Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter tommyboy
- Start date
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Yes you have! Waiting for some Obamacare bot to come in here now and post that everything is actually all unicorns and dancing fairies.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Sorry but we'll just have to agree to disagree. I have several family members that were previously uninsured that were burdened by excessive hospital bills and one had to declare bankruptcy. A very close friend of mine had a son using medication for mental illness that he could not afford and was considered uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions.
I am not saying the ACA is perfect or is the ultimate answer but I don't think you understand how difficult it really is/was to negotiate with health care providers, especially when you are living paycheck to paycheck or on a fixed income, until you are in that situation.
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl
Footballguy
Oh I get it, and I guess I've been blessed that I've always had coverage so that I've never had to worry about being "insurable" or not, or any pre-ex limitations. Yes, there are many people being helped by the ACA - but at the same time there are many people being hurt ($ wise) because of it. The above study shows that you're likely worse off now than you were pre-ACA if you aren't getting subsidies (which very likely isn't the case with any of your examples). As you may have read in this thread, I'm an insurance agent and have a book of business of a few hundred individual policies. When they all got "transitioned" to ACA compliant plans, it was over 90% of them that had their premiums go up, sometimes very substantially. Now some (maybe 10-20%) of them then went to the exchange to get a subsidy if they qualified for it to offset that increase and in some cases have a lower out of pocket than pre-ACA. But all that means is that their higher premium is being paid by someone else (taxpayers).
ETA - And if memory serves (and your profile info is correct), you're from PA, so maybe some of the folks you're referring to are as well. If so, chances are they have a plan with Highmark as they are the overwhelming giant there. Last year rates went up by 13.4-15% (proposed, and I believe approved), and this year they are requesting another 35.9% (that request should be known in the next week or two). Your family members may be getting subsides to offset that, other people's family members may not be......
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl
Footballguy
Good piece on "out of network" coverage, which is becoming a bigger and bigger issue with the limited networks offered by ACA individual plans.
Kuz
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
Montana rates approved....
"These are now approved by the commissioner," (Senator Steve) Daines continued. "The average rate increases across all plans are ranging between 22 and 34 percent."
"These are now approved by the commissioner," (Senator Steve) Daines continued. "The average rate increases across all plans are ranging between 22 and 34 percent."
matttyl
Footballguy
Tennessee Rates approved....
BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, the state's largest insurance provider, had its 36.3 percent average increase approved.
BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, the state's largest insurance provider, had its 36.3 percent average increase approved.
matttyl
Footballguy
North Carolina rate proposals.....
3 largest carriers (Blue Cross, United and Humana) originally asked for increases of 25.7, 12.5 and 11.3%. After reviewing their claims data more, they took those back those proposals and asked instead for increases of 34.6, 20.4, and 24.9%. Should be known for sure what they get approved for in the next few weeks, but I very much doubt it will be for less than the originally requested rates.
3 largest carriers (Blue Cross, United and Humana) originally asked for increases of 25.7, 12.5 and 11.3%. After reviewing their claims data more, they took those back those proposals and asked instead for increases of 34.6, 20.4, and 24.9%. Should be known for sure what they get approved for in the next few weeks, but I very much doubt it will be for less than the originally requested rates.
matttyl
Footballguy
Yeah, didn't he want to wager some $ that the large rate proposals wouldn't be approved? Some state insurance commissioners have come out and said directly that they have no authority to change the proposed rates. They just review and approve.
matttyl
Footballguy
Maryland rates approved (apparently a while back, sorry if already posted)....
- CareFirst, which sells the most popular plans on the Maryland health insurance exchange, has been approved to increase its 2016 rates by 26% for its PPO plan and another plan only offered in the Washington suburbs, and increase the rate for its HMO plan by 19.8%, state Insurance Commissioner Alfred W. Redmer Jr. announced last Friday.
- CareFirst insures three-fourths of Maryland residents who purchased health plans under the ACA.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Some can't. Some can and have demanded higher than requested increases. But the states with "approved" increases are certainly better in general, though still not good than the states with just "requested"rates.
Oh, and the pattern between states with transitional ("grandmothered" policies) and those without certainly reinforces the "sooner we get to the real rates the better.
matttyl
Footballguy
Iowa rates approved....
The insurance division said Coventry Health Care of Iowa, which has been on Iowa's ACA exchange since its inception, was being granted an average 19.8 percent increase for approximately 35,000 to 47,000 policyholders.
Meanwhile, Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield was granted an increase of 24.5 percent on average for 23,000 policyholders with ACA-compliant plans.
The company had sought a 26.5 percent increase.
The increases, which will take effect Jan. 1, aren't just limited to policies that conform to the standards of the health care law.
The insurance division also approved Wellmark's request for a 17.6 percent increase for its 104,000 policyholders with plans that don't have to meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. The increase was what the company requested. (These are the "grandfathered plans" and these increases are there to help the carriers offset the loses they are having on the ACA compliant plans)
The insurance division said Coventry Health Care of Iowa, which has been on Iowa's ACA exchange since its inception, was being granted an average 19.8 percent increase for approximately 35,000 to 47,000 policyholders.
Meanwhile, Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield was granted an increase of 24.5 percent on average for 23,000 policyholders with ACA-compliant plans.
The company had sought a 26.5 percent increase.
The increases, which will take effect Jan. 1, aren't just limited to policies that conform to the standards of the health care law.
The insurance division also approved Wellmark's request for a 17.6 percent increase for its 104,000 policyholders with plans that don't have to meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. The increase was what the company requested. (These are the "grandfathered plans" and these increases are there to help the carriers offset the loses they are having on the ACA compliant plans)
The Commish
Footballguy
The more this draws out, the more single payer makes sense, with the caveat that the gov't does the right thing of course. I have little confidence in that part. If I had the confidence I'd be trumpeting single payer from the rooftops and preaching to anyone who'd listen.
The Commish
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
So from your first link, you're saying that the 9 states that have already approved increase of 14%+ is good? And another 17 states with proposals of at least that (including Montana that was approved for 22-34% increase, link above)?
Your 2nd link should be changed to "states where previously insured people have already been screwed, and states where previously insured people haven't yet been screwed over but will be next year (when they transition to the ACA)." The numbers actually clearly show that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Actually it is name of the study in the link which studies the financial impact on previous "non poor" "free riders". Part of the group that historically added a $1000 a year to everyone else's annual health bill. Of course they are now paying more. That is the point!
matttyl
Footballguy
A very small part. This specific group was "non poor" so likely had ability to pay for most medical needs out of pocket. Most of the issue with "free riders" (bad name, honestly) were those who didn't have the financial ability to pay for the care they were receiving no matter it's cost. They had no choice. The group (as per the article) were also fairly healthy -Bottomfeeder Sports said:
"At higher income levels, small or zero subsidies and currently modest penalties will not be enough to affect the large welfare losses that the middle class uninsured experience were they to buy coverage," the report says. Those in good health were "consistently worse off from purchasing coverage regardless of the assumptions made," according to estimates calculated by the researchers.
Like I've been saying from the start, and now this study shows, if you're in the individual market and you're not getting a sizable subsidy (you're over 250% of the NPL, much more-so over 400%) and you're in somewhat decent shape, you are worse off now than you were pre-ACA. There was no questioning that when the carriers had to price for "guaranteed issue" and had to coverage all the mandates that many don't need.
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl
Footballguy
Minnesota rates approved - 49% increase for the largest carrier, BCBS.
"(Commerce Commissioner Mike) Rothman said he "squeezed out everything we could" from the Blue Cross increases, and the numbers reflect it: Blue Cross' rate increase changed from 53 percent to 49 percent." Yeah, you sure showed them, commish.
Before TGunz or whomever says "but most won't see that as they are receiving subsidies....." not true. "Gov. Mark Dayton, Rothman and others pitched MNsure and its allure of subsidies for coverage as a possible fix, but just one-sixth of consumers on the individual market are currently buying coverage through the exchange (which you'd have to do in order to obtain a subsidy) Others shop through agents or from the companies directly. (where subsidies don't exist)" link
Yup, ~83% of folks will feel the full brunt of that increase.
"(Commerce Commissioner Mike) Rothman said he "squeezed out everything we could" from the Blue Cross increases, and the numbers reflect it: Blue Cross' rate increase changed from 53 percent to 49 percent." Yeah, you sure showed them, commish.
Before TGunz or whomever says "but most won't see that as they are receiving subsidies....." not true. "Gov. Mark Dayton, Rothman and others pitched MNsure and its allure of subsidies for coverage as a possible fix, but just one-sixth of consumers on the individual market are currently buying coverage through the exchange (which you'd have to do in order to obtain a subsidy) Others shop through agents or from the companies directly. (where subsidies don't exist)" link
Yup, ~83% of folks will feel the full brunt of that increase.
Jackstraw
Footballguy
This is nonsense. Trauma is one thing. So many people had untreated conditions like diabetes and heart disease asthma etc etc. So many people going without meds. So many people went without basic preventative care.Everyone had health care, not everyone had health insurance. Those two things are not the same. If you had a broken leg, or a heart attack and went to the hospital, they were going to treat you regardless of your health insurance status before the ACA.Yeah cuz, you know, we dont want everyone to have health care.
To say everyone had healthcare is ridiculous.
matttyl
Footballguy
They couldn't pay for insulin in cash? They couldn't buy an asthma inhaler in cash? They couldn't buy meds in cash? (I have). Whether they could afford it or not is a totally different question, one of the cost of care itself which I've brought up here many, many times. They could obtain healthcare, they may not have been able to afford it. Those are two separate things.
matttyl
Footballguy
Approved Alaska rates - the average rate increase approved for Premera (BCBS) was 38.7 percent and 39.6 percent for Moda. She said that applies to individual plans on and off the online marketplace.
matttyl
Footballguy
Kansas rates approved - but hard to follow. "rate reviews conducted by the department reduced the proposed increases to an average range of 9.4 percent to 25.4 percent."
Given that the largest carrier, BCBS, had proposed rate increases in the upper 30% range, I'd say they are the ones with the 25.4% increase (or close to it).
Given that the largest carrier, BCBS, had proposed rate increases in the upper 30% range, I'd say they are the ones with the 25.4% increase (or close to it).
matttyl
Footballguy
Have you not read anything I've posted in this thread for the 2-3 years I've been here? I've said from day 1 the issue with health care in this country is cost, not insurance. I think nearly every reader of this thread would agree with that.cstu said:And obviously something that doesn't matter to you whatsoever.
Matttyl's reaction to people dying because they can't afford their insulin:
Did you not read the story of my family member who had a horse related accident in late December, got taken by chopper to the hospital and spent 17 days there....to the tune of over $750k?! Two and a half months ago I became a father, and my son spent 6 days in the nursery (really a NICU without the accreditation to call themselves that). That charge along with the delivery charge for my wife - the bills are still adding up, but we're roughly at $25k right now and growing and nothing was really out of the ordinary aside from him being a few weeks premi. Yes, in both cases insurance was in place, I'll grant you that - but I think the bigger issue here was that the costs were what they are. A "hearing screening" for my son which lasted all of 10 minutes and didn't even work for him - and the charge was ~$750?
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl
Footballguy
It may also be helpful for the discussions here to lay off the personal attacks. I'm on the board of my local Salvation Army, and both volunteer and donate (as does most of my family) to the local Free Clinic.cstu said:And obviously something that doesn't matter to you whatsoever.
Matttyl's reaction to people dying because they can't afford their insulin:
Last edited by a moderator:
Ookie Pringle
Footballguy
Quit being such an ###cstu said:I'll take "Things People Do To Make Themselves Feel Good While Profiting From the Deaths of Others" for $1000, Alex.It may also be helpful for the discussions here to lay off the personal attacks. I'm on the board of my local Salvation Army, and both volunteer and donate (as does most of my family) to the local Free Clinic.cstu said:And obviously something that doesn't matter to you whatsoever.
Matttyl's reaction to people dying because they can't afford their insulin:
matttyl
Footballguy
Thanks for heeding the advice. How is anyone profiting from the death of others? If, in your example, people are drying because they didn't buy insulin, how did anyone profit when nothing was purchased?cstu said:I'll take "Things People Do To Make Themselves Feel Good While Profiting From the Deaths of Others" for $1000, Alex.It may also be helpful for the discussions here to lay off the personal attacks. I'm on the board of my local Salvation Army, and both volunteer and donate (as does most of my family) to the local Free Clinic.cstu said:And obviously something that doesn't matter to you whatsoever.
Matttyl's reaction to people dying because they can't afford their insulin:
The Commish
Footballguy
damn....that's completely unnecessary. Way to make TGunz look sane cstu 
cstu
Footballguy
What solutions have you suggested? All I've seen is opposition to helping people get health care due to pre-existing conditions and complaints about rising costs.
My anger at the current health care system (including Obamacare) is that it's a nightmare to actually use. My daughter needed speech therapy and social skills classes we had to fight the insurance company tooth and nail for services. You cannot argue that their #1 priority is maximizing profits and try to pay for as little health care as they can. This is the reason why I don't believe private insurance companies should be in charge of health care.
BTW, I apologize for the negative posts and deleted them. Must be a case of the Fridays.
cstu
Footballguy
If you owned stock of health insurance companies when people with pre-existing conditions couldn't get health insurance then you profited from the deaths of others.
cstu
Footballguy
I completely agree but I hate coming in this thread to nothing about whining about rising costs with no solution except to go back to the days when sick people couldn't get health insurance.damn....that's completely unnecessary. Way to make TGunz look sane cstu
The Commish
Footballguy
This is quite the disgusting fishing trip...sad actually.
The Commish
Footballguy
Sounds like you have a reading comprehension problem. That's no reason to take it out on others.I completely agree but I hate coming in this thread to nothing about whining about rising costs with no solution except to go back to the days when sick people couldn't get health insurance.damn....that's completely unnecessary. Way to make TGunz look sane cstu
matttyl
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
I've suggested a few in the past, but honestly if I had the answers to these types of questions I wouldn't be here posting on a fantasy football message board. What I have been saying from the start is that "this ain't it" - and I feel the recent price increases in the individual market is showing that. And people could have always get health insurance even with pre-exisiting conditions prior to the ACA. At worst they would have a higher premium due to those conditions (shouldn't someone who doesn't take care of themselves pay more than someone who works out regularly?), and the coverage may not cover those conditions for up to 1 year, but would there after (and that would ONLY be the case if they didn't have coverage prior to the new coverage they were obtaining - if they never had a break in coverage then all conditions would be covered). This way was thought to not be fair, and hence we have the ACA.
What that did (in an extreme case) was prevent someone who's 8 months pregnant from buying a plan and having it cover the ~$25k claim a month away. Same idea with preventing people from buying coverage only when they were sick. Over the past 2 years I know specifically of 3 policies I sold to pregnant women (who all chose the lowest deductible, predictably) who had those children and the claims all covered - and then all switched back out to the highest deductible afterwards (and lower premium). That's what we have now, and I don't think it's sustainable.
matttyl
Footballguy
And yet another delay. Larger small business aren't "small business", yet. Really this is just delaying presumably large premium increases in that market....
"Many businesses in the 51-100 employee range didn’t want to be placed into the small group market because they feared they would face higher insurance premiums. That’s because their health plans would be subject to the small group market’s rating restrictions and benefits requirements. A study by by Oliver Wyman Actuarial Consulting estimates that 64 percent of employers with 51 to 100 workers would see premium increases averaging 18 percent as a result of being moved into the small group market."
I guess we'll never really see how the ACA is going to affect decent sized businesses unless they actually put those groups into ACA compliant plans. If it were such a good thing, why the bipartisan effort to delay?
"Many businesses in the 51-100 employee range didn’t want to be placed into the small group market because they feared they would face higher insurance premiums. That’s because their health plans would be subject to the small group market’s rating restrictions and benefits requirements. A study by by Oliver Wyman Actuarial Consulting estimates that 64 percent of employers with 51 to 100 workers would see premium increases averaging 18 percent as a result of being moved into the small group market."
I guess we'll never really see how the ACA is going to affect decent sized businesses unless they actually put those groups into ACA compliant plans. If it were such a good thing, why the bipartisan effort to delay?
Loan Sharks
Not a Wolf
Sand
Footballguy
So, basically anyone with a mutual fund. In other words, anyone with a 401k or pension would have some of these companies in the mix.
I think you've implicated about 2/3 of the country here.
matttyl
Footballguy
Damn! That "Risk Corridor" sure worked out.
"For 2014, insurers that had sicker-than-expected patients requested nearly $2.9 billion in payments, HHS said. But the government has collected only $362 million from insurers that did well." That's only 13%. Means that nearly all carriers severely under-priced their products, which is why we're seeing all these huge increases now.
ETA - OK, so carriers just to break even needed $2.9B more in 2014. That's how much they underpriced their products. Didn't they only have 7.1m enrollments on the exchange last year? No wonder we're seeing all these huge increases this year to make up for that.
Raise your hand if you called it.
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
A funny thing happens when health insurance carriers are asked to actually cover health care cost of regular people in the individual market.
The Commish
Footballguy
BFS, why am I getting all these "I told you so" vibes from your posts, but they aren't really all that clear? I've never been in the individual market, so what are you getting at with your "asked to actually cover health care cost of regular people"? Have they not been covering those costs withholding payments? Or are they covering only non-regular people? What? 
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
64% of Americans don't have enough cash on hand to handle a $1,000 emergency expense - I'm guessing that there were a lot of "non poor" people with so much in cash on hand that they had no concerns about risking hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual health bills rather buy some form of protection for their life's savings.
Loan Sharks
Not a Wolf
But like magic they have money for partial premium payments, deductibles and copays!64% of Americans don't have enough cash on hand to handle a $1,000 emergency expense - I'm guessing that there were a lot of "non poor" people with so much in cash on hand that they had no concerns about risking hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual health bills rather buy some form of protection for their life's savings.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Well there were and probably still are carriers that pretty much denied everything as non covered but that isn't what I'm talking about. Prior to the ACA insurance companies could pick and chose who to cover. Some companies, like matttyl's favorite Assurant had created sophisticated algorithms to weed out potential members that might actually have claims. Other companies gladly took your money until you had a significant claim. Then they found a mistake somewhere on your application and dropped you. All could charge you more for a whole laundry list of reasons to effectively price most people who needed coverage out of the market. Sure some people got in and got good coverage and thus good care for a reasonable prices - they were the exceptions in an incredibly unstable, dysfunctional market that worked over time for less than a few million Americans. This notion that things were great or even acceptable in the individual market in 2013 is false.BFS, why am I getting all these "I told you so" vibes from your posts, but they aren't really all that clear? I've never been in the individual market, so what are you getting at with your "asked to actually cover health care cost of regular people"? Have they not been covering those costs withholding payments? Or are they covering only non-regular people? What?
Now what do I think will happen with pricing? Since ACA individual plans are designed to mimic group plans like the ones you and I have it seems to me that ultimately the pricing would be comparable. That means the prices in the individual market still need to go up quite a bit and/or the policies in the group market start to look more like the plans in the individual market. I'd expect a bit of both. And at the end of the process will anyone be able to get good individual market coverage at a reasonable price in the environment created by the ACA?
I say let the market tell us sooner rather than latter.And what you see as "I told you so" is probably the disbelief that hapless insurance companies really whiffed this much in their first couple of year pricing. At least those that operate in the group markets. Do you think the Blue really missed their cost projections by 100%? I think they know what they were doing.
Similar threads
