Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face (3 Viewers)

[Rich Conway]

I've been gone for a week, and this thread about died. I thought I would bump it up with this news that hit this past week....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aetna-ceo-says-2015-obamacare-184213322.html

"June 11 (Reuters) - Health insurer Aetna Inc is submitting premium rates to regulators for Obamacare insurance plans for 2015 that generally increase less than 20 percent from 2014, its Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said on Wednesday."

The article even says that carriers lost money offering these plans this year (which they will be reimbursed for with the "risk corridors" and other measures). So apparently the prices weren't high enough already.....

Carriers got so crushed last year that there are new carriers entering the market in most states.

Carriers are in a no-lose situation. If they make money, they get to keep it. If they lose money, the feds reimburse them. Why wouldn't you want to be in that business?

 

[matttyl]

I've been gone for a week, and this thread about died. I thought I would bump it up with this news that hit this past week....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aetna-ceo-says-2015-obamacare-184213322.html

"June 11 (Reuters) - Health insurer Aetna Inc is submitting premium rates to regulators for Obamacare insurance plans for 2015 that generally increase less than 20 percent from 2014, its Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said on Wednesday."

The article even says that carriers lost money offering these plans this year (which they will be reimbursed for with the "risk corridors" and other measures). So apparently the prices weren't high enough already.....

Carriers got so crushed last year that there are new carriers entering the market in most states.

Carriers are in a no-lose situation. If they make money, they get to keep it. If they lose money, the feds reimburse them. Why wouldn't you want to be in that business?

EXACTLY!!! I want to see them stay once those safety nets are no longer there, and they are set to expire after 3 years. If they lost money without those safety nets, how high will the premiums have to go for them to stay in business without them? Will people continue to pay those higher premiums?

 

[matttyl]

I've been gone for a week, and this thread about died. I thought I would bump it up with this news that hit this past week....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aetna-ceo-says-2015-obamacare-184213322.html

"June 11 (Reuters) - Health insurer Aetna Inc is submitting premium rates to regulators for Obamacare insurance plans for 2015 that generally increase less than 20 percent from 2014, its Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said on Wednesday."

The article even says that carriers lost money offering these plans this year (which they will be reimbursed for with the "risk corridors" and other measures). So apparently the prices weren't high enough already.....

Carriers got so crushed last year that there are new carriers entering the market in most states.

And no, there are not "new carriers" in "most states" - there are some carriers entering the market in some states, states that they were already in before the ACA (think about Tim's brother's prior coverage with Aetna, who left the market in California). The left will cheer that "new carriers are entering new markets", when they were already there before the ACA. Are you even sure there will be more carriers next year than there were last year? Didn't think so.....

I mean 9 different carriers left Nebraska alone last year. I know at least United and Aetna left California, and those are just the ones that hit the news - and Aetna also left Ohio, New York, Maryland, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee and it's home state of Connecticut. Many counties in North Carolina had only one carriers offering them plans! So now that more carriers are entering some markets that they were already in before the ACA, you're calling it a "success"?

 

[tommyGunZ]

I've been gone for a week, and this thread about died. I thought I would bump it up with this news that hit this past week....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aetna-ceo-says-2015-obamacare-184213322.html

"June 11 (Reuters) - Health insurer Aetna Inc is submitting premium rates to regulators for Obamacare insurance plans for 2015 that generally increase less than 20 percent from 2014, its Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said on Wednesday."

The article even says that carriers lost money offering these plans this year (which they will be reimbursed for with the "risk corridors" and other measures). So apparently the prices weren't high enough already.....

Carriers got so crushed last year that there are new carriers entering the market in most states.

Carriers are in a no-lose situation. If they make money, they get to keep it. If they lose money, the feds reimburse them. Why wouldn't you want to be in that business?

Ask matttyl. He was the one warning of all the competition drying up and carriers leaving the markets.

 

[matttyl]

I've been gone for a week, and this thread about died. I thought I would bump it up with this news that hit this past week....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aetna-ceo-says-2015-obamacare-184213322.html

"June 11 (Reuters) - Health insurer Aetna Inc is submitting premium rates to regulators for Obamacare insurance plans for 2015 that generally increase less than 20 percent from 2014, its Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said on Wednesday."

The article even says that carriers lost money offering these plans this year (which they will be reimbursed for with the "risk corridors" and other measures). So apparently the prices weren't high enough already.....

Carriers got so crushed last year that there are new carriers entering the market in most states.

Carriers are in a no-lose situation. If they make money, they get to keep it. If they lose money, the feds reimburse them. Why wouldn't you want to be in that business?

Ask matttyl. He was the one warning of all the competition drying up and carriers leaving the markets.

Where? Show me one place were I said that. Even if I did, it's EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED last year, as I pointed out in post 14880.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I've been gone for a week, and this thread about died. I thought I would bump it up with this news that hit this past week....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aetna-ceo-says-2015-obamacare-184213322.html

"June 11 (Reuters) - Health insurer Aetna Inc is submitting premium rates to regulators for Obamacare insurance plans for 2015 that generally increase less than 20 percent from 2014, its Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said on Wednesday."

The article even says that carriers lost money offering these plans this year (which they will be reimbursed for with the "risk corridors" and other measures). So apparently the prices weren't high enough already.....

Carriers got so crushed last year that there are new carriers entering the market in most states.

And no, there are not "new carriers" in "most states" - there are some carriers entering the market in some states, states that they were already in before the ACA (think about Tim's brother's prior coverage with Aetna, who left the market in California). The left will cheer that "new carriers are entering new markets", when they were already there before the ACA. Are you even sure there will be more carriers next year than there were last year? Didn't think so.....

I mean 9 different carriers left Nebraska alone last year. I know at least United and Aetna left California, and those are just the ones that hit the news - and Aetna also left Ohio, New York, Maryland, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee and it's home state of Connecticut. Many counties in North Carolina had only one carriers offering them plans! So now that more carriers are entering some markets that they were already in before the ACA, you're calling it a "success"?

Why were those carriers leaving if this was such a no-lose proposition, like you agreed to in post 14879?

 

[matttyl]

I've been gone for a week, and this thread about died. I thought I would bump it up with this news that hit this past week....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aetna-ceo-says-2015-obamacare-184213322.html

"June 11 (Reuters) - Health insurer Aetna Inc is submitting premium rates to regulators for Obamacare insurance plans for 2015 that generally increase less than 20 percent from 2014, its Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said on Wednesday."

The article even says that carriers lost money offering these plans this year (which they will be reimbursed for with the "risk corridors" and other measures). So apparently the prices weren't high enough already.....

Carriers got so crushed last year that there are new carriers entering the market in most states.

And no, there are not "new carriers" in "most states" - there are some carriers entering the market in some states, states that they were already in before the ACA (think about Tim's brother's prior coverage with Aetna, who left the market in California). The left will cheer that "new carriers are entering new markets", when they were already there before the ACA. Are you even sure there will be more carriers next year than there were last year? Didn't think so.....

I mean 9 different carriers left Nebraska alone last year. I know at least United and Aetna left California, and those are just the ones that hit the news - and Aetna also left Ohio, New York, Maryland, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee and it's home state of Connecticut. Many counties in North Carolina had only one carriers offering them plans! So now that more carriers are entering some markets that they were already in before the ACA, you're calling it a "success"?

Why were those carriers leaving if this was such a no-lose proposition, like you agreed to in post 14879?

Many of the carriers attempted to enter the markets and proposed plans and corresponding rates to their state's board of insurance, and were turned down because they were told their rates were too high. There is a limit to how much the carriers can be reimbursed, after all; and a reimbursement may not make the carrier fully whole. Also, they likely didn't want to deal with the gigantic cluster f that ended up happening, which they could see coming. Many of the carriers explicitly stated they are leaving the market because they didn't want to have to make all the needed changes to comply with the law - so that the law itself caused there to be less competition.

So let me ask you Tommy, why do you think all these carriers left so many different markets all at the same time right as the ACA was coming online? Is there any possibly positive spin you could put on that?

 

[tommyGunZ]

I've been gone for a week, and this thread about died. I thought I would bump it up with this news that hit this past week....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aetna-ceo-says-2015-obamacare-184213322.html

"June 11 (Reuters) - Health insurer Aetna Inc is submitting premium rates to regulators for Obamacare insurance plans for 2015 that generally increase less than 20 percent from 2014, its Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said on Wednesday."

The article even says that carriers lost money offering these plans this year (which they will be reimbursed for with the "risk corridors" and other measures). So apparently the prices weren't high enough already.....

Carriers got so crushed last year that there are new carriers entering the market in most states.

And no, there are not "new carriers" in "most states" - there are some carriers entering the market in some states, states that they were already in before the ACA (think about Tim's brother's prior coverage with Aetna, who left the market in California). The left will cheer that "new carriers are entering new markets", when they were already there before the ACA. Are you even sure there will be more carriers next year than there were last year? Didn't think so.....

I mean 9 different carriers left Nebraska alone last year. I know at least United and Aetna left California, and those are just the ones that hit the news - and Aetna also left Ohio, New York, Maryland, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee and it's home state of Connecticut. Many counties in North Carolina had only one carriers offering them plans! So now that more carriers are entering some markets that they were already in before the ACA, you're calling it a "success"?

Why were those carriers leaving if this was such a no-lose proposition, like you agreed to in post 14879?

Many of the carriers attempted to enter the markets and proposed plans and corresponding rates to their state's board of insurance, and were turned down because they were told their rates were too high. There is a limit to how much the carriers can be reimbursed, after all; and a reimbursement may not make the carrier fully whole. Also, they likely didn't want to deal with the gigantic cluster f that ended up happening, which they could see coming. Many of the carriers explicitly stated they are leaving the market because they didn't want to have to make all the needed changes to comply with the law - so that the law itself caused there to be less competition.

So let me ask you Tommy, why do you think all these carriers left so many different markets all at the same time right as the ACA was coming online? Is there any possibly positive spin you could put on that?

Lots of reasons. Apparently, that was just a blip on the radar, as we're now seeing new carriers entering the market. Hardly the meltdown you and other anti-ACA'ers were predicting.

Keep up the good whining. Your bad news bumps are funny, especially when the news is overwhelmingly positive. Just shows how biased and vested in the ACA failing you really are.

 

[matttyl]

I've been gone for a week, and this thread about died. I thought I would bump it up with this news that hit this past week....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aetna-ceo-says-2015-obamacare-184213322.html

"June 11 (Reuters) - Health insurer Aetna Inc is submitting premium rates to regulators for Obamacare insurance plans for 2015 that generally increase less than 20 percent from 2014, its Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said on Wednesday."

The article even says that carriers lost money offering these plans this year (which they will be reimbursed for with the "risk corridors" and other measures). So apparently the prices weren't high enough already.....

Carriers got so crushed last year that there are new carriers entering the market in most states.

And no, there are not "new carriers" in "most states" - there are some carriers entering the market in some states, states that they were already in before the ACA (think about Tim's brother's prior coverage with Aetna, who left the market in California). The left will cheer that "new carriers are entering new markets", when they were already there before the ACA. Are you even sure there will be more carriers next year than there were last year? Didn't think so.....

I mean 9 different carriers left Nebraska alone last year. I know at least United and Aetna left California, and those are just the ones that hit the news - and Aetna also left Ohio, New York, Maryland, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee and it's home state of Connecticut. Many counties in North Carolina had only one carriers offering them plans! So now that more carriers are entering some markets that they were already in before the ACA, you're calling it a "success"?

Why were those carriers leaving if this was such a no-lose proposition, like you agreed to in post 14879?

Many of the carriers attempted to enter the markets and proposed plans and corresponding rates to their state's board of insurance, and were turned down because they were told their rates were too high. There is a limit to how much the carriers can be reimbursed, after all; and a reimbursement may not make the carrier fully whole. Also, they likely didn't want to deal with the gigantic cluster f that ended up happening, which they could see coming. Many of the carriers explicitly stated they are leaving the market because they didn't want to have to make all the needed changes to comply with the law - so that the law itself caused there to be less competition.

So let me ask you Tommy, why do you think all these carriers left so many different markets all at the same time right as the ACA was coming online? Is there any possibly positive spin you could put on that?

Lots of reasons. Apparently, that was just a blip on the radar, as we're now seeing new carriers entering the market. Hardly the meltdown you and other anti-ACA'ers were predicting.

Keep up the good whining. Your bad news bumps are funny, especially when the news is overwhelmingly positive. Just shows how biased and vested in the ACA failing you really are.

"Lots of reasons"?! Ok, name one that puts the ACA in a good light. The ACA came, and quite a few carriers left. Spin it any way you want, it was bad and resulted in less competition.

Again, you can't call them "new carriers" when they were already there before the ACA. What part of that don't you understand? And you've yet to show me where I said that carriers would leave the market, even after I asked you to. I said that we may see individuals leave the market and opt to go uninsured and face a fine - and if the news bumps that I've posted here are true with the continuing increasing premiums (double digit increases), that's exactly what we will see.

Even with these "new carriers" entering some markets, I don't think there will be as many carriers in these markets in 2015 as there were in 2013. So it's still a net reduction in carriers, and thus less competition than there was before the ACA.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I've been gone for a week, and this thread about died. I thought I would bump it up with this news that hit this past week....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aetna-ceo-says-2015-obamacare-184213322.html

"June 11 (Reuters) - Health insurer Aetna Inc is submitting premium rates to regulators for Obamacare insurance plans for 2015 that generally increase less than 20 percent from 2014, its Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said on Wednesday."

The article even says that carriers lost money offering these plans this year (which they will be reimbursed for with the "risk corridors" and other measures). So apparently the prices weren't high enough already.....

Carriers got so crushed last year that there are new carriers entering the market in most states.

And no, there are not "new carriers" in "most states" - there are some carriers entering the market in some states, states that they were already in before the ACA (think about Tim's brother's prior coverage with Aetna, who left the market in California). The left will cheer that "new carriers are entering new markets", when they were already there before the ACA. Are you even sure there will be more carriers next year than there were last year? Didn't think so.....I mean 9 different carriers left Nebraska alone last year. I know at least United and Aetna left California, and those are just the ones that hit the news - and Aetna also left Ohio, New York, Maryland, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee and it's home state of Connecticut. Many counties in North Carolina had only one carriers offering them plans! So now that more carriers are entering some markets that they were already in before the ACA, you're calling it a "success"?

Why were those carriers leaving if this was such a no-lose proposition, like you agreed to in post 14879?

Many of the carriers attempted to enter the markets and proposed plans and corresponding rates to their state's board of insurance, and were turned down because they were told their rates were too high. There is a limit to how much the carriers can be reimbursed, after all; and a reimbursement may not make the carrier fully whole. Also, they likely didn't want to deal with the gigantic cluster f that ended up happening, which they could see coming. Many of the carriers explicitly stated they are leaving the market because they didn't want to have to make all the needed changes to comply with the law - so that the law itself caused there to be less competition. So let me ask you Tommy, why do you think all these carriers left so many different markets all at the same time right as the ACA was coming online? Is there any possibly positive spin you could put on that?

Lots of reasons. Apparently, that was just a blip on the radar, as we're now seeing new carriers entering the market. Hardly the meltdown you and other anti-ACA'ers were predicting.

Keep up the good whining. Your bad news bumps are funny, especially when the news is overwhelmingly positive. Just shows how biased and vested in the ACA failing you really are.

If the news on the ACA is overwhelmingly positive why are the Democrats doing what they can to distance themselves from it with the elections coming up this fall?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I've been gone for a week, and this thread about died. I thought I would bump it up with this news that hit this past week....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aetna-ceo-says-2015-obamacare-184213322.html

"June 11 (Reuters) - Health insurer Aetna Inc is submitting premium rates to regulators for Obamacare insurance plans for 2015 that generally increase less than 20 percent from 2014, its Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said on Wednesday."

The article even says that carriers lost money offering these plans this year (which they will be reimbursed for with the "risk corridors" and other measures). So apparently the prices weren't high enough already.....

Carriers got so crushed last year that there are new carriers entering the market in most states.

And no, there are not "new carriers" in "most states" - there are some carriers entering the market in some states, states that they were already in before the ACA (think about Tim's brother's prior coverage with Aetna, who left the market in California). The left will cheer that "new carriers are entering new markets", when they were already there before the ACA. Are you even sure there will be more carriers next year than there were last year? Didn't think so.....

I mean 9 different carriers left Nebraska alone last year. I know at least United and Aetna left California, and those are just the ones that hit the news - and Aetna also left Ohio, New York, Maryland, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee and it's home state of Connecticut. Many counties in North Carolina had only one carriers offering them plans! So now that more carriers are entering some markets that they were already in before the ACA, you're calling it a "success"?

Why were those carriers leaving if this was such a no-lose proposition, like you agreed to in post 14879?

Many of the carriers attempted to enter the markets and proposed plans and corresponding rates to their state's board of insurance, and were turned down because they were told their rates were too high. There is a limit to how much the carriers can be reimbursed, after all; and a reimbursement may not make the carrier fully whole. Also, they likely didn't want to deal with the gigantic cluster f that ended up happening, which they could see coming. Many of the carriers explicitly stated they are leaving the market because they didn't want to have to make all the needed changes to comply with the law - so that the law itself caused there to be less competition.

So let me ask you Tommy, why do you think all these carriers left so many different markets all at the same time right as the ACA was coming online? Is there any possibly positive spin you could put on that?

Lots of reasons. Apparently, that was just a blip on the radar, as we're now seeing new carriers entering the market. Hardly the meltdown you and other anti-ACA'ers were predicting.

Keep up the good whining. Your bad news bumps are funny, especially when the news is overwhelmingly positive. Just shows how biased and vested in the ACA failing you really are.

Liberals and progressives are at such cross purposes on this.

What I recall from 2007-2010 was that the insurers were such bad guys, they had to be taken out.

Then in the midst of this after the passage of the ACA: it's impossible to tell what the claim is, that the evil insurers are having their policies sold for them by the US government, the US is paying off their profits, and business is booming; or that they are being taken down and put in their place, but oh hey that means that GOP claims that the feds are killing the industry and putting the insurance industry out of work are true.

Which is it?

 

[tommyGunZ]

I've been gone for a week, and this thread about died. I thought I would bump it up with this news that hit this past week....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aetna-ceo-says-2015-obamacare-184213322.html

"June 11 (Reuters) - Health insurer Aetna Inc is submitting premium rates to regulators for Obamacare insurance plans for 2015 that generally increase less than 20 percent from 2014, its Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said on Wednesday."

The article even says that carriers lost money offering these plans this year (which they will be reimbursed for with the "risk corridors" and other measures). So apparently the prices weren't high enough already.....

Carriers got so crushed last year that there are new carriers entering the market in most states.

And no, there are not "new carriers" in "most states" - there are some carriers entering the market in some states, states that they were already in before the ACA (think about Tim's brother's prior coverage with Aetna, who left the market in California). The left will cheer that "new carriers are entering new markets", when they were already there before the ACA. Are you even sure there will be more carriers next year than there were last year? Didn't think so.....

I mean 9 different carriers left Nebraska alone last year. I know at least United and Aetna left California, and those are just the ones that hit the news - and Aetna also left Ohio, New York, Maryland, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee and it's home state of Connecticut. Many counties in North Carolina had only one carriers offering them plans! So now that more carriers are entering some markets that they were already in before the ACA, you're calling it a "success"?

Why were those carriers leaving if this was such a no-lose proposition, like you agreed to in post 14879?

Many of the carriers attempted to enter the markets and proposed plans and corresponding rates to their state's board of insurance, and were turned down because they were told their rates were too high. There is a limit to how much the carriers can be reimbursed, after all; and a reimbursement may not make the carrier fully whole. Also, they likely didn't want to deal with the gigantic cluster f that ended up happening, which they could see coming. Many of the carriers explicitly stated they are leaving the market because they didn't want to have to make all the needed changes to comply with the law - so that the law itself caused there to be less competition.

So let me ask you Tommy, why do you think all these carriers left so many different markets all at the same time right as the ACA was coming online? Is there any possibly positive spin you could put on that?

Lots of reasons. Apparently, that was just a blip on the radar, as we're now seeing new carriers entering the market. Hardly the meltdown you and other anti-ACA'ers were predicting.

Keep up the good whining. Your bad news bumps are funny, especially when the news is overwhelmingly positive. Just shows how biased and vested in the ACA failing you really are.

Liberals and progressives are at such cross purposes on this.

What I recall from 2007-2010 was that the insurers were such bad guys, they had to be taken out.

Then in the midst of this after the passage of the ACA: it's impossible to tell what the claim is, that the evil insurers are having their policies sold for them by the US government, the US is paying off their profits, and business is booming; or that they are being taken down and put in their place, but oh hey that means that GOP claims that the feds are killing the industry and putting the insurance industry out of work are true.

Which is it?

Pretty weak attempt at gotcha here Saints. Your reading of the ACA is that liberals should be against getting 10s of millions of people insured b/c they spoke out against the shady practices of insurance companies in the past? That's beyond silly.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I've been gone for a week, and this thread about died. I thought I would bump it up with this news that hit this past week....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aetna-ceo-says-2015-obamacare-184213322.html

"June 11 (Reuters) - Health insurer Aetna Inc is submitting premium rates to regulators for Obamacare insurance plans for 2015 that generally increase less than 20 percent from 2014, its Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said on Wednesday."

The article even says that carriers lost money offering these plans this year (which they will be reimbursed for with the "risk corridors" and other measures). So apparently the prices weren't high enough already.....

Carriers got so crushed last year that there are new carriers entering the market in most states.

And no, there are not "new carriers" in "most states" - there are some carriers entering the market in some states, states that they were already in before the ACA (think about Tim's brother's prior coverage with Aetna, who left the market in California). The left will cheer that "new carriers are entering new markets", when they were already there before the ACA. Are you even sure there will be more carriers next year than there were last year? Didn't think so.....

I mean 9 different carriers left Nebraska alone last year. I know at least United and Aetna left California, and those are just the ones that hit the news - and Aetna also left Ohio, New York, Maryland, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee and it's home state of Connecticut. Many counties in North Carolina had only one carriers offering them plans! So now that more carriers are entering some markets that they were already in before the ACA, you're calling it a "success"?

Why were those carriers leaving if this was such a no-lose proposition, like you agreed to in post 14879?

Many of the carriers attempted to enter the markets and proposed plans and corresponding rates to their state's board of insurance, and were turned down because they were told their rates were too high. There is a limit to how much the carriers can be reimbursed, after all; and a reimbursement may not make the carrier fully whole. Also, they likely didn't want to deal with the gigantic cluster f that ended up happening, which they could see coming. Many of the carriers explicitly stated they are leaving the market because they didn't want to have to make all the needed changes to comply with the law - so that the law itself caused there to be less competition.

So let me ask you Tommy, why do you think all these carriers left so many different markets all at the same time right as the ACA was coming online? Is there any possibly positive spin you could put on that?

Lots of reasons. Apparently, that was just a blip on the radar, as we're now seeing new carriers entering the market. Hardly the meltdown you and other anti-ACA'ers were predicting.

Keep up the good whining. Your bad news bumps are funny, especially when the news is overwhelmingly positive. Just shows how biased and vested in the ACA failing you really are.

Liberals and progressives are at such cross purposes on this.

What I recall from 2007-2010 was that the insurers were such bad guys, they had to be taken out.

Then in the midst of this after the passage of the ACA: it's impossible to tell what the claim is, that the evil insurers are having their policies sold for them by the US government, the US is paying off their profits, and business is booming; or that they are being taken down and put in their place, but oh hey that means that GOP claims that the feds are killing the industry and putting the insurance industry out of work are true.

Which is it?

Pretty weak attempt at gotcha here Saints. Your reading of the ACA is that liberals should be against getting 10s of millions of people insured b/c they spoke out against the shady practices of insurance companies in the past? That's beyond silly.

Well it wasn't really an accusation or (at least consciously) a gotcha attempt.

I guess the answer is that if the insurance companies are profiting off government largesse, so be it, because the greater good is helped. Interesting turnaround. Thanks.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I've been gone for a week, and this thread about died. I thought I would bump it up with this news that hit this past week....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aetna-ceo-says-2015-obamacare-184213322.html

"June 11 (Reuters) - Health insurer Aetna Inc is submitting premium rates to regulators for Obamacare insurance plans for 2015 that generally increase less than 20 percent from 2014, its Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said on Wednesday."

The article even says that carriers lost money offering these plans this year (which they will be reimbursed for with the "risk corridors" and other measures). So apparently the prices weren't high enough already.....

Carriers got so crushed last year that there are new carriers entering the market in most states.

And no, there are not "new carriers" in "most states" - there are some carriers entering the market in some states, states that they were already in before the ACA (think about Tim's brother's prior coverage with Aetna, who left the market in California). The left will cheer that "new carriers are entering new markets", when they were already there before the ACA. Are you even sure there will be more carriers next year than there were last year? Didn't think so.....

I mean 9 different carriers left Nebraska alone last year. I know at least United and Aetna left California, and those are just the ones that hit the news - and Aetna also left Ohio, New York, Maryland, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee and it's home state of Connecticut. Many counties in North Carolina had only one carriers offering them plans! So now that more carriers are entering some markets that they were already in before the ACA, you're calling it a "success"?

Why were those carriers leaving if this was such a no-lose proposition, like you agreed to in post 14879?

Many of the carriers attempted to enter the markets and proposed plans and corresponding rates to their state's board of insurance, and were turned down because they were told their rates were too high. There is a limit to how much the carriers can be reimbursed, after all; and a reimbursement may not make the carrier fully whole. Also, they likely didn't want to deal with the gigantic cluster f that ended up happening, which they could see coming. Many of the carriers explicitly stated they are leaving the market because they didn't want to have to make all the needed changes to comply with the law - so that the law itself caused there to be less competition.

So let me ask you Tommy, why do you think all these carriers left so many different markets all at the same time right as the ACA was coming online? Is there any possibly positive spin you could put on that?

Lots of reasons. Apparently, that was just a blip on the radar, as we're now seeing new carriers entering the market. Hardly the meltdown you and other anti-ACA'ers were predicting.

Keep up the good whining. Your bad news bumps are funny, especially when the news is overwhelmingly positive. Just shows how biased and vested in the ACA failing you really are.

Liberals and progressives are at such cross purposes on this.

What I recall from 2007-2010 was that the insurers were such bad guys, they had to be taken out.

Then in the midst of this after the passage of the ACA: it's impossible to tell what the claim is, that the evil insurers are having their policies sold for them by the US government, the US is paying off their profits, and business is booming; or that they are being taken down and put in their place, but oh hey that means that GOP claims that the feds are killing the industry and putting the insurance industry out of work are true.

Which is it?

Pretty weak attempt at gotcha here Saints. Your reading of the ACA is that liberals should be against getting 10s of millions of people insured b/c they spoke out against the shady practices of insurance companies in the past? That's beyond silly.

Well it wasn't really an accusation or (at least consciously) a gotcha attempt.

I guess the answer is that if the insurance companies are profiting off government largesse, so be it, because the greater good is helped. Interesting turnaround. Thanks.

Government largesse? That's how you describe how the ACA is being paid for?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I've been gone for a week, and this thread about died. I thought I would bump it up with this news that hit this past week....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aetna-ceo-says-2015-obamacare-184213322.html

"June 11 (Reuters) - Health insurer Aetna Inc is submitting premium rates to regulators for Obamacare insurance plans for 2015 that generally increase less than 20 percent from 2014, its Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said on Wednesday."

The article even says that carriers lost money offering these plans this year (which they will be reimbursed for with the "risk corridors" and other measures). So apparently the prices weren't high enough already.....

Carriers got so crushed last year that there are new carriers entering the market in most states.

And no, there are not "new carriers" in "most states" - there are some carriers entering the market in some states, states that they were already in before the ACA (think about Tim's brother's prior coverage with Aetna, who left the market in California). The left will cheer that "new carriers are entering new markets", when they were already there before the ACA. Are you even sure there will be more carriers next year than there were last year? Didn't think so.....

I mean 9 different carriers left Nebraska alone last year. I know at least United and Aetna left California, and those are just the ones that hit the news - and Aetna also left Ohio, New York, Maryland, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee and it's home state of Connecticut. Many counties in North Carolina had only one carriers offering them plans! So now that more carriers are entering some markets that they were already in before the ACA, you're calling it a "success"?

Why were those carriers leaving if this was such a no-lose proposition, like you agreed to in post 14879?

Many of the carriers attempted to enter the markets and proposed plans and corresponding rates to their state's board of insurance, and were turned down because they were told their rates were too high. There is a limit to how much the carriers can be reimbursed, after all; and a reimbursement may not make the carrier fully whole. Also, they likely didn't want to deal with the gigantic cluster f that ended up happening, which they could see coming. Many of the carriers explicitly stated they are leaving the market because they didn't want to have to make all the needed changes to comply with the law - so that the law itself caused there to be less competition.

So let me ask you Tommy, why do you think all these carriers left so many different markets all at the same time right as the ACA was coming online? Is there any possibly positive spin you could put on that?

Lots of reasons. Apparently, that was just a blip on the radar, as we're now seeing new carriers entering the market. Hardly the meltdown you and other anti-ACA'ers were predicting.

Keep up the good whining. Your bad news bumps are funny, especially when the news is overwhelmingly positive. Just shows how biased and vested in the ACA failing you really are.

Liberals and progressives are at such cross purposes on this.

What I recall from 2007-2010 was that the insurers were such bad guys, they had to be taken out.

Then in the midst of this after the passage of the ACA: it's impossible to tell what the claim is, that the evil insurers are having their policies sold for them by the US government, the US is paying off their profits, and business is booming; or that they are being taken down and put in their place, but oh hey that means that GOP claims that the feds are killing the industry and putting the insurance industry out of work are true.

Which is it?

Pretty weak attempt at gotcha here Saints. Your reading of the ACA is that liberals should be against getting 10s of millions of people insured b/c they spoke out against the shady practices of insurance companies in the past? That's beyond silly.

Well it wasn't really an accusation or (at least consciously) a gotcha attempt.

I guess the answer is that if the insurance companies are profiting off government largesse, so be it, because the greater good is helped. Interesting turnaround. Thanks.

Government largesse? That's how you describe how the ACA is being paid for?

Look sorry I don't want to belabor it, call it what you will. I was just curious how the insurers are seen now. My understanding is that the risk corridors are just a way to pay the insurers for their lost profits and that was their payoff for their cooperation. And that's ok I guess because after all people are being helped. If that's the view then ok, just interesting.

 

[The Commish]

Look sorry I don't want to belabor it, call it what you will. I was just curious how the insurers are seen now. My understanding is that the risk corridors are just a way to pay the insurers for their lost profits and that was their payoff for their cooperation. And that's ok I guess because after all people are being helped. If that's the view then ok, just interesting.

In the soap opera that is our government, it's true that these are indeed strange bedfellows. Funny how "opinions" (used as loosely as possible) have changed.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/british-healthcare-is-rated-the-best-in-the-world-americas-i

WE'RE NUMBER 1....at being worst!!!

How can the British be rated the best? Every conservative talk show host tells us how terrible it is- long waiting lines, months delay for surgeries, etc- completely inefficient...

 

[matttyl]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/british-healthcare-is-rated-the-best-in-the-world-americas-i

WE'RE NUMBER 1....at being worst!!!

How can the British be rated the best? Every conservative talk show host tells us how terrible it is- long waiting lines, months delay for surgeries, etc- completely inefficient...

We have that here too, you know.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/british-healthcare-is-rated-the-best-in-the-world-americas-i

WE'RE NUMBER 1....at being worst!!!

How can the British be rated the best? Every conservative talk show host tells us how terrible it is- long waiting lines, months delay for surgeries, etc- completely inefficient...

We have that here too, you know.

Of course. But the conservative argument has always been: the private sector is much more efficient than the public sector. With all the flaws in our system, we're better than the British because everything over there is run by the government. I have personally believed this argument my entire life, with regard to most things. I still believe in it. I think the private sector is especially more efficient in churning out new cures and medicines, and if we remove the profit motive from Big Pharma, we will be hurting ourselves in the long run.

But maybe, just maybe, I was wrong, and conservatives have been wrong, solely in terms of national health care. Maybe in this ONE instance, the government can be every bit as efficient, or more efficient, than the private sector, and that way everyone will receive proper health care. Maybe universal single option health care really is the way to go.

I don't know.

 

[Joe T]

 

[Joe T]

Doesn't the government run the VA?

How is that working out for government run hospitals and medical care?

 

[Joe T]

Solid Majority of Americans Closely Following VA ScandalProviding timelier care, firing all VA employees top list of fixes

by Art Swift

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans are closely following the scandal engulfing the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, amid allegations that thousands of veterans were denied healthcare because of false record-keeping and long waiting lists at VA facilities nationwide. Sixty-nine percent of Americans say they are following the situation "very" or "somewhat closely" in the wake of the resignation of VA Secretary Eric Shinseki and the department's widening scope of troubles.

The Situation at the VA in the United States

The VA situation became known this spring after reports asserted that some veterans died waiting for care, shining a spotlight on fundamental staffing problems across many Veterans Health Administration facilities. Media and political attention grew as the scandal widened, with more revelations emerging about the widespread nature of the problems. Americans are quite aware of the story, yet the 69% who have been following it isn't as high as have followed other news events this century, such as 9/11 (97%), Hurricane Katrina (96%), or the 2012 school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut (87%). But the level of attention to the VA scandal does exceed the average 60% who report closely following more than 200 major news stories since 1991.

Providing Better Care, Firing All VA Employees Top List of Fixes

As President Barack Obama considers candidates to replace Shinseki and tackle the problems at the VA, Gallup asked Americans, using an open-ended question, how they would fix the VA. No single answer is dominant, but the most common response, mentioned by 16% of Americans, is "provide better care in a more timely manner." Firing all VA employees, cleaning house, and better accountability came next, along with improving administration and supervision of the department.

Ways to Fix Problems with the Dept. of Veterans Affairs

Although 9% mentioned more funding for the VA, it was not Americans' top solution, suggesting that the public believes there are other remedies to be tried before more money is spent to fix the problem. Congress is currently considering proposals to allow veterans to seek care outside the VA system, something 9% of Americans mentioned as a solution. Three percent of Americans suggest privatizing the entire VA health system.

Americans Do Not Approve of Obama's Handling of Situation

As the situation continues to unfold at the VA, 29% of all Americans say they approve of the way Obama is handling the situation involving veterans at VA hospitals, with 63% disapproving. When asked to rate the president on a variety of issues, more Americans approve of his handling of other issues, including the environment (47%), terrorism (42%), and the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl (38%). While approval is not high on any of these matters, the rather low rating of Obama's handling of the VA scandal is significant, especially paired with how closely Americans are following the issue. To date, though, it has not seemed to have had a noticeable effect on his overall job approval rating, which has been fairly steady at 44% even as the controversy has unfolded.

Bottom Line

The VA scandal could remain on the minds of Americans for quite some time. With several news reports noting that the alleged inadequate healthcare preceded the Obama administration, it may take years for any potential fix to work, even as Congress is urgently working on legislation to address the issue.

At the moment, a strong majority of Americans are following this matter closely, and Americans give the president low marks for his handling of it. This may have implications for policies and politics in 2014 and beyond.

It is clear that Americans have thoughtful responses as to how to fix the situation. From allowing veterans choice in their healthcare to improving the timeliness of treatment, there are several potential fixes to this imbroglio, some of which members of Congress will likely ponder in the months ahead.

Survey Methods

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted June 5-8, 2014, on the Gallup Daily tracking survey, with a random sample of 1,027 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only/landline only/both, and cellphone mostly). Demographic weighting targets are based on the most recent Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the most recent National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the most recent U.S. census. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

View survey methodology, complete question responses, and trends.

For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com.

 

[Kal El]

So I'm changing jobs, and with that comes picking a new healthcare plan. Now, at my old job, I could cover myself, my wife and children for about $140 per check. This is a county lifeguard job, but still it's pretty nice as far as benefits go. Now with this new job as a high school math teacher, the plan they offer to cover me, my wife and kids is $476 per check. The reason for that is the school board decided that they didn't want to cover the 50% they used to provide for the dependents of the employee on the plan. This means that I'm trying to find something cheaper, but even the most basic healthcare plans that I've seen so far will run me about $460 a month. So the conclusion I'm forced to draw is that either Obama deluded himself into thinking that his plan was a good one, or he lied and now healthcare charges are going to go through the roof. I do feel that people should have access to basic healthcare, but forcing people to get it isn't the answer, and neither was the way it was rolled out. I get the distinct impression that these problems are going to snowball quickly.

 

[TPW]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/british-healthcare-is-rated-the-best-in-the-world-americas-i

WE'RE NUMBER 1....at being worst!!!

How can the British be rated the best? Every conservative talk show host tells us how terrible it is- long waiting lines, months delay for surgeries, etc- completely inefficient...

We have that here too, you know.

Of course. But the conservative argument has always been: the private sector is much more efficient than the public sector. With all the flaws in our system, we're better than the British because everything over there is run by the government. I have personally believed this argument my entire life, with regard to most things. I still believe in it. I think the private sector is especially more efficient in churning out new cures and medicines, and if we remove the profit motive from Big Pharma, we will be hurting ourselves in the long run.

But maybe, just maybe, I was wrong, and conservatives have been wrong, solely in terms of national health care. Maybe in this ONE instance, the government can be every bit as efficient, or more efficient, than the private sector, and that way everyone will receive proper health care. Maybe universal single option health care really is the way to go.

I don't know.

What most Americans don't realize is that this country has been on the fast track for single payer ever since Teddy Kennedy's Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. The American medical industry has become increasingly less private sector oriented and more bureaucratic ever since. A now deceased cousin of mine who worked as a physician for many years warned me decades ago of the likely outcome of such legislation, namely higher prices and lower quality care.

He was absolutely right. Some would say the problem really began with the advent of Medicare in 1966.

http://www.cchfreedom.org/cchf.php/171#.U6HjkGdOWUk

The proliferation of managed-care organizations (MCOs) in general, and HMOs in particular, resulted from the 1965 enactment of Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor. Literally overnight, on July 1, 1966, millions of Americans lost all financial responsibility for their health-care decisions.

Offering "free care" led to predictable results. Because Congress placed no restrictions on benefits and removed all sense of cost-consciousness, health-care use and medical costs skyrocketed. Congressional testimony reveals that between 1965 and 1971, physician fees increased 7 percent and hospital charges jumped 13 percent, while the Consumer Price Index rose only 5.3 percent. The nation's health-care bill, which was only $39 billion in 1965, increased to $75 billion in 1971.1 Patients had found the fount of unlimited care, and doctors and hospitals had discovered a pot of gold.

This stampede to the doctor's office, through the U.S. Treasury, sent Congress into a panic. It had unlocked the health-care appetite of millions, and the results were disastrous. While fiscal prudence demanded a hasty retreat, Congress opted instead for deception.

 

[matttyl]

So I'm changing jobs, and with that comes picking a new healthcare plan. Now, at my old job, I could cover myself, my wife and children for about $140 per check. This is a county lifeguard job, but still it's pretty nice as far as benefits go. Now with this new job as a high school math teacher, the plan they offer to cover me, my wife and kids is $476 per check. The reason for that is the school board decided that they didn't want to cover the 50% they used to provide for the dependents of the employee on the plan. This means that I'm trying to find something cheaper, but even the most basic healthcare plans that I've seen so far will run me about $460 a month. So the conclusion I'm forced to draw is that either Obama deluded himself into thinking that his plan was a good one, or he lied and now healthcare charges are going to go through the roof. I do feel that people should have access to basic healthcare, but forcing people to get it isn't the answer, and neither was the way it was rolled out. I get the distinct impression that these problems are going to snowball quickly.

At your old job, your employer decided how much to pay toward your coverage (their employee), and how much to pay toward your family (their employee's dependents). At a minimum, they have to pay at least 50% toward yours, but nothing toward theirs - but they could decide to pay up to 100% of both, but obviously few did. Your new employer gets to make those same decisions, and might have made different decisions on how much to pay (they apparently have much different ideas).

Since you have group coverage available to you, though, you won't be eligible to obtain a subsidy for individual coverage if you want to buy via the exchange. So you're either going to pay more at the new job to have coverage - or you're going to pay on average 41%/39% more than individual coverage was last year, without the aid of any subsidy. Great system, huh?

 

[Kal El]

So I'm changing jobs, and with that comes picking a new healthcare plan. Now, at my old job, I could cover myself, my wife and children for about $140 per check. This is a county lifeguard job, but still it's pretty nice as far as benefits go. Now with this new job as a high school math teacher, the plan they offer to cover me, my wife and kids is $476 per check. The reason for that is the school board decided that they didn't want to cover the 50% they used to provide for the dependents of the employee on the plan. This means that I'm trying to find something cheaper, but even the most basic healthcare plans that I've seen so far will run me about $460 a month. So the conclusion I'm forced to draw is that either Obama deluded himself into thinking that his plan was a good one, or he lied and now healthcare charges are going to go through the roof. I do feel that people should have access to basic healthcare, but forcing people to get it isn't the answer, and neither was the way it was rolled out. I get the distinct impression that these problems are going to snowball quickly.

At your old job, your employer decided how much to pay toward your coverage (their employee), and how much to pay toward your family (their employee's dependents). At a minimum, they have to pay at least 50% toward yours, but nothing toward theirs - but they could decide to pay up to 100% of both, but obviously few did. Your new employer gets to make those same decisions, and might have made different decisions on how much to pay (they apparently have much different ideas).

Since you have group coverage available to you, though, you won't be eligible to obtain a subsidy for individual coverage if you want to buy via the exchange. So you're either going to pay more at the new job to have coverage - or you're going to pay on average 41%/39% more than individual coverage was last year, without the aid of any subsidy. Great system, huh?

One thing I can do, if I qualify, is insure myself and my wife on the plan, knocking the price down to about $330 a check, and then enroll in a special program for the kids that would cost an extra $15- $20 a month. I think part of the requirements to qualify was to have insurance that costs more than 5% of your paycheck.

ETA: But to answer your question, the system before may have had its issues, but this one has managed to make those issues worse, rather than improving them.

 

[matttyl]

I'm interested to know about the option you have with the kids for only $15-20 a month. Would they then have their own deductibles and such separate from the one for you and your wife? That might not be worth the $125 a month savings ($105 a month if it's $20 per child).....or do you get two checks a month at the new job? If so, just double those figures. Either way, neither are as good as what you had - plus you'll likely have to start with a brand new deductible from $0 at the new place.

 

[Kal El]

I'm interested to know about the option you have with the kids for only $15-20 a month. Would they then have their own deductibles and such separate from the one for you and your wife? That might not be worth the $125 a month savings ($105 a month if it's $20 per child).....or do you get two checks a month at the new job? If so, just double those figures. Either way, neither are as good as what you had - plus you'll likely have to start with a brand new deductible from $0 at the new place.

Here in Florida, it's called Kid Care, and the website says we may have to pay some "small charges or co-payments for some services." It's not an ideal situation, but I'm looking at my options, and blaming Obama for such a harebrained scam that most of his healthcare plan has apparently become.

 

[shadrap]

My blue cross policy went up 42% in Feb 2014.

Thanks for the average family savings of $2500 a year.

 

[MaxThreshold]

So I'm changing jobs, and with that comes picking a new healthcare plan. Now, at my old job, I could cover myself, my wife and children for about $140 per check. This is a county lifeguard job, but still it's pretty nice as far as benefits go. Now with this new job as a high school math teacher, the plan they offer to cover me, my wife and kids is $476 per check. The reason for that is the school board decided that they didn't want to cover the 50% they used to provide for the dependents of the employee on the plan. This means that I'm trying to find something cheaper, but even the most basic healthcare plans that I've seen so far will run me about $460 a month. So the conclusion I'm forced to draw is that either Obama deluded himself into thinking that his plan was a good one, or he lied and now healthcare charges are going to go through the roof. I do feel that people should have access to basic healthcare, but forcing people to get it isn't the answer, and neither was the way it was rolled out. I get the distinct impression that these problems are going to snowball quickly.

The lefty mouth-breathers on this forum would say that you're lying about this. There is no possible way your insurance is going up - and in the off chance it does it's the insurance companies fault. And you're probably a greedy, rich ******* anyways so you get what you deserve.

 

[MaxThreshold]

My blue cross policy went up 42% in Feb 2014.

Thanks for the average family savings of $2500 a year.

See this post.

 

[Rich Conway]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/british-healthcare-is-rated-the-best-in-the-world-americas-i

WE'RE NUMBER 1....at being worst!!!

How can the British be rated the best? Every conservative talk show host tells us how terrible it is- long waiting lines, months delay for surgeries, etc- completely inefficient...

I'd suggest reading the exact rating criteria rather than simply taking a survey at its word.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So I'm changing jobs, and with that comes picking a new healthcare plan. Now, at my old job, I could cover myself, my wife and children for about $140 per check. This is a county lifeguard job, but still it's pretty nice as far as benefits go. Now with this new job as a high school math teacher, the plan they offer to cover me, my wife and kids is $476 per check. The reason for that is the school board decided that they didn't want to cover the 50% they used to provide for the dependents of the employee on the plan. This means that I'm trying to find something cheaper, but even the most basic healthcare plans that I've seen so far will run me about $460 a month. So the conclusion I'm forced to draw is that either Obama deluded himself into thinking that his plan was a good one, or he lied and now healthcare charges are going to go through the roof. I do feel that people should have access to basic healthcare, but forcing people to get it isn't the answer, and neither was the way it was rolled out. I get the distinct impression that these problems are going to snowball quickly.

The lefty mouth-breathers on this forum would say that you're lying about this. There is no possible way your insurance is going up - and in the off chance it does it's the insurance companies fault. And you're probably a greedy, rich ******* anyways so you get what you deserve.

No, I'd simply suggest that he's likely comparing apples to oranges.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'm interested to know about the option you have with the kids for only $15-20 a month. Would they then have their own deductibles and such separate from the one for you and your wife? That might not be worth the $125 a month savings ($105 a month if it's $20 per child).....or do you get two checks a month at the new job? If so, just double those figures. Either way, neither are as good as what you had - plus you'll likely have to start with a brand new deductible from $0 at the new place.

Here in Florida, it's called Kid Care, and the website says we may have to pay some "small charges or co-payments for some services." It's not an ideal situation, but I'm looking at my options, and blaming Obama for such a harebrained scam that most of his healthcare plan has apparently become.

Not surprised. Blaming govt for all of your problems is an actual platform in today's Republican Party.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I'm interested to know about the option you have with the kids for only $15-20 a month. Would they then have their own deductibles and such separate from the one for you and your wife? That might not be worth the $125 a month savings ($105 a month if it's $20 per child).....or do you get two checks a month at the new job? If so, just double those figures. Either way, neither are as good as what you had - plus you'll likely have to start with a brand new deductible from $0 at the new place.

Here in Florida, it's called Kid Care, and the website says we may have to pay some "small charges or co-payments for some services." It's not an ideal situation, but I'm looking at my options, and blaming Obama for such a harebrained scam that most of his healthcare plan has apparently become.

Not surprised. Blaming govt for all of your problems is an actual platform in today's Republican Party.

Just stop already. "All of your problems"? The platform for that is the Democratic Party and the Government can fix all of your problems.

 

[quickhands]

I'm interested to know about the option you have with the kids for only $15-20 a month. Would they then have their own deductibles and such separate from the one for you and your wife? That might not be worth the $125 a month savings ($105 a month if it's $20 per child).....or do you get two checks a month at the new job? If so, just double those figures. Either way, neither are as good as what you had - plus you'll likely have to start with a brand new deductible from $0 at the new place.

Here in Florida, it's called Kid Care, and the website says we may have to pay some "small charges or co-payments for some services." It's not an ideal situation, but I'm looking at my options, and blaming Obama for such a harebrained scam that most of his healthcare plan has apparently become.

Not surprised. Blaming govt for all of your problems is an actual platform in today's Republican Party.

Vs saying the govt can solve all your problems and create utopia which is an actual platform in todays Democratic party.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I'm interested to know about the option you have with the kids for only $15-20 a month. Would they then have their own deductibles and such separate from the one for you and your wife? That might not be worth the $125 a month savings ($105 a month if it's $20 per child).....or do you get two checks a month at the new job? If so, just double those figures. Either way, neither are as good as what you had - plus you'll likely have to start with a brand new deductible from $0 at the new place.

Here in Florida, it's called Kid Care, and the website says we may have to pay some "small charges or co-payments for some services." It's not an ideal situation, but I'm looking at my options, and blaming Obama for such a harebrained scam that most of his healthcare plan has apparently become.

Not surprised. Blaming govt for all of your problems is an actual platform in today's Republican Party.

Vs saying the govt can solve all your problems and create utopia which is an actual platform in todays Democratic party.

Where have we heard and seen this before? Soviet Russia, Cuba, Cambodia...

 

[matttyl]

Getting more news about entire hospital networks dropping out of networks. The entire Bon Secours network here in Virginia will be leaving the Blue Cross Blue shield network later this year, as will George Washington University Hospital next month, and others are being rumored. Being "out of network" will mean that people will have no benefit in going to those facilities, and will need to pay in cash.

In order to keep insurance premiums costs down, and remain competitive with their peers, carriers negotiate rates with providers. When an agreement can't be reached (like in the above situation), and the previous contract expires, entire hospital networks are all of a sudden deemed "out of network" overnight.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Getting more news about entire hospital networks dropping out of networks. The entire Bon Secours network here in Virginia will be leaving the Blue Cross Blue shield network later this year, as will George Washington University Hospital next month, and others are being rumored. Being "out of network" will mean that people will have no benefit in going to those facilities, and will need to pay in cash.

In order to keep insurance premiums costs down, and remain competitive with their peers, carriers negotiate rates with providers. When an agreement can't be reached (like in the above situation), and the previous contract expires, entire hospital networks are all of a sudden deemed "out of network" overnight.

The Bon Secours-Anthem dispute has absolutely nothing to do with the ACA. By the way, Bon Secours is "healthily" subsidized by a 40% tax break on a myriad of transactions, while the CEO of Anthem made $32MM in compensation last year. But yeah, this is clearly all Obama's fault.

 

[matttyl]

Getting more news about entire hospital networks dropping out of networks. The entire Bon Secours network here in Virginia will be leaving the Blue Cross Blue shield network later this year, as will George Washington University Hospital next month, and others are being rumored. Being "out of network" will mean that people will have no benefit in going to those facilities, and will need to pay in cash.

In order to keep insurance premiums costs down, and remain competitive with their peers, carriers negotiate rates with providers. When an agreement can't be reached (like in the above situation), and the previous contract expires, entire hospital networks are all of a sudden deemed "out of network" overnight.

The Bon Secours-Anthem dispute has absolutely nothing to do with the ACA. By the way, Bon Secours is "healthily" subsidized by a 40% tax break on a myriad of transactions, while the CEO of Anthem made $32MM in compensation last year. But yeah, this is clearly all Obama's fault.

Are you in the negotiations between Anthem and Bon Secours? Seems a mighty big coincidence that a major facility the size of Bon Secours is opting out of the largest network in the state at the first opportunity they have after the ACA went live (they couldn't opt out before now as they were still under contract). Honestly, an 11th hour agreement could very well be made, and these situations don't often get out unless it's within 30 days of the deadline.

 

[Kal El]

I'm interested to know about the option you have with the kids for only $15-20 a month. Would they then have their own deductibles and such separate from the one for you and your wife? That might not be worth the $125 a month savings ($105 a month if it's $20 per child).....or do you get two checks a month at the new job? If so, just double those figures. Either way, neither are as good as what you had - plus you'll likely have to start with a brand new deductible from $0 at the new place.

Here in Florida, it's called Kid Care, and the website says we may have to pay some "small charges or co-payments for some services." It's not an ideal situation, but I'm looking at my options, and blaming Obama for such a harebrained scam that most of his healthcare plan has apparently become.

Not surprised. Blaming govt for all of your problems is an actual platform in today's Republican Party.

I'm not a republican, but I'll echo some of the other posts in saying that believing the government can fix all your problems is a decidedly Democratic idea.

 

[Sand]

Getting more news about entire hospital networks dropping out of networks. The entire Bon Secours network here in Virginia will be leaving the Blue Cross Blue shield network later this year, as will George Washington University Hospital next month, and others are being rumored. Being "out of network" will mean that people will have no benefit in going to those facilities, and will need to pay in cash.

In order to keep insurance premiums costs down, and remain competitive with their peers, carriers negotiate rates with providers. When an agreement can't be reached (like in the above situation), and the previous contract expires, entire hospital networks are all of a sudden deemed "out of network" overnight.

The Bon Secours-Anthem dispute has absolutely nothing to do with the ACA. By the way, Bon Secours is "healthily" subsidized by a 40% tax break on a myriad of transactions, while the CEO of Anthem made $32MM in compensation last year. But yeah, this is clearly all Obama's fault.

What exactly does CEO compensation have to do with this? You know, other than casting unfounded aspersions about the rich and greedy.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Getting more news about entire hospital networks dropping out of networks. The entire Bon Secours network here in Virginia will be leaving the Blue Cross Blue shield network later this year, as will George Washington University Hospital next month, and others are being rumored. Being "out of network" will mean that people will have no benefit in going to those facilities, and will need to pay in cash.

In order to keep insurance premiums costs down, and remain competitive with their peers, carriers negotiate rates with providers. When an agreement can't be reached (like in the above situation), and the previous contract expires, entire hospital networks are all of a sudden deemed "out of network" overnight.

The Bon Secours-Anthem dispute has absolutely nothing to do with the ACA. By the way, Bon Secours is "healthily" subsidized by a 40% tax break on a myriad of transactions, while the CEO of Anthem made $32MM in compensation last year. But yeah, this is clearly all Obama's fault.

Are you in the negotiations between Anthem and Bon Secours? Seems a mighty big coincidence that a major facility the size of Bon Secours is opting out of the largest network in the state at the first opportunity they have after the ACA went live (they couldn't opt out before now as they were still under contract). Honestly, an 11th hour agreement could very well be made, and these situations don't often get out unless it's within 30 days of the deadline.

Are *you* in the negotiations? These sorts of things happen all the time, as you well know based on my understanding of your role in the healthcare system. What you also clearly know (and just stated) is that the only really unusual thing here is that Bon Secours published its "opt out" about five months or so before the end of the contract. Seems like a fairly clear publicity ploy to me, attempting to link this to the ACA while anti-ACA sentiment still has some vestiges of life (if any). In any event, there's zero evidence that this is anything other than routine contract nonsense, and it will almost certainly get settled, as you also acknowledge.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Getting more news about entire hospital networks dropping out of networks. The entire Bon Secours network here in Virginia will be leaving the Blue Cross Blue shield network later this year, as will George Washington University Hospital next month, and others are being rumored. Being "out of network" will mean that people will have no benefit in going to those facilities, and will need to pay in cash.

In order to keep insurance premiums costs down, and remain competitive with their peers, carriers negotiate rates with providers. When an agreement can't be reached (like in the above situation), and the previous contract expires, entire hospital networks are all of a sudden deemed "out of network" overnight.

The Bon Secours-Anthem dispute has absolutely nothing to do with the ACA. By the way, Bon Secours is "healthily" subsidized by a 40% tax break on a myriad of transactions, while the CEO of Anthem made $32MM in compensation last year. But yeah, this is clearly all Obama's fault.

What exactly does CEO compensation have to do with this? You know, other than casting unfounded aspersions about the rich and greedy.

It has exactly as much to do with this as the ACA does, which was my point. But thanks for clearing up that anyone questioning why the CEO of a carrier in this industry makes that much is "casting unfounded aspersions." The CEO really did make that, so it's not unfounded, and that amount is preposterous.

 

[matttyl]

HAHA at "anti-ACA sentiment still have some vestiges of life (if any)." Thanks for that, I needed a laugh.

 

[Aerial Assault]

HAHA at "anti-ACA sentiment still have some vestiges of life (if any)." Thanks for that, I needed a laugh.

Sure! The truth can be funny. But keep clinging to the hope that the drum that you're relentlessly pounding will make a sound, I guess.

 

[matttyl]

Another study done to show the average premium increase from 2013 to 2014. Now Tim, this is for the individual market only. I want to be sure you get that. This is also the unsubsidized rates. Remember, most people with ACA individual plans aren't receiving a subsidy, and those that are receiving one just means that other people are paying for these increased rates instead of them (meaning the actual cost of the coverage didn't go down, it's just coming from others).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/06/18/3137-county-analysis-obamacare-increased-2014-individual-market-premiums-by-average-of-49/

This is a 3,137 country analysis, so it's very detailed. The average increase discovered - 49%. I'm still waiting for someone to post a study that shows a decrease in rates, and have received nothing. In truth, one local did receive a pretty large decrease in the average rates - New York, but as we've been over that's because they went to guaranteed issue/community rating back in 1992 (pretty much what the ACA is doing nationwide now), and the number of people with individual coverage plummeted in New York because of it.

 

[matttyl]

HAHA at "anti-ACA sentiment still have some vestiges of life (if any)." Thanks for that, I needed a laugh.

Sure! The truth can be funny. But keep clinging to the hope that the drum that you're relentlessly pounding will make a sound, I guess.

That the ACA will lead first to higher average premiums? It already has, we've seen that. What does basic supply and demand show us happens when cost rises? It happened in New York when they went guaranteed issue/community rating, the entire market tanked. History does repeat itself, you know. The only place where guaranteed issue/community rating has "worked" has been in Massachusetts, home of the highest average individual health insurance premiums in the entire country.

 

[Sand]

It has exactly as much to do with this as the ACA does, which was my point. But thanks for clearing up that anyone questioning why the CEO of a carrier in this industry makes that much is "casting unfounded aspersions." The CEO really did make that, so it's not unfounded, and that amount is preposterous.

Aspersions as far as CEO pay affecting that negotiation.

And if you really want to go into preposterous pay regimes cast your eyes over to what the Clintons and Gores have pulled in the last few years. Even more preposterous are the tax shelters the Clintons just setup to hide from the inheritance taxes that they want to increase for the rest of us.

 

[tommyboy]

HAHA at "anti-ACA sentiment still have some vestiges of life (if any)." Thanks for that, I needed a laugh.

Sure! The truth can be funny. But keep clinging to the hope that the drum that you're relentlessly pounding will make a sound, I guess.

you do realize that a strong majority of America disapproves of the ACA. I wouldn't call that "some vestiges"/. Most recent poll results from Gallup:

Bottom Line

As of yet, there is no sign that Americans think the new healthcare law is having a net positive effect on their healthcare situations. The majority say the law has not affected them, while those who do report it having an effect are more likely to say it has hurt their healthcare situation rather than helped it. Americans also remain more negative than positive when asked about their views of the potential impact of the law on their family's healthcare situation in the long run.

That so few believe the healthcare law has had a positive impact on their lives could mean most Americans would not be upset if lawmakers change the law. Democrats running for office this year appear to be adopting a "keep and improve" position that acknowledges that the law needs changes. The Republican House announced Wednesday that it plans to put forward its own healthcare plan for a vote this year that would radically change how the healthcare system works. This proposal almost certainly has little chance of becoming law this year, and it is far from clear if the proposed plan would be any more popular than Obamacare. But given the widespread perception that Obamacare has not benefitted Americans so far, politicians on both sides of the aisle would appear to have little to lose by advocating changes to some elements of the law. http://www.gallup.com/poll/170756/few-americans-say-healthcare-law-helped.aspx