, only this time, YOU are one the evil 1%ers.

I can live with it...what are we to do, deny the less fortunate the medicines they need?
Then why bring it up if you are OK with it? The reason drug companies have to give medications to some without charge is that those people have no insurance. Does it not make more sense to see that they have insurance and charge them for the medication.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Surprise surprise.

[Tom]

Then why bring it up if you are OK with it? The reason drug companies have to give medications to some without charge is that those people have no insurance. Does it not make more sense to see that they have insurance and charge them for the medication.

I'm talking about people outside the country, oh, wait, you consider them potential voters, or, Citizens-light.

I suppose you want to insure all of the world now?

[Hoofless_Wonder]

And your source is the NY Times, not some right-wing media organization, so Most can't reject your argument out of hand. Therefore, he pivots and now places the blame on drug companies.

MostPost cracks me up. Why, it can't be ObamaCare. No, no. Who could possibly draw the conclusion that a health care mandate, written by the health care monopoly, would strengthen their death grip on costs (and profits)?

Chicken and egg. Think a wee bit deeper, Mostie.

[Yaph]

Getting older so been following this thread.

Just finished open enrollment for 30,000+ person company.

For standard plan 1500 deductible and 6000 max out of pocket

Personal cost increase 42%. This include an additional $1,000 I have to pay for being smokers. 15% for non-smokers

Employer cost increase 43%

Combined minus smoking. 29% increase

[Tom]

Someone once said good health was priceless.

He lied.

[classhandicapper]

Drug companies have a profit margin of 20%. Less than half of that goes back into R&D.



I'm not going to argue in favor of drug companies. I'm no fan. But I will argue the business economics.

R&D is an investment in the future. Very few companies plow back all their earnings into either R&D or capital investment. They budget according to the expected return on those investments. If there was a good return to be made by increasing their R&D significantly, they would be doing it out of greed.

Drug companies NEED high profit margins to justify their investments because they have much higher risks than the average company. They only have X number of years to both recover their initial R&D investments and also get an appropriate profit return before their drugs go off patent. They also have a huge number of failures you don't hear about and are under constant risk of lawsuits that could theoretically destroy a company.

[classhandicapper]

Then why bring it up if you are OK with it? The reason drug companies have to give medications to some without charge is that those people have no insurance. Does it not make more sense to see that they have insurance and charge them for the medication.

It makes perfect sense to want everyone to have insurance, but your math is suspect.

You understand that people pay more healthcare in general because some people have no insurance, but you leave out the fact that if we give them insurance we will have to pay for it anyway. The money still has to come from somewhere. You just want to be someone else's taxes.

[davew]

Then why bring it up if you are OK with it? The reason drug companies have to give medications to some without charge is that those people have no insurance. Does it not make more sense to see that they have insurance and charge them for the medication.

It makes more sense to realize that people should not be kept alive longer than they were genetically programmed for - especially if they can not afford to pay for themselves.

[classhandicapper]

It makes more sense to realize that people should not be kept alive longer than they were genetically programmed for - especially if they can not afford to pay for themselves.

I probably won't be alive long enough to see the day, but at some point the economics are practically going to dictate that we spend more on children and young adults and less on people in the last couple of years of life. It could get very ugly in 30-50 years when the demographics really start kicking in and the country is strangled by debt.

[Tom]

The Roman Empire fell.
We are not too big to fail.
I would suggest cashing in all government bonds post haste.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

It makes more sense to realize that people should not be kept alive longer than they were genetically programmed for - especially if they can not afford to pay for themselves.

It does make some sense, but of course broaches the topic of "death panels", something else that MostPost has assured us we have no reason to worry. Soylent Green, anyone?

The problem we face with ObamaCare is that the data on everyone's health will be readily available for making decisions which maximize profits and taxes - and that goal supersedes any goals on providing better health care for all, or respecting personal freedoms.

If Uncle Sugar was truly concerned about our health, all that was needed (at least initially) was to enforce the anti-monopoly laws and promote open competition in the health care market.

[Clocker]

If Uncle Sugar was truly concerned about our health, all that was needed (at least initially) was to enforce the anti-monopoly laws and promote open competition in the health care market.

Federal regulations in general, and ObamaCare in particular, greatly discourage competition and provide strong incentives for industry consolidation. And state co-ops, supposed to provide more competition, are not able to do so. Over half of them have shut down and most of the rest are in deep financial trouble.

[Dave Schwartz]

I would suggest cashing in all government bonds post haste.

And, what? Exchange them for government-based money?

:bang:

[Clocker]

And, what? Exchange them for government-based money?


Insurance company stock. :D

[Tom]

And, what? Exchange them for government-based money?

:bang:

Bonds will be worthless long before the currency will be.
Obama has already demonstrated that stocks and bonds are to be handles as he sees fit in stead of the legal ways.

Put some of it into guns.
The only votes that will count are bullets.

[Clocker]

Health Republic, the ObamaCare co-op in New York state, is broke and is being shut down by the state at the end of the month. The co-op owes hospitals $160 million, and state regulators have told the co-op not to pay in order to have an "orderly" shut down. The co-op charged premiums well below those of private carriers, and was unable to cover benefit pay outs.

Over 200,000 New Yorkers who like their health care plan will not be able to keep their health care plan. Further proof that the ObamaCare model is unsustainable.

http://www.syracuse.com/health/index.ssf/2015/11/bag.html

[Tom]

How can that be?
I heard the system was fully vetted! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Clocker]

UnitedHealth Group, the nation’s largest provider of health insurance announced this morning that it may choose to stop offering individual coverage after 2016, and will “pull back on its marketing efforts” immediately in this market.

The company expects to lose $200 million on ObamaCare plans in 2016, and after 2016 all ObamaCare programs to help insurance companies expire. The problem is too many older people getting benefits, not enough young and health paying premiums. Gee, who could have predicted that?

Wow, does this mean that people who like their UnitedHealth policy might not be able to keep their UnitedHealth policy? This couldn't result in higher premiums from other carriers, could it?

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/19/bombshell-united-healthcare-may-exit-individual-insurance-exchanges-after-2016/

[Dave Schwartz]

Wow, does this mean that people who like their UnitedHealth policy might not be able to keep their UnitedHealth policy? This couldn't result in higher premiums from other carriers, could it?

That is precisely what it means.

For example, the 2016 coverage in Reno has changed to HMO only for the largest network. IOW, no more PPO.

I am beginning Medicare in January so am not eligible for ACA any longer. Yesterday I went with Beth to officially sign up for her coverage. Some very interesting stuff here.

The Platinum plan (which is what we've had for the last 2 years) was $100 deductible and $3,500 out-of-pocket max. Apparently, for 2016 they have beefed up the low-end plans in an effort to move people away from the crazy-expensive plans. (Ours was $1,901 per month for this year.)

Anyway, the "Silver Plan" became the best deal. The plan my wife signed for was $0 deductible and $500 out-of-pocket! That is a far cry from the $100 and $3,500 we had this year! The co-pays have gone up for office visits and Rx but her premium has dropped from (what would have been in 2016) $1,100+ to $768.

Frankly, I am a little concerned that they will switch the plan by the time it gets to her like they did in 2015. When we signed up for the Platinum plan back then it was originally $1,000 out-of-pocket, but changed to $3,500 on date of issue.

I do find it amazing that everyone is complaining about this stuff: insurance companies say they're losing money, doctors say they're having to do write downs, and payers think it is crazy expensive.

[Dave Schwartz]

Oh crap.

No sooner did I post this than the insurance agent called and said that Beth's plan choice did not work. Apparently she (the agent) had entered the income incorrectly and signed us up for a Medicaid-qualified plan.

We've got to start all over again.

BTW, very interesting that the premium quoted was for no subsidy but if you aren't subsidized you are not even eligible to buy the plan at full price.

[lamboguy]

i just brought my wife home from a hernia surgery yesterday. there were 2 anesthesiologists and an assistant and 2 surgeon's along with 3 nurses. we walked into the hospital at 8:00 a.m. by 10:00 she was in surgery, out of surgery 10:30, out of the hospital 1:15 p.m.

total cost $18, 650 (insurance pays the whole thing)

before the surgery i spoke to the head surgeon and asked him how many surgery's he was doing that day, he told me 4. but he only works 2 days a week at the hospital, the rest of the time he is in his office seeing patients.

[classhandicapper]

Before it's all over, taxpayers are going to get stuck for 10s of billions due to this Obamacare fiasco. The goal was worthy. The approach was delusional.

[zico20]

Before it's all over, taxpayers are going to get stuck for 10s of billions due to this Obamacare fiasco. The goal was worthy. The approach was delusional.

Not if Rubio has anything to say about it. Here is an article where Rubio sneaked into a spending bill last year a "risk corridor" that has saved taxpayers 2.5 billion by not allowing insurance companies to be reimbursed when they are losing money through Obamacare.

I know, it is Rubio so lets not give him any credit for this.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/01/saved-us-money-rubio-wins-conservative-cred-for-obamacare-change.html?intcmp=hpcmt

[Hoofless_Wonder]

...I do find it amazing that everyone is complaining about this stuff: insurance companies say they're losing money, doctors say they're having to do write downs, and payers think it is crazy expensive.

I'm surprised you find it amazing. If reviewed in proper context, Obamacare has been a roaring success.

- maintain monopolistic death grip on costs by health care oligarchs - check
- increase tax revenues, limit liability for state programs - check
- change mildly broken system into colossal failure to promote single-payer "solution" - check
- expand control of the system by increasing the size of the government bureaucracy - check
- set the table to prune the masses (old, feeble, chronically sick) to control costs - check

Next - keep an eye on the war on cash, to prevent a black market in health care

[classhandicapper]

Not if Rubio has anything to say about it. Here is an article where Rubio sneaked into a spending bill last year a "risk corridor" that has saved taxpayers 2.5 billion by not allowing insurance companies to be reimbursed when they are losing money through Obamacare.

I know, it is Rubio so lets not give him any credit for this.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/01/saved-us-money-rubio-wins-conservative-cred-for-obamacare-change.html?intcmp=hpcmt

I read that last night also. You have to give the man credit where credit is due.

[dartman51]

Like so much that comes from this administration, the whole mess, is BS. When the rollout of ObamaCare began, in 2013, there were 42 million uninsured in the U.S. They CLAIM they have lowered that number by 9 million. That deserves :liar: :liar: :liar: . As of RIGHT NOW, 9:08 AM Central Time, there are 40,603,286 uninsured. That's less than 2 million.

Both of these figures come straight from the Government.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p60-250.pdf

Highlights
• In 2013, the percentage of people
without health insurance coverage
for the entire calendar year
was 13.4 percent, or 42.0 million
(Figure 1 and Table 1).1, 2
• The percentage of people with
health insurance for all or part of
2013 was 86.6 percent (Table 1).
• In 2013, the majority of individuals,
64.2 percent, were covered
by private health insurance

[dartman51]

Oh crap.

No sooner did I post this than the insurance agent called and said that Beth's plan choice did not work. Apparently she (the agent) had entered the income incorrectly and signed us up for a Medicaid-qualified plan.

We've got to start all over again.

BTW, very interesting that the premium quoted was for no subsidy but if you aren't subsidized you are not even eligible to buy the plan at full price.

Sounds like the old 'Bait and Switch' routine from a used car salesman.

[classhandicapper]

Obamacare from Critical to Life Support

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-condition-gone-critical-life-113000762.html

“The labor force is projected to be about 2 million full-time-equivalent workers smaller in 2025 under the ACA than it would have been otherwise,” the CBO concludes in the latest analysis of Obamacare’s impact on the economy. Much of the reason – the CBO puts it at 75 percent -- comes from the net increase of effective tax rates on labor, which will incentivize potential workers to stay out of the work force. Democrats claim that this is a feature rather than a bug as people can choose not to work. However, even with that rose-colored glasses view, it means that the rest of the taxpayers will have to subsidize the health care of those who opt out, whether happily or unhappily.

The depressing impact on job growth is not the only illusion shattered, either. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) published a study on Obamacare’s impact on costs and on reducing the numbers of uninsured--and it fails on both counts. The CBO estimated after the passage of Obamacare that the number of uninsured would drop 19 million by 2014 from a 2010 benchmark. Instead, it has only dropped 12.6 million. As Avik Roy points out at Forbes , the 2010 level of uninsured was artificially high due to the impact of the Great Recession. Using 2008 as a benchmark, the number of uninsured has dropped by only 6.7 million."

[Hoofless_Wonder]

More lies, propaganda, false hope and of course no accountability.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/10/01/Democrats-Begin-Long-Tortuous-Retreat-Obamacare

Union opposition arose during the drafting of the Affordable Care Act, with unions demanding either the removal of the Cadillac tax or an exemption from it, but the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress resisted. In part, the decision to oppose the unions came from the desperate political need to produce a Congressional Budget Office review that would show Obamacare as deficit-neutral in its first decade. Under the static tax analysis of Democrats, the Cadillac tax was expected to raise $32 billion in that first decade.
....
In practice, of course, many employers have given up on offering those “gold-plated” health care plans, which means that this revenue prediction was sheer fantasy. Taxes change behavior, which is why static tax analysis routinely and widely overshoots on revenue. The Cadillac tax was an especially cynical use of static tax analysis, since its inclusion in Obamacare was intended to change behavior.

Any predictions related to Obamacare, good or bad, are most likely way off-track. Except of course that costs will continue to rise, and there is no such thing as a free lunch.

[reckless]

More lies, propaganda, false hope and of course no accountability.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/10/01/Democrats-Begin-Long-Tortuous-Retreat-Obamacare



Any predictions related to Obamacare, good or bad, are most likely way off-track. Except of course that costs will continue to rise, and there is no such thing as a free lunch.

And of course there will be less health and even less care provided, as predicted and expected.

[davew]

[/B]

And of course there will be less health and even less care provided, as predicted and expected.


But more people will have insurance for this.

[fast4522]

Moving right along. . . . . . . . . . .

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/262005-senate-votes-to-repeal-obamacare-cadillac-tax

[zico20]

Here is an update on Obamacare. Seems like these insurance companies are going broke. I guess this is what happens when you make a deal with the devil. Obamacare could be going on life support in a couple of years.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-off-to-a-rocky-start-in-2016/article/2582507

[fast4522]

Here is an update on Obamacare. Seems like these insurance companies are going broke. I guess this is what happens when you make a deal with the devil. Obamacare could be going on life support in a couple of years.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-off-to-a-rocky-start-in-2016/article/2582507

It does not have that long, count on it.

[mostpost]

Here is an update on Obamacare. Seems like these insurance companies are going broke. I guess this is what happens when you make a deal with the devil. Obamacare could be going on life support in a couple of years.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-off-to-a-rocky-start-in-2016/article/2582507
The author Philip Klein claims that the administration set a low target of 10,000,000 signups so they could look good when they beat it. OPEN SEASON THIS YEAR WAS HALF AS LONG AS IT WAS THE PREVIOUS TWO YEARS. It was from Nov.1 to Jan. 31 compared to Oct. 1 to March 31. That is why the prediction is lower. And they exceeded that by more than 25%.

[mostpost]

Here is an update on Obamacare. Seems like these insurance companies are going broke. I guess this is what happens when you make a deal with the devil. Obamacare could be going on life support in a couple of years.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-off-to-a-rocky-start-in-2016/article/2582507
Yeah, they are going broke. Since Obamacare went into effect, the price of a share of United Health Care stock has gone up 375%; Healthnet has gone up 224%; Anthem is up 238%; Aetna up 290% and Cigna is up 309%. That was as of a report from January 2015. What do you want to bet that the trend has continued for the last year?

[classhandicapper]

Yeah, they are going broke. Since Obamacare went into effect, the price of a share of United Health Care stock has gone up 375%; Healthnet has gone up 224%; Anthem is up 238%; Aetna up 290% and Cigna is up 309%. That was as of a report from January 2015. What do you want to bet that the trend has continued for the last year?

They obviously aren't going broke. They are making money on their traditional insurance business lines. But they are losing money on the exchange system.

This system is going away eventually UNLESS taxpayers pick up the tab for the losses either directly through government or through higher premiums. There is no free lunch.

[sammy the sage]

Yeah, they are going broke. Since Obamacare went into effect, the price of a share of United Health Care stock has gone up 375%; Healthnet has gone up 224%; Anthem is up 238%; Aetna up 290% and Cigna is up 309%. That was as of a report from January 2015. What do you want to bet that the trend has continued for the last year?

which TOTALLY proves THE ORIGINAL point of THIS thread....and what many PREDICTED would happen...so I/we told you so....

all we can do is :( now....

[Clocker]

Yeah, they are going broke. Since Obamacare went into effect, the price of a share of United Health Care stock has gone up 375%

UnitedHealth (UNH), which is weighing an exit from the Obamacare exchanges, reported it lost about $475 million on Obamacare-compliant plans in 2015 and expects to lose more than $500 million this year.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/19/news/economy/unitedhealth-obamacare/

Bloomberg reports (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-20/obamacare-s-fate-may-rest-on-patience-of-insurers-aetna-anthem), “Anthem and Aetna are two of the biggest players [in the exchanges]. Like UnitedHealth, neither has had financial success there — Aetna has said it’s losing money, while Anthem is making less than it would like.”

[hcap]

Here is an update on Obamacare. Seems like these insurance companies are going broke. I guess this is what happens when you make a deal with the devil. Obamacare could be going on life support in a couple of years.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-off-to-a-rocky-start-in-2016/article/2582507Here is an update on Obamacare

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/yet-again-obamacare-still-working
Yet Again, Obamacare Is Still Working


—By Kevin Drum
| Thu Mar. 3, 2016 6:32 PM EST

The latest HHS estimates of the uninsured rate are out, and you'll be unsurprised that they show Obamacare continuing to work pretty well. The chart on the right shows the drop in the uninsured rate since the end of 2013, and everyone has done fairly well. The Hispanic rate of uninsurance has dropped by a quarter; the white rate by half; and the black rate by more than half.

Overall, HHS estimates that 20 million nonelderly adults have gained health insurance since 2013. Women have gained insurance at a bit higher rate than men. HHS estimates that 13.6 percent of men remain uninsured compared to 9.5 percent of women.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_change_uninsured_race_q1_2016.jpg

[davew]

awesome chart hcap - what does it mean?

I like the following from the comments - it seems apropos

GreenAnura • 19 hours ago

If you believe the government. According to my own shadowstats-like* analysis, the uninsured rate is currently 73%. If you think that's bad, if you include only those who want health insurance, the insured rate has dropped by 93%!

*shadowstats-like analysis takes numbers from multiple sources, such as thin air, and combines them using an algorithm that I pulled out of my ass.

[hcap]

These are the operative salient points made by "GreenAnura "
Whoever da F**K he is..........
*shadowstats-like analysis takes numbers from multiple sources, such as thin air, and combines them using an algorithm that I pulled out of my ass.However if you want to know where Drum got his info for that chart he tells you in the very first sentence of his article."The latest HHS estimates of the uninsured rate are" out

https://aspe.hhs.gov/pdf-report/health-insurance-coverage-and-affordable-care-act-2010-2016

But you rather pay attention to "GreenAnura " Whoever da F**K he is.
Just like your idiotic sources on climate change.

[zico20]

Here is an update on Obamacare

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/yet-again-obamacare-still-working
Yet Again, Obamacare Is Still Working


—By Kevin Drum
| Thu Mar. 3, 2016 6:32 PM EST

The latest HHS estimates of the uninsured rate are out, and you'll be unsurprised that they show Obamacare continuing to work pretty well. The chart on the right shows the drop in the uninsured rate since the end of 2013, and everyone has done fairly well. The Hispanic rate of uninsurance has dropped by a quarter; the white rate by half; and the black rate by more than half.

Overall, HHS estimates that 20 million nonelderly adults have gained health insurance since 2013. Women have gained insurance at a bit higher rate than men. HHS estimates that 13.6 percent of men remain uninsured compared to 9.5 percent of women.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_change_uninsured_race_q1_2016.jpg

Gee, I guess so when you expand Medicaid and give away free health care to people. Why doesn't Obama next propose to end homelessness by offering any homeless person a free house bought and completely paid for by the government. Free health care should not count towards the overall numbers.

[highnote]

I don't know if the post I am making is relevant to this thread, but I'll make it anyway.

So I go online to order contact lenses for one of my children. I try CVS because I sometimes get a discount through my employer.

I fill out the prescription info and then am asked to create an account. I am annoyed because I just want to order the lenses not set up an account for which I'll have to create a password and have them store all my details. But I do it. I click the checkout button and wait... and wait... and wait...

Finally, I get a message that says error processing request. I screw around with it for awhile and notice that the URL changes from cvs.com to fulfillment.csv.com or affiliate.cvs.com or something like that.

So I call them up on the phone. Of course, the number on the website is not the number for the optical department. So I get the number for optical. I call them up and have to be put in a queue to have my question answered.

In the meantime, I go to walmart.com and try to order them.

As I am ordering from walmart the cvs representative answers my call. It sounds like she is from India. I tell her about the error and that I am on the walmart site and can just order from walmart. She says that her company also deals with walmart and that she could help my place my order with either company. I notice that the walmart interface for ordering contact lenses is just like the cvs interface.

She asks me for my phone number. I bark something at her to the effect that this is ridiculous and tell her nevermind. It's not her fault. She's just doing her job.

The problem is that these companies have gotten so big that they don't even know what is going on inside them. Or if they do know, they don't care.

About the only solution for a customer is to go someplace where their business is appreciated, even if it costs a little more.

So I'll just drive to the local pharmacy and order them the old-fashioned way.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

...The problem is that these companies have gotten so big that they don't even know what is going on inside them. Or if they do know, they don't care.

About the only solution for a customer is to go someplace where their business is appreciated, even if it costs a little more.

So I'll just drive to the local pharmacy and order them the old-fashioned way.

These companies care all right. What you describe is quite possibly an intentional side effect to make it more difficult for consumers to collect on their benefits. Benefits which they've bought and paid for, often through their employer. Think of it terms of what happens when you file a life insurance claim. Nine times out of ten there's some sort of "error" with your claim, and it's denied.

This is one of the "side effects" of Obamacare. Since there is no incentive to provide better service, the incentive to maximize profits gets steered back to reducing the number of claims.

Give it another 10 years. You'll be thinking these were the "good old days" - because they are....

[forced89]

The way it should work. I needed glasses in order to pass my eye test at the DMV. I went online (Zenni.com), imput my prescription and picked frames. In about 10 days they arrived via USPS shipped directly from China. Cost was slightly over $10 including S&H.

Now the other extreme. I have been on Pradaxa for over 5 years. I went to renew my prescription at Optum.com. It was denied. Why? I had changed insurance to a Medicare Advantage Plan and they now required my Doctor to certify that I really needed Pradaxa. I think the reason is that it is a "Tier3" (more expensive) drug. If they can discourage me from following through, they save money!!

[davew]

It seems the co-ops are going broke and the for profits are making all of their insured pay more to cover their 0bamacare losses :(

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/03/06/obamacares-14-billion-mistake-could-grow-even-larg.aspx?source=yahoo-2-news&utm_campaign=article&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=yahoo-2-news

[zico20]

This sounds like a broken record, but here we go again. Another article claiming huge losses and threats of companies pulling out of the exchanges unless they get huge premium increases. But then again, all is well and good, according to mostpost. :eek:

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/276366-insurers-warn-losses-from-obamacare-are-unsustainable

[Rookies]

This sounds like a broken record, but here we go again. Another article claiming huge losses and threats of companies pulling out of the exchanges unless they get huge premium increases. But then again, all is well and good, according to mostpost. :eek:

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/276366-insurers-warn-losses-from-obamacare-are-unsustainable

If you have multiple insurance company/payees and they are operating under unbridled capitalism, rather than one payer under a socialized health care system, then you get what you're getting:

A cattle prod up the arse and no payment to the proctologist, nurses or Anesthatologist.

[Clocker]

If you have multiple insurance company/payees and they are operating under unbridled capitalism

Your little narrative and assumptions fell to pieces with those last two words. Insurance and health care are two of the most heavily regulated industries in this country. And ObamaCare made it worse.

But thanks for playing.

[classhandicapper]

The underlying assumption of Obama Care was the idea that we could get a free lunch. It was idiotic from day one. I'm not smart enough to figure out how to fix healthcare in this country, but one thing is obvious. Everyone can't have everything.

[mostpost]

The underlying assumption of Obama Care was the idea that we could get a free lunch. It was idiotic from day one. I'm not smart enough to figure out how to fix healthcare in this country, but one thing is obvious. Everyone can't have everything.
That was never the underlying assumption and no one with any sense thought it was. The purpose of Obamacare was that almost everyone should be able to purchase healthcare insurance. No more preexisting conditions; no more being dropped if you get sick. If it was supposed to be free as you claim, then why set up the exchanges. Everyone who buys insurance on the exchanges pays premiums.

It's too bad the insurance companies have not figured out how to price those premiums, but that is their problem.

[mostpost]

Your little narrative and assumptions fell to pieces with those last two words. Insurance and health care are two of the most heavily regulated industries in this country. And ObamaCare made it worse.

But thanks for playing.
Incorrect again. They aren't even in the top ten. Here is the list with the number of regulations each is subject to.
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing.......................25,482
Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution.....20,959
Motor Vehicle Manufacturing..................................... .......16,757
Nondepository Credit intermediation.................................16, 579
Depository Credit Intermediation.................................... ..16,033
Scheduled Air Transportation.................................... ........13,307
Fishing........................................... ..............................13,218
Oil and Gas Extraction........................................ .............11,955
Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing........................11,505
Deep Sea, Coastal and Great Lakes Water Transportation.......11,279

[Clocker]

Incorrect again. They aren't even in the top ten. Here is the list with the number of regulations each is subject to.

I can't believe that you actually looked those up and posted them here as if you thought that they meant anything. Tell me you didn't really think that, and that you were just trying to impress your fellow libs with your command of statistics.

This is the same argument the libs used to PROVE that Bush was a bigger power whore than Obama, because he issued more executive orders by count. The number means nothing, the content and scope means everything.

But thanks for playing.

[NJ Stinks]

I can't believe that you actually looked those up and posted them here as if you thought that they meant anything. Tell me you didn't really think that, and that you were just trying to impress your fellow libs with your command of statistics.

This is the same argument the libs used to PROVE that Bush was a bigger power whore than Obama, because he issued more executive orders by count. The number means nothing, the content and scope means everything.

But thanks for playing.

Clocker, Mostpost doesn't have to try to impress his fellow liberals.

But thanks for playing. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Clocker, Mostpost doesn't have to try to impress his fellow liberals.

I was going to say the exact same thing! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Clocker]

I was going to say the exact same thing! :lol: :lol: :lol:

But it took a big man to admit it. :p

[Yaph]

Getting older so been following this thread.

Just finished open enrollment for 30,000+ person company.

For standard plan 1500 deductible and 6000 max out of pocket

Personal cost increase 42%. This include an additional $1,000 I have to pay for being smokers. 15% for non-smokers

Employer cost increase 43%

Combined minus smoking. 29% increase


2017

We have almost doubled in size so increase smaller this year but some new tricks by the company

My cost is going up 12%
Companies portion is going down 5%

Health: Me +16% Company -5% Combined -$.39 (bi-weekly)
Dental: Me +8% Company -47% Combined -$6.89 (bi-weekly)

We did change from Cigna to Aetna. Looks like the company got a good deal but decided not to pass the savings to the employees.