So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.


    I can see it now. By 2016 it will be common knowledge that ObamaCare works and works well, and the Republicans will be shouting from the rooftops that their Heritage plan saved the nation from the original single-payer plan from that socialist Kenyan.


    When the ACA goes well, especially after red states are forced politically to expand Medicaid, the democrats need to use every avenue possible to remind the nation that Republicans did all they could to stop the ACA. Because I guarantee the Republicans will use every avenue possible from their "think tanks" to Rush to Fox news to shamelessly revise history.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    Thanks to innovative solutions from the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney's bold initiative to inspire national action, premiums are down by a third.

    This study was based on actual numbers. Not projections, not estimates but the actual price charged to consumers on the ACA exchanges.

     

    Exchange Competition Cuts Health Insurance Costs: BGOV Insight.

    Competition among insurers offering coverage through federal exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act is driving down the premiums charged in the new marketplaces by as much as one third, according to a Bloomberg Government analysis.

    The analysis of rates for individual policies in the 36 states where the federal government will run or largely run the exchanges shows an unmistakable pattern: The larger the number of insurers operating in a given market, the lower the price of coverage.

    The pattern appears to hold no matter what the age of insurance enrollees or which “metal” level of coverage they choose.

     

    Rates released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) show that the price of policies offered in “rating areas” with 10 or more participating insurers are between 31 percent and 35 percent lower than those for the same policies in areas with only one issuer.

    A preliminary review of rates in the remaining 14 to 16 states and the District of Columbia that will run their own exchanges suggests that a similar pattern holds in most.

    The pattern shows that at least for 2014 exchanges probably will live up to one of their advocates’ key claims: that the ACA can expand coverage while constraining costs.


    Still, the pattern of the greater the number of issuers, the lower the price shows up with remarkable regularity across the spectrum of age, plan type and geography — early evidence that exchanges may be able to make good on the promise of delivering cost-constraining price competition even as they expand coverage.

    http://about.bgov.com/2013-10-08/exchange-competition-cuts-health-insurance-costs-bgov-insight/



    From what I understand my firm's policy is on the way up and the HMO options have been decimated. But I won't have the cost packet until next week.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

    In response to UserName9's comment:


    I can see it now. By 2016 it will be common knowledge that ObamaCare works and works well, and the Republicans will be shouting from the rooftops that their Heritage plan saved the nation from the original single-payer plan from that socialist Kenyan.


    When the ACA goes well, especially after red states are forced politically to expand Medicaid, the democrats need to use every avenue possible to remind the nation that Republicans did all they could to stop the ACA. Because I guarantee the Republicans will use every avenue possible from their "think tanks" to Rush to Fox news to shamelessly revise history.



    UserName9,

    If, and I wrote IF, the Democrats do a better job remindind the country that the GOP did just about anything and everything they cound do to stop the ACA then they did explaining it when it was first passed, then a whole bunch of Republicans will be bounced out of office in 2014, and even more in 2016 as the ACA really sets it.

    This is esp. true of the Tea Partiers. By 2016, if not sooner, the Tea Party will be relegated to the dustbin of history.....thank the Lord, or whoever you thank, when something horrible for our country is finally exterminated.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from thehub. Show thehub's posts

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Thanks to innovative solutions from the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney's bold initiative to inspire national action, premiums are down by a third.

    This study was based on actual numbers. Not projections, not estimates but the actual price charged to consumers on the ACA exchanges.

     

    Exchange Competition Cuts Health Insurance Costs: BGOV Insight.

    Competition among insurers offering coverage through federal exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act is driving down the premiums charged in the new marketplaces by as much as one third, according to a Bloomberg Government analysis.

    The analysis of rates for individual policies in the 36 states where the federal government will run or largely run the exchanges shows an unmistakable pattern: The larger the number of insurers operating in a given market, the lower the price of coverage.

    The pattern appears to hold no matter what the age of insurance enrollees or which “metal” level of coverage they choose.

     

    Rates released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) show that the price of policies offered in “rating areas” with 10 or more participating insurers are between 31 percent and 35 percent lower than those for the same policies in areas with only one issuer.

    A preliminary review of rates in the remaining 14 to 16 states and the District of Columbia that will run their own exchanges suggests that a similar pattern holds in most.

    The pattern shows that at least for 2014 exchanges probably will live up to one of their advocates’ key claims: that the ACA can expand coverage while constraining costs.


    Still, the pattern of the greater the number of issuers, the lower the price shows up with remarkable regularity across the spectrum of age, plan type and geography — early evidence that exchanges may be able to make good on the promise of delivering cost-constraining price competition even as they expand coverage.

    http://about.bgov.com/2013-10-08/exchange-competition-cuts-health-insurance-costs-bgov-insi

    Sorry but I am looking at over two hundred groups and 131 individual clients I manage benefits for and the rates are up accoss the board. My last call - the client is paying $288 per month more and his dedcuible went from $6000 to $7500 and they (BCBS) forced him on the HMO network so he is losing his doctors as well. Real life situations - everyday in my office.

    Please pay attention - go to the website and look at the product. Very sad. Watch what your company deos to your benefits next year if you have less than 50  ee on staff.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from thehub. Show thehub's posts

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to thehub's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Thanks to innovative solutions from the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney's bold initiative to inspire national action, premiums are down by a third.

    This study was based on actual numbers. Not projections, not estimates but the actual price charged to consumers on the ACA exchanges.

     

    Exchange Competition Cuts Health Insurance Costs: BGOV Insight.

    Competition among insurers offering coverage through federal exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act is driving down the premiums charged in the new marketplaces by as much as one third, according to a Bloomberg Government analysis.

    The analysis of rates for individual policies in the 36 states where the federal government will run or largely run the exchanges shows an unmistakable pattern: The larger the number of insurers operating in a given market, the lower the price of coverage.

    The pattern appears to hold no matter what the age of insurance enrollees or which “metal” level of coverage they choose.

     

    Rates released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) show that the price of policies offered in “rating areas” with 10 or more participating insurers are between 31 percent and 35 percent lower than those for the same policies in areas with only one issuer.

    A preliminary review of rates in the remaining 14 to 16 states and the District of Columbia that will run their own exchanges suggests that a similar pattern holds in most.

    The pattern shows that at least for 2014 exchanges probably will live up to one of their advocates’ key claims: that the ACA can expand coverage while constraining costs.


    Still, the pattern of the greater the number of issuers, the lower the price shows up with remarkable regularity across the spectrum of age, plan type and geography — early evidence that exchanges may be able to make good on the promise of delivering cost-constraining price competition even as they expand coverage.

    http://about.bgov.com/2013-10-08/exchange-competition-cuts-health-insurance-costs-bgov-insi

    Sorry but I am looking at over two hundred groups and 131 individual clients I manage benefits for and the rates are up accoss the board. My last call - the client is paying $288 per month more and his dedcuible went from $6000 to $7500 and they (BCBS) forced him on the HMO network so he is losing his doctors as well. Real life situations - everyday in my office.

    Please pay attention - go to the website and look at the product. Very sad. Watch what your company deos to your benefits next year if you have less than 50  ee on staff.

    [/QUOTE]


    What you're describing has been going on for a decade or more.

    The rate of insurance inflation has been 8-12% since the 90's and overall premiums have doubled just since 2002. The latest numbers have shown that that inflation rate has been cut in half in the last two years.

    http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/11/pf/insurance/health-insurance-premiums/index.html

    So to try and associate the current conditions in the insurance market place, which has been voilitile for decades, with a law that has been on the books for only 3yrs and hasn't even been fully implemented doesn't make any logical sense.

    ACA is any easy target for everyone to vent their frustrations over the cost of health insurance, but that anger is clearly misplaced.

     

     

    ^^^
    You make a good point about blaming ACA and the past decade of rates increase no doubt. Health insurance is the tool that pays for Healthcare and Healthcare keeps going up. That is why our rates go up. Please look at the plans the American people have to select from on the Marketplace. If you are happy with them I will be shocked. I am very involved in this and have been involved and walked the halls on the Hill trying to help. This bill will help some and hurt many more. I am trying to be open mined about this but I walk it everyday and see many bad things coming our way.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from thehub. Show thehub's posts

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to thehub's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Thanks to innovative solutions from the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney's bold initiative to inspire national action, premiums are down by a third.

    This study was based on actual numbers. Not projections, not estimates but the actual price charged to consumers on the ACA exchanges.

     

    Exchange Competition Cuts Health Insurance Costs: BGOV Insight.

    Competition among insurers offering coverage through federal exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act is driving down the premiums charged in the new marketplaces by as much as one third, according to a Bloomberg Government analysis.

    The analysis of rates for individual policies in the 36 states where the federal government will run or largely run the exchanges shows an unmistakable pattern: The larger the number of insurers operating in a given market, the lower the price of coverage.

    The pattern appears to hold no matter what the age of insurance enrollees or which “metal” level of coverage they choose.

     

    Rates released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) show that the price of policies offered in “rating areas” with 10 or more participating insurers are between 31 percent and 35 percent lower than those for the same policies in areas with only one issuer.

    A preliminary review of rates in the remaining 14 to 16 states and the District of Columbia that will run their own exchanges suggests that a similar pattern holds in most.

    The pattern shows that at least for 2014 exchanges probably will live up to one of their advocates’ key claims: that the ACA can expand coverage while constraining costs.


    Still, the pattern of the greater the number of issuers, the lower the price shows up with remarkable regularity across the spectrum of age, plan type and geography — early evidence that exchanges may be able to make good on the promise of delivering cost-constraining price competition even as they expand coverage.

    http://about.bgov.com/2013-10-08/exchange-competition-cuts-health-insurance-costs-bgov-insi

    Sorry but I am looking at over two hundred groups and 131 individual clients I manage benefits for and the rates are up accoss the board. My last call - the client is paying $288 per month more and his dedcuible went from $6000 to $7500 and they (BCBS) forced him on the HMO network so he is losing his doctors as well. Real life situations - everyday in my office.

    Please pay attention - go to the website and look at the product. Very sad. Watch what your company deos to your benefits next year if you have less than 50  ee on staff.

    [/QUOTE]


    What you're describing has been going on for a decade or more.

    The rate of insurance inflation has been 8-12% since the 90's and overall premiums have doubled just since 2002. The latest numbers have shown that that inflation rate has been cut in half in the last two years.

    http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/11/pf/insurance/health-insurance-premiums/index.html

    So to try and associate the current conditions in the insurance market place, which has been voilitile for decades, with a law that has been on the books for only 3yrs and hasn't even been fully implemented doesn't make any logical sense.

    ACA is any easy target for everyone to vent their frustrations over the cost of health insurance, but that anger is clearly misplaced.

     

    The insurance companies have informed us that some groups will recieve a 140% increase due the the law. Why? The 3:1 ratio instead of 7:1 pricing. No medical underwritting means great news for some and very bad news for many. Healthy groups will up more of the tab. 

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from thehub. Show thehub's posts

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to thehub's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to thehub's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Thanks to innovative solutions from the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney's bold initiative to inspire national action, premiums are down by a third.

    This study was based on actual numbers. Not projections, not estimates but the actual price charged to consumers on the ACA exchanges.

     

    Exchange Competition Cuts Health Insurance Costs: BGOV Insight.

    Competition among insurers offering coverage through federal exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act is driving down the premiums charged in the new marketplaces by as much as one third, according to a Bloomberg Government analysis.

    The analysis of rates for individual policies in the 36 states where the federal government will run or largely run the exchanges shows an unmistakable pattern: The larger the number of insurers operating in a given market, the lower the price of coverage.

    The pattern appears to hold no matter what the age of insurance enrollees or which “metal” level of coverage they choose.

     

    Rates released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) show that the price of policies offered in “rating areas” with 10 or more participating insurers are between 31 percent and 35 percent lower than those for the same policies in areas with only one issuer.

    A preliminary review of rates in the remaining 14 to 16 states and the District of Columbia that will run their own exchanges suggests that a similar pattern holds in most.

    The pattern shows that at least for 2014 exchanges probably will live up to one of their advocates’ key claims: that the ACA can expand coverage while constraining costs.


    Still, the pattern of the greater the number of issuers, the lower the price shows up with remarkable regularity across the spectrum of age, plan type and geography — early evidence that exchanges may be able to make good on the promise of delivering cost-constraining price competition even as they expand coverage.

    http://about.bgov.com/2013-10-08/exchange-competition-cuts-health-insurance-costs-bgov-insi

    Sorry but I am looking at over two hundred groups and 131 individual clients I manage benefits for and the rates are up accoss the board. My last call - the client is paying $288 per month more and his dedcuible went from $6000 to $7500 and they (BCBS) forced him on the HMO network so he is losing his doctors as well. Real life situations - everyday in my office.

    Please pay attention - go to the website and look at the product. Very sad. Watch what your company deos to your benefits next year if you have less than 50  ee on staff.

    [/QUOTE]


    What you're describing has been going on for a decade or more.

    The rate of insurance inflation has been 8-12% since the 90's and overall premiums have doubled just since 2002. The latest numbers have shown that that inflation rate has been cut in half in the last two years.

    http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/11/pf/insurance/health-insurance-premiums/index.html

    So to try and associate the current conditions in the insurance market place, which has been voilitile for decades, with a law that has been on the books for only 3yrs and hasn't even been fully implemented doesn't make any logical sense.

    ACA is any easy target for everyone to vent their frustrations over the cost of health insurance, but that anger is clearly misplaced.

     

    The insurance companies have informed us that some groups will recieve a 140% increase due the the law. Why? The 3:1 ratio instead of 7:1 pricing. No medical underwritting means great news for some and very bad news for many. Healthy groups will up more of the tab. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Do you operate in MA?

    If you do then Im skeptical that any carrier in MA would, with a straight face, say that it's the fault of ACA after having Romneycare in force for 7 yrs.

    That doesn't pass the smell test.

    In what market is that 140% increase?

    Sorry but that just doesn't comport with evry other market in the country. and MA has had Romneycare for close to a decade.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I help groups and individuals in VA, MD and DC. It's all new here. The 140% has been told to us by every CEO in the market. We will see next year. Rate increase are nothing new as you stated in a previous post. However, if the carriers must enroll a large group of unhealthy people that will affect the claim pool. One thing I do know, and you may disagree, but size does not matter in healthcare of some think. Good health matters. We can't enroll 7 million people ans expect the rates to drop. Some of my smallest groups have much better rates than companies like AOL, IBM and many other large companies. 

    Good back and forth and perhaps we will keep it going - time will tell the real facts. The big issue to me is still the very poor plan designs being offered on the exchange. I feel for the uninsured that have conditions and expect good coverage. It is not there in my market. Login and check for yourself. 

    Have a good night  - I am calling it a night. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.


    The left clings bitterly to every article that shows that Obamacare may just work.  I think Rick Unger's article was the last one, proven wrong.  Truth is, no one knows. But, that doesn't mean we don't have expereince that points towards likely outcomes.

    Like the attempted rollout of the websites, the government is proving that government is simply the wrong tool to fix the health care market.  My prognosis is that costs will go up, costs will be distributed unevenly, just like the income tax, and the middle class in particular, will suffer the greatest.  Why?  Because that is the history of government intervention.

    Point to consider:  Do you think there is a corelation between government regulation increasing over the past 30-40 years and insurance prices going up? 

    Only a fool would not think so.  Similarly, only a fool thinks Obamacare will bring costs down, or if it does so, do it by cutting coverage.  This is simple gravity, and the left doesn't get it.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

    Key quote from your post:

     

    The analysis of rates for individual policies in the 36 states where the federal government will run or largely run the exchanges shows an unmistakable pattern: The larger the number of insurers operating in a given market, the lower the price of coverage.

    That is not a comparison of before Obamacaid and after Obamacaid. That is a comparison of Obamacaid rates between states with one insurer versus those in states with more than one insurer. So, this comparison says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT INCREASES AS A RESULT OF OBAMACAID.

    Doesn't say much for "single payer" though, does it?

    You can try to lie as much as you want but the facts are that if you have to pay for 40 million more people under treatment, include adults up to 26 as children under their parents' plan, cover pre-existing conditions, expand Medicaid eligibility and subsidize coverage for a family of 4 with an income up to $80K or whatever it is, people who pay without subsidies are going to see their rates go through the roof compared to pre-Obamacaid prices.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    The left clings bitterly to every article that shows that Obamacare may just work.  I think Rick Unger's article was the last one, proven wrong.  Truth is, no one knows. But, that doesn't mean we don't have expereince that points towards likely outcomes.

    Like the attempted rollout of the websites, the government is proving that government is simply the wrong tool to fix the health care market.  My prognosis is that costs will go up, costs will be distributed unevenly, just like the income tax, and the middle class in particular, will suffer the greatest.  Why?  Because that is the history of government intervention.

    Point to consider:  Do you think there is a corelation between government regulation increasing over the past 30-40 years and insurance prices going up? 

    Only a fool would not think so.  Similarly, only a fool thinks Obamacare will bring costs down, or if it does so, do it by cutting coverage.  This is simple gravity, and the left doesn't get it.

    [/QUOTE]

    What government regulation in the 2000s caused health care costs and premiums to double?

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    The left clings bitterly to every article that shows that Obamacare may just work.  I think Rick Unger's article was the last one, proven wrong.  Truth is, no one knows. But, that doesn't mean we don't have expereince that points towards likely outcomes.

    Like the attempted rollout of the websites, the government is proving that government is simply the wrong tool to fix the health care market.  My prognosis is that costs will go up, costs will be distributed unevenly, just like the income tax, and the middle class in particular, will suffer the greatest.  Why?  Because that is the history of government intervention.

    Point to consider:  Do you think there is a corelation between government regulation increasing over the past 30-40 years and insurance prices going up? 

    Only a fool would not think so.  Similarly, only a fool thinks Obamacare will bring costs down, or if it does so, do it by cutting coverage.  This is simple gravity, and the left doesn't get it.

    [/QUOTE]

    What government regulation in the 2000s caused health care costs and premiums to double?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Tons. Go research health care regulations. I suspect the Medicare act of 2003 rings a bell.

    just because Bush didn't push for socialized medicine didn't mean he didn't add to the pile.  The point is that there is a correlation. Other things added to the cost as well, such as new and improved procedures, which tend to be expensive.

    you can cherry pick and try to make some point that in the past, Bush was worse than Obama.  BFD, your object of worship, Obama is one cool dude.  Satisfied?

    now back to the present. Obamacare is going to drive costs up dramatically, and the middle class will suffer.  So, drop the ideological purity and admit your way doesn't work. Read this.

     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2013/03/22/why-health-care-spending-will-explode-under-obamacare-evidence-from-medicare/2/

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Key quote from your post:

     

    The analysis of rates for individual policies in the 36 states where the federal government will run or largely run the exchanges shows an unmistakable pattern: The larger the number of insurers operating in a given market, the lower the price of coverage.

    That is not a comparison of before Obamacaid and after Obamacaid. That is a comparison of Obamacaid rates between states with one insurer versus those in states with more than one insurer. So, this comparison says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT INCREASES AS A RESULT OF OBAMACAID.

    Doesn't say much for "single payer" though, does it?

    You can try to lie as much as you want but the facts are that if you have to pay for 40 million more people under treatment, include adults up to 26 as children under their parents' plan, cover pre-existing conditions, expand Medicaid eligibility and subsidize coverage for a family of 4 with an income up to $80K or whatever it is, people who pay without subsidies are going to see their rates go through the roof compared to pre-Obamacaid prices.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Still creating those strawmen in your head I see.

    The article is about that 'free market' principal that the wingnuts are always gushing about; competition.

    The study shows "...early evidence that exchanges may be able to make good on the promise of delivering cost-constraining price competition even as they expand coverage."


    But hey, keep screaming at those clouds....

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh, then I guess we will discuss your IRRELEVANT op??

    Before Obamacaid,  I pay $500 a month for my insurance

    After Obamacaid, I pay $800 but at least it isn't $1000 because of the wonderful exchanges with their government dictated insurance plans.

    You are nuts, but that is nothing new.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    The left clings bitterly to every article that shows that Obamacare may just work.  I think Rick Unger's article was the last one, proven wrong.  Truth is, no one knows. But, that doesn't mean we don't have expereince that points towards likely outcomes.

    Like the attempted rollout of the websites, the government is proving that government is simply the wrong tool to fix the health care market.  My prognosis is that costs will go up, costs will be distributed unevenly, just like the income tax, and the middle class in particular, will suffer the greatest.  Why?  Because that is the history of government intervention.

    Point to consider:  Do you think there is a corelation between government regulation increasing over the past 30-40 years and insurance prices going up? 

    Only a fool would not think so.  Similarly, only a fool thinks Obamacare will bring costs down, or if it does so, do it by cutting coverage.  This is simple gravity, and the left doesn't get it.

    [/QUOTE]

    What government regulation in the 2000s caused health care costs and premiums to double?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Tons. Go research health care regulations. I suspect the Medicare act of 2003 rings a bell.

    just because Bush didn't push for socialized medicine didn't mean he didn't add to the pile.  The point is that there is a correlation. Other things added to the cost as well, such as new and improved procedures, which tend to be expensive.

    you can cherry pick and try to make some point that in the past, Bush was worse than Obama.  BFD, your object of worship, Obama is one cool dude.  Satisfied?

    now back to the present. Obamacare is going to drive costs up dramatically, and the middle class will suffer.  So, drop the ideological purity and admit your way doesn't work. Read this.

     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2013/03/22/why-health-care-spending-will-explode-under-obamacare-evidence-from-medicare/2/

    [/QUOTE]

    Medicare part D caused private health insurance premiums to double.  Got it.  A two-decade trend is cherry-picking.  got it.  

    There was no regulation, or action of any kind on the health care front during the Bush years.  

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from thehub. Show thehub's posts

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    The left clings bitterly to every article that shows that Obamacare may just work.  I think Rick Unger's article was the last one, proven wrong.  Truth is, no one knows. But, that doesn't mean we don't have expereince that points towards likely outcomes.

    Like the attempted rollout of the websites, the government is proving that government is simply the wrong tool to fix the health care market.  My prognosis is that costs will go up, costs will be distributed unevenly, just like the income tax, and the middle class in particular, will suffer the greatest.  Why?  Because that is the history of government intervention.

    Point to consider:  Do you think there is a corelation between government regulation increasing over the past 30-40 years and insurance prices going up? 

    Only a fool would not think so.  Similarly, only a fool thinks Obamacare will bring costs down, or if it does so, do it by cutting coverage.  This is simple gravity, and the left doesn't get it.

    [/QUOTE]

    What government regulation in the 2000s caused health care costs and premiums to double?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Tons. Go research health care regulations. I suspect the Medicare act of 2003 rings a bell.

    just because Bush didn't push for socialized medicine didn't mean he didn't add to the pile.  The point is that there is a correlation. Other things added to the cost as well, such as new and improved procedures, which tend to be expensive.

    you can cherry pick and try to make some point that in the past, Bush was worse than Obama.  BFD, your object of worship, Obama is one cool dude.  Satisfied?

    now back to the present. Obamacare is going to drive costs up dramatically, and the middle class will suffer.  So, drop the ideological purity and admit your way doesn't work. Read this.

     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2013/03/22/why-health-care-spending-will-explode-under-obamacare-evidence-from-medicare/2/

    [/QUOTE]

    Medicare part D caused private health insurance premiums to double.  Got it.  A two-decade trend is cherry-picking.  got it.  

    There was no regulation, or action of any kind on the health care front during the Bush years.  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Part D is for 65 + only. It was needed as the country (no pension plans) RX benefit was very weak. It should have been paid for and that is on Bush. It was needed and could have been better but its a pretty good plan as is. 95% of the cost is covered post the donut hole that every hates. If you dont like the donut hole in part D wait until you see the holes (high memeber cost) the new plans will be. I have seen them. Wow! 

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from thehub. Show thehub's posts

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to thehub's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    The left clings bitterly to every article that shows that Obamacare may just work.  I think Rick Unger's article was the last one, proven wrong.  Truth is, no one knows. But, that doesn't mean we don't have expereince that points towards likely outcomes.

    Like the attempted rollout of the websites, the government is proving that government is simply the wrong tool to fix the health care market.  My prognosis is that costs will go up, costs will be distributed unevenly, just like the income tax, and the middle class in particular, will suffer the greatest.  Why?  Because that is the history of government intervention.

    Point to consider:  Do you think there is a corelation between government regulation increasing over the past 30-40 years and insurance prices going up? 

    Only a fool would not think so.  Similarly, only a fool thinks Obamacare will bring costs down, or if it does so, do it by cutting coverage.  This is simple gravity, and the left doesn't get it.

    [/QUOTE]

    What government regulation in the 2000s caused health care costs and premiums to double?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Tons. Go research health care regulations. I suspect the Medicare act of 2003 rings a bell.

    just because Bush didn't push for socialized medicine didn't mean he didn't add to the pile.  The point is that there is a correlation. Other things added to the cost as well, such as new and improved procedures, which tend to be expensive.

    you can cherry pick and try to make some point that in the past, Bush was worse than Obama.  BFD, your object of worship, Obama is one cool dude.  Satisfied?

    now back to the present. Obamacare is going to drive costs up dramatically, and the middle class will suffer.  So, drop the ideological purity and admit your way doesn't work. Read this.

     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2013/03/22/why-health-care-spending-will-explode-under-obamacare-evidence-from-medicare/2/

    [/QUOTE]

    Medicare part D caused private health insurance premiums to double.  Got it.  A two-decade trend is cherry-picking.  got it.  

    There was no regulation, or action of any kind on the health care front during the Bush years.  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Part D is for 65 + only. It was needed as the country (no pension plans) RX benefit was very weak. It should have been paid for and that is on Bush. It was needed and could have been better but its a pretty good plan as is. 95% of the cost is covered post the donut hole that every hates. If you dont like the donut hole in part D wait until you see the holes (high memeber cost) the new plans will be. I have seen them. Wow! 

    [/QUOTE]


    So why is Part D "needed" and basic health insurance not?

    You've pointed out the costs some customers are facing but the fact is many more people will have at least basic healthcare services, which will reduce overall costs in the long run, and the vast majority will see the same or lower premiums.

    If you have a better solution that would allow everyone the opportunity to receive the same basic healthcare with less of a negative impact on the least amount of people then I'm all ears.

    I'm sure there are tweaks to ACA that would make it better but overall I think it is a good market oriented appraoch that the wingnuts came up with, and implemented....

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Basic healthcare is needed and so in reform. The insurance compaines could not control the rate increase the past 10 years and now ACA has it moment. It will fail as well. My plan. I will keep this short, typing on the IPAD stinks.

    100% covered yearly checkups. No doctor networks. Doc bills uncle Sam and we (tax payers) pick up the tab. Lets catch illness before they become costly. I hate mandates but mandate they everyone gets thier check up somehow. 

    Reduce some of the manadates of coverage and allow the end user to select a plan that works for them. Making us all pay for things we dont want it is silly. Think alacarte to some degree. Change the rules to bring in more insurance carriers in the market to fight fornour business. So many have exited the business. 

    Think like auto insurance. What would the cost of our auto insurance be if we could fill up the gas tank for a copay of $10? Brakes for a copay as well. Nope, we pay for everything until we crash the car bigtime and then the insurance kicks in. We expect too much from the medical plans. 

    Health insurance pays for our healthcare needs. Healthcare keeps going up - lets not reform the insurance market without reform the cost of care. 

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from thehub. Show thehub's posts

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to thehub's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to thehub's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    The left clings bitterly to every article that shows that Obamacare may just work.  I think Rick Unger's article was the last one, proven wrong.  Truth is, no one knows. But, that doesn't mean we don't have expereince that points towards likely outcomes.

    Like the attempted rollout of the websites, the government is proving that government is simply the wrong tool to fix the health care market.  My prognosis is that costs will go up, costs will be distributed unevenly, just like the income tax, and the middle class in particular, will suffer the greatest.  Why?  Because that is the history of government intervention.

    Point to consider:  Do you think there is a corelation between government regulation increasing over the past 30-40 years and insurance prices going up? 

    Only a fool would not think so.  Similarly, only a fool thinks Obamacare will bring costs down, or if it does so, do it by cutting coverage.  This is simple gravity, and the left doesn't get it.

    [/QUOTE]

    What government regulation in the 2000s caused health care costs and premiums to double?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Tons. Go research health care regulations. I suspect the Medicare act of 2003 rings a bell.

    just because Bush didn't push for socialized medicine didn't mean he didn't add to the pile.  The point is that there is a correlation. Other things added to the cost as well, such as new and improved procedures, which tend to be expensive.

    you can cherry pick and try to make some point that in the past, Bush was worse than Obama.  BFD, your object of worship, Obama is one cool dude.  Satisfied?

    now back to the present. Obamacare is going to drive costs up dramatically, and the middle class will suffer.  So, drop the ideological purity and admit your way doesn't work. Read this.

     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2013/03/22/why-health-care-spending-will-explode-under-obamacare-evidence-from-medicare/2/

    [/QUOTE]

    Medicare part D caused private health insurance premiums to double.  Got it.  A two-decade trend is cherry-picking.  got it.  

    There was no regulation, or action of any kind on the health care front during the Bush years.  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Part D is for 65 + only. It was needed as the country (no pension plans) RX benefit was very weak. It should have been paid for and that is on Bush. It was needed and could have been better but its a pretty good plan as is. 95% of the cost is covered post the donut hole that every hates. If you dont like the donut hole in part D wait until you see the holes (high memeber cost) the new plans will be. I have seen them. Wow! 

    [/QUOTE]


    So why is Part D "needed" and basic health insurance not?

    You've pointed out the costs some customers are facing but the fact is many more people will have at least basic healthcare services, which will reduce overall costs in the long run, and the vast majority will see the same or lower premiums.

    If you have a better solution that would allow everyone the opportunity to receive the same basic healthcare with less of a negative impact on the least amount of people then I'm all ears.

    I'm sure there are tweaks to ACA that would make it better but overall I think it is a good market oriented appraoch that the wingnuts came up with, and implemented....

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Basic healthcare is needed and so in reform. The insurance compaines could not control the rate increase the past 10 years and now ACA has it moment. It will fail as well. My plan. I will keep this short, typing on the IPAD stinks.

    100% covered yearly checkups. No doctor networks. Doc bills uncle Sam and we (tax payers) pick up the tab. Lets catch illness before they become costly. I hate mandates but mandate they everyone gets thier check up somehow. 

    Reduce some of the manadates of coverage and allow the end user to select a plan that works for them. Making us all pay for things we dont want it is silly. Think alacarte to some degree. Change the rules to bring in more insurance carriers in the market to fight fornour business. So many have exited the business. 

    Think like auto insurance. What would the cost of our auto insurance be if we could fill up the gas tank for a copay of $10? Brakes for a copay as well. Nope, we pay for everything until we crash the car bigtime and then the insurance kicks in. We expect too much from the medical plans. 

    Health insurance pays for our healthcare needs. Healthcare keeps going up - lets not reform the insurance market without reform the cost of care. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I would disagree w/ your opening statement that ACA is doomed to fail for the simple reason that the inflation in health insurance premiums has already been halved in 2 yrs.

    Is there overwhelming evidence that it is because of ACA? No.

    But your statement in light of that fact seems rather ironic.

    As for your other points, I don't get the sense that you've thought this through.

    How would you cover doctor visits without a health insurance plan in place? That would just be open to so much abuse it would quickly overwhelm any system. Imagine a doctor could just send in random paperwork saying he treated X number of people, and get a check from the gov't. At least with an insurance policy there is a data trail that you can access and review and analyze.

    Your attempt to equate the ACA plans with 'gas for your car' is nonsensical. You have posted yourself, in not so many words, that the bronze plans are inadequate with high deductibles. That doesn't sound like a 'tank full of gas' plan but more like a 'take responsibility for your own healthcare choices' plan because high deductibles will disuade people from exploiting the system.

    As for the cost generators: In my opinion the insurance industry has had a captive market for too long. Collusion between insurers and hospitals has led to skewed pricing models for favored insurers which doesn't allow for competition and charges different patients, different prices for the exact same procedure. This system doesn't allow patients to make informed decisions regarding their healthcare or treatments. The out-of-control and hidden costs of doctor visits and hospital stays precludes anyone but the wealthy from going without insurance, especially families.

    And the most stupid argument made by opponents of the mandate is that people should be able to 'opt-out' of insurance. That is the bass ackwards way of looking at it. It's not about insurance, it's about healthcare and no one opts out of healthcare. If you have a major illness or a catastrophic accident  you - will - seek -  medical - care  regardless of your ability to pay. So the ACA law recognizes the fact that no one 'opts out' of healthcare. What they are 'opting out' of is the personal responsibility that comes the ability to pay for that care.

    To use your car insurance analogy: States won't allow you to drive on public roads without some form of insurance to pay for any injuries you may cause to other drivers. They mandate a minimum of insurance so that any costs that you may incur or otherwise be reponsible for will be paid, and in a timely manner.

    [/QUOTE]

    You expect me to solve this very complicated issue on my couch with and IPAD. We are just sharing thoughts. The consumer needs to part of the solution to bend the cost curve. We did not need to hurt 85% of us to help 15%. Perhaps Medicare for those under a certain income level would have been a better plan. 

    Regading rates - not sure what you are reading but they are goig up faster than in years past. Now will the law help in a few years as they predict when so many join in. Time will tell that story. Put me in the heck no camp however. My 15 years in the business, my reading of the bill and my daily talks with so many very experince people in the know make me feel that way. Not my polical agenda.  You may have one or at least it seems that way. 

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from thehub. Show thehub's posts

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to thehub's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to thehub's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to thehub's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    The left clings bitterly to every article that shows that Obamacare may just work.  I think Rick Unger's article was the last one, proven wrong.  Truth is, no one knows. But, that doesn't mean we don't have expereince that points towards likely outcomes.

    Like the attempted rollout of the websites, the government is proving that government is simply the wrong tool to fix the health care market.  My prognosis is that costs will go up, costs will be distributed unevenly, just like the income tax, and the middle class in particular, will suffer the greatest.  Why?  Because that is the history of government intervention.

    Point to consider:  Do you think there is a corelation between government regulation increasing over the past 30-40 years and insurance prices going up? 

    Only a fool would not think so.  Similarly, only a fool thinks Obamacare will bring costs down, or if it does so, do it by cutting coverage.  This is simple gravity, and the left doesn't get it.

    [/QUOTE]

    What government regulation in the 2000s caused health care costs and premiums to double?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Tons. Go research health care regulations. I suspect the Medicare act of 2003 rings a bell.

    just because Bush didn't push for socialized medicine didn't mean he didn't add to the pile.  The point is that there is a correlation. Other things added to the cost as well, such as new and improved procedures, which tend to be expensive.

    you can cherry pick and try to make some point that in the past, Bush was worse than Obama.  BFD, your object of worship, Obama is one cool dude.  Satisfied?

    now back to the present. Obamacare is going to drive costs up dramatically, and the middle class will suffer.  So, drop the ideological purity and admit your way doesn't work. Read this.

     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2013/03/22/why-health-care-spending-will-explode-under-obamacare-evidence-from-medicare/2/

    [/QUOTE]

    Medicare part D caused private health insurance premiums to double.  Got it.  A two-decade trend is cherry-picking.  got it.  

    There was no regulation, or action of any kind on the health care front during the Bush years.  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Part D is for 65 + only. It was needed as the country (no pension plans) RX benefit was very weak. It should have been paid for and that is on Bush. It was needed and could have been better but its a pretty good plan as is. 95% of the cost is covered post the donut hole that every hates. If you dont like the donut hole in part D wait until you see the holes (high memeber cost) the new plans will be. I have seen them. Wow! 

    [/QUOTE]


    So why is Part D "needed" and basic health insurance not?

    You've pointed out the costs some customers are facing but the fact is many more people will have at least basic healthcare services, which will reduce overall costs in the long run, and the vast majority will see the same or lower premiums.

    If you have a better solution that would allow everyone the opportunity to receive the same basic healthcare with less of a negative impact on the least amount of people then I'm all ears.

    I'm sure there are tweaks to ACA that would make it better but overall I think it is a good market oriented appraoch that the wingnuts came up with, and implemented....

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Basic healthcare is needed and so in reform. The insurance compaines could not control the rate increase the past 10 years and now ACA has it moment. It will fail as well. My plan. I will keep this short, typing on the IPAD stinks.

    100% covered yearly checkups. No doctor networks. Doc bills uncle Sam and we (tax payers) pick up the tab. Lets catch illness before they become costly. I hate mandates but mandate they everyone gets thier check up somehow. 

    Reduce some of the manadates of coverage and allow the end user to select a plan that works for them. Making us all pay for things we dont want it is silly. Think alacarte to some degree. Change the rules to bring in more insurance carriers in the market to fight fornour business. So many have exited the business. 

    Think like auto insurance. What would the cost of our auto insurance be if we could fill up the gas tank for a copay of $10? Brakes for a copay as well. Nope, we pay for everything until we crash the car bigtime and then the insurance kicks in. We expect too much from the medical plans. 

    Health insurance pays for our healthcare needs. Healthcare keeps going up - lets not reform the insurance market without reform the cost of care. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I would disagree w/ your opening statement that ACA is doomed to fail for the simple reason that the inflation in health insurance premiums has already been halved in 2 yrs.

    Is there overwhelming evidence that it is because of ACA? No.

    But your statement in light of that fact seems rather ironic.

    As for your other points, I don't get the sense that you've thought this through.

    How would you cover doctor visits without a health insurance plan in place? That would just be open to so much abuse it would quickly overwhelm any system. Imagine a doctor could just send in random paperwork saying he treated X number of people, and get a check from the gov't. At least with an insurance policy there is a data trail that you can access and review and analyze.

    Your attempt to equate the ACA plans with 'gas for your car' is nonsensical. You have posted yourself, in not so many words, that the bronze plans are inadequate with high deductibles. That doesn't sound like a 'tank full of gas' plan but more like a 'take responsibility for your own healthcare choices' plan because high deductibles will disuade people from exploiting the system.

    As for the cost generators: In my opinion the insurance industry has had a captive market for too long. Collusion between insurers and hospitals has led to skewed pricing models for favored insurers which doesn't allow for competition and charges different patients, different prices for the exact same procedure. This system doesn't allow patients to make informed decisions regarding their healthcare or treatments. The out-of-control and hidden costs of doctor visits and hospital stays precludes anyone but the wealthy from going without insurance, especially families.

    And the most stupid argument made by opponents of the mandate is that people should be able to 'opt-out' of insurance. That is the bass ackwards way of looking at it. It's not about insurance, it's about healthcare and no one opts out of healthcare. If you have a major illness or a catastrophic accident  you - will - seek -  medical - care  regardless of your ability to pay. So the ACA law recognizes the fact that no one 'opts out' of healthcare. What they are 'opting out' of is the personal responsibility that comes the ability to pay for that care.

    To use your car insurance analogy: States won't allow you to drive on public roads without some form of insurance to pay for any injuries you may cause to other drivers. They mandate a minimum of insurance so that any costs that you may incur or otherwise be reponsible for will be paid, and in a timely manner.

    [/QUOTE]

    You expect me to solve this very complicated issue on my couch with and IPAD. We are just sharing thoughts. The consumer needs to part of the solution to bend the cost curve. We did not need to hurt 85% of us to help 15%. Perhaps Medicare for those under a certain income level would have been a better plan. 

    Regading rates - not sure what you are reading but they are goig up faster than in years past. Now will the law help in a few years as they predict when so many join in. Time will tell that story. Put me in the heck no camp however. My 15 years in the business, my reading of the bill and my daily talks with so many very experince people in the know make me feel that way. Not my polical agenda.  You may have one or at least it seems that way. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Now I know your just being a wingnut shill.

    I've shown sourced articles, including the thread source, which shows the exact opposite.

    So unless you have any data other than your limited exposure to the health insurance market, then such blanket statements like you make are both ill-informed and politically motivated.

    Nice try though, you had me going ...

    [/QUOTE]

    So my real life everyday examples mean nothing to you but some article you source tells the truth. Then you name call all over this place like a child. Do you want to talk through our issues as americans on the same team or do want to divide some more? No need to reply as I already know your anwser. 

     

Share