Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

Trumpcare- Passed the House and onto the Senate; will it pass there? And what will it finally look like?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ffldrew said:

Who is retiring at 50 and worrying about insurance? You are already in the 1% if that's the case - no need for subsidies or any help.

I should probably forego SS too.

We are DINK saver types.  1% would be awesome, but we aren't in that crowd unfortunately.  Important to know your expenses in retirement.  Thanks, Matty.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ffldrew said:

Who is retiring at 50 and worrying about insurance? You are already in the 1% if that's the case - no need for subsidies or any help.

That's not how it works.  Most people do the math on how much money they need the rest of their lives and back into how many years they have left to work.  That math not only includes the cost of health care, but, health care is one of the bigger factors for obvious reasons.  I was once planning on retiring at 50, now it looks more like 55 and I'm not in the 1%.

I've found that 1%ers actually work longer because they have more liability to the company. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obamacare or trumpcare....nothing is going to work until those in the group pool are contributing to covering the poor and sick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ffldrew said:

Who is retiring at 50 and worrying about insurance? You are already in the 1% if that's the case - no need for subsidies or any help.

Go ask @proteus126  He brought it up.  And from the sounds of it he's not in the 1% my any means.  He's just trying to retire early, and from the sounds of it the ACA would have helped him do that a lot, due to it's structure (he'd have been doing so with very large subsidies). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Hey Matty I think the FFA has been pretty lucky to have your input on this issue over time. I used to enjoy your points, and those of BFS, Rich, Commish, TGunz and Max in the old thread. I feel like I learned a lot from everyone.

Are you personally thumbs up or down on this bill? Just curious.

That's a tough question.  I'm for certain parts of it.  Just like I'm for certain parts of the ACA.  I'm also for certain parts of the system we had before the ACA/Obamacare. 

Also something to keep in mind about this bill - much of how it (should it pass) will play out will be determined by how the states themselves implement it.  So they could try it one way in which I'd give it a "thumbs up", or they could try it another in which case I'd give it a big "thumbs down".  Overall, as I understand it today, it would likely be a thumbs down (just like I am on the ACA [specifically the individual market]). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tonydead said:

That's not how it works.  Most people do the math on how much money they need the rest of their lives and back into how many years they have left to work.  That math not only includes the cost of health care, but, health care is one of the bigger factors for obvious reasons.  I was once planning on retiring at 50, now it looks more like 55 and I'm not in the 1%.

I've found that 1%ers actually work longer because they have more liability to the company. 

...and many of the 1% I know are workaholics and wouldn't know how not to work...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2017 at 7:01 PM, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Does anyone have a POV on where this stands legislatively?

Seems the big question is does Mitch have something up his sleeve with next week"s CBO numbers?   Something that will allow the moderates to say, well this isn't nearly as bad as I thought?   Maybe a changed "existing law" assumption that was possible from "the additional time" since the House scoring.

We shall see...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Seems the big question is does Mitch have something up his sleeve with next week"s CBO numbers?   Something that will allow the moderates to say, well this isn't nearly as bad as I thought?   Maybe a changed "existing law" assumption that was possible from "the additional time" since the House scoring.

We shall see...

I would be very surprised if this doesn't pass. There are needlessly cruel and unpopular things in there that seem to exist entirely so moderates can claim they won concessions when they get them removed. And they're close to 50 already, there's only a handful of potential nos. And McConnell is way better at this game than Ryan. The only really vulnerable GOP senator in 2018 is Heller in Nevada, they'll promise him some plum job if he loses and get everyone in line.

Edited by TobiasFunke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

 

Thought I'd let you know about one part of this bill that you might find particularly interesting from your prior posts.  If this bill does pass, which you apparently believe it will (I'm personally not holding my breath) - then those CSR payments you've discussed will be fully funded and guaranteed for both 2018 and 2019.  You've discussed the unknown nature of those CSR payments being a likely reason for up to 2/3rds of the recent rate requests.  So if they are fully funded and guaranteed (as much as a guarantee is worth from our government in this situation), should we expect those rate hike requests to drop by 2/3rds?  I wouldn't hold my breath for that, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, matttyl said:

Thought I'd let you know about one part of this bill that you might find particularly interesting from your prior posts.  If this bill does pass, which you apparently believe it will (I'm personally not holding my breath) - then those CSR payments you've discussed will be fully funded and guaranteed for both 2018 and 2019.  You've discussed the unknown nature of those CSR payments being a likely reason for up to 2/3rds of the recent rate requests.  So if they are fully funded and guaranteed (as much as a guarantee is worth from our government in this situation), should we expect those rate hike requests to drop by 2/3rds?  I wouldn't hold my breath for that, either.

Yeah, I saw that. IIRC the 2/3rds was also due to uncertainties of lax enforcement of the individual mandate (it wasn't me making the arguments, it was an accounting/consulting firm I think). If they remove that entirely I assume that will also have an impact.

Also I believe they are cutting off the CSR payments entirely after 2019; no idea how insurers account for that.  Maybe they try to smooth the increases?  I don't know how that would work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TobiasFunke said:

Yeah, I saw that. IIRC the 2/3rds was also due to uncertainties of lax enforcement of the individual mandate (it wasn't me making the arguments, it was an accounting/consulting firm I think). If they remove that entirely I assume that will also have an impact.

Also I believe they are cutting off the CSR payments entirely after 2019; no idea how insurers account for that.  Maybe they try to smooth the increases?  I don't know how that would work.

True, there would still be "uncertainty" due to the mandate (technically it would be a certainty that it wouldn't exist, but an uncertainty of how exactly that would affect the market). 

Yes, they could cutt off CSR payments (on ACA individual plans) after 2019 as ACA individual plans would no longer exist.  They'd all be AHCA (or whatever it's called) individual plans.  Insurers would just price people in that income segment just they are pricing people who are currently outside of that segment.  But that won't happen till 2020 - but my question would still stand about premium increases in 2018 and 2019.  I believe that carriers were simply using that uncertainty as a rational for their absurdly high premium hike requests.  If that uncertainty (about CSRs specifically is no longer there and they will be paid in full), I'm doubting that the carriers simply say - "oh, well then, we can lower our request from 30% down to 10%."  Most are still losing money, or at least aren't making much.  They are still seeing horrible adverse selection, and people continue to game the system.  Those huge rate requests are still justified. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, matttyl said:

True, there would still be "uncertainty" due to the mandate (technically it would be a certainty that it wouldn't exist, but an uncertainty of how exactly that would affect the market). 

Yes, they could cutt off CSR payments (on ACA individual plans) after 2019 as ACA individual plans would no longer exist.  They'd all be AHCA (or whatever it's called) individual plans.  Insurers would just price people in that income segment just they are pricing people who are currently outside of that segment.  But that won't happen till 2020 - but my question would still stand about premium increases in 2018 and 2019.  I believe that carriers were simply using that uncertainty as a rational for their absurdly high premium hike requests.  If that uncertainty (about CSRs specifically is no longer there and they will be paid in full), I'm doubting that the carriers simply say - "oh, well then, we can lower our request from 30% down to 10%."  Most are still losing money, or at least aren't making much.  They are still seeing horrible adverse selection, and people continue to game the system.  Those huge rate requests are still justified. 

I'm not sure I understand your question. I assume the premium increases would be relatively lower with the guaranteed payments, but it wasn't my data or argument. I was relying on experts. If you're asking how much change to expect that would be a question for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JIslander said:

So much winning.

This Senate bill will cut coverage for 632,000 kids on Medicaid here in SC. 

This can and will be blamed on immigrants.  Much of my family are recipients of CHIPS, Medicaid, many forms of governmental help.  These are also people that are huge Trumpkins.  I know other people in the same shoes as my family as well.  Their common line is that if we didn't give all this money to immigrants, then there would be enough to go around for the white folks.  They won't even entertain the idea that conservative lawmakers are screwing them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I'm not sure I understand your question. I assume the premium increases would be relatively lower with the guaranteed payments, but it wasn't my data or argument. I was relying on experts. If you're asking how much change to expect that would be a question for them.

I think you fully understand the question, you even partially answer it with your second sentence.  On June 16th you came in this thread and posted a link, and a exert from it showing that the majority of the recent and upcoming rate hikes from carriers in the individual market were due to uncertainty about CSR payments in particular.  And some of these recent rate hikes are huge - 30.6% request in my home state of VA, 43.5% in Iowa, 22.3% in Washington State, 33.6% in Delaware, 25.3% in Michigan, 34.8% in Maine.

For some additional clarity, the think tank who you quoted said that the CSR payment question would along lead to 11-20% rate hikes, and the individual mandate would be around 9%.  So, should this bill pass, and because this think tank came to the conclusion that 11-20% of those hikes were due to CSR uncertainty alone - should we expect those large rate hike requests above (and those yet to come) to drop by 11-20%?  Or do you not agree with the conclusion that the think tank came to, that you decided to go and post here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JIslander said:

So much winning.

This Senate bill will cut coverage for 632,000 kids on Medicaid here in SC. 

Not sure this is true.  That's roughly to the total number of children currently enrolled on Medicaid and CHIP in that state.  I'm not sure this bill would eliminate 100% of their coverage.  Yes, this bill will cut Medicaid funding, I get that, but not 100% of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

This can and will be blamed on immigrants.  Much of my family are recipients of CHIPS, Medicaid, many forms of governmental help.  These are also people that are huge Trumpkins.  I know other people in the same shoes as my family as well.  Their common line is that if we didn't give all this money to immigrants, then there would be enough to go around for the white folks.  They won't even entertain the idea that conservative lawmakers are screwing them.

Yeah, they'd be hard pressed to sell the immigrant thing here.

SC will get hit really hard with this. http://www.postandcourier.com/features/your_health/south-carolina-identified-as-a-state-that-will-struggle-most/article_e3562d10-52ac-11e7-b401-bff4668d2665.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

The American Society of D-bag Insurance Executives.

Not true, everything I have seen shows insurance companies oppose it (maybe their public opinion differs from their private opinion) 

Edited by Ilov80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JIslander said:

That's good, but the reasons my family/other people has don't have to make sense.  None of it makes sense.  The immigrant is a boogeyman anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, matttyl said:

I think you fully understand the question, you even partially answer it with your second sentence.  On June 16th you came in this thread and posted a link, and a exert from it showing that the majority of the recent and upcoming rate hikes from carriers in the individual market were due to uncertainty about CSR payments in particular.  And some of these recent rate hikes are huge - 30.6% request in my home state of VA, 43.5% in Iowa, 22.3% in Washington State, 33.6% in Delaware, 25.3% in Michigan, 34.8% in Maine.

For some additional clarity, the think tank who you quoted said that the CSR payment question would along lead to 11-20% rate hikes, and the individual mandate would be around 9%.  So, should this bill pass, and because this think tank came to the conclusion that 11-20% of those hikes were due to CSR uncertainty alone - should we expect those large rate hike requests above (and those yet to come) to drop by 11-20%?  Or do you not agree with the conclusion that the think tank came to, that you decided to go and post here?

To the extent that the bill does nothing else to alter their figures, then obviously you would expect the rates would drop by whatever percentage they attributed to CSR uncertainty. Of course the bill does do other things to alter their figures, namely killing the individual mandate instead of just creating uncertainty about its enforcement. I'm sure there's other things in there that would alter the numbers as well.  But yes, if you could hypothetically isolate the analysis to determine what would happen if legislation guaranteed CSR payments and did nothing else, you would assume rate hikes in 2018 and 2019 would be reduced accordingly.

You seem awfully defensive and confrontational, and I have no idea why. All I did was post information from an accounting firm about various causes of rate hikes. Take it easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Not true, everything I have seen shows insurance companies appose it (maybe their public opinion differs from their private opinion) 

If you really care about this point (I don't) I'm afraid you'll have to zoom in on the group I was referencing, because I didn't see it in your link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dedfin said:

If you really care about this point (I don't) I'm afraid you'll have to zoom in on the group I was referencing, because I didn't see it in your link.

Here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TobiasFunke said:

To the extent that the bill does nothing else to alter their figures, then obviously you would expect the rates would drop by whatever percentage they attributed to CSR uncertainty. Of course the bill does do other things to alter their figures, namely killing the individual mandate instead of just creating uncertainty about its enforcement. I'm sure there's other things in there that would alter the numbers as well.  But yes, if you could hypothetically isolate the analysis to determine what would happen if legislation guaranteed CSR payments and did nothing else, you would assume rate hikes in 2018 and 2019 would be reduced accordingly.

You seem awfully defensive and confrontational, and I have no idea why. All I did was post information from an accounting firm about various causes of rate hikes. Take it easy.

I didn't mean to be confrontational or anything, just making sure I was asking the proper question, and that you understood exactly what I was asking.  Since Trump was elected I thought that insurance companies would use it to blame their high rate requests on.  They thought that since no one (or hardly any) people really really like Trump, he'd make a perfect scapegoat.  I mean they blamed much of their earlier rate hikes on some particular things that Obama did as well (transitional plans and such). 

I just mean that if Trump had come out and said that the CRS would be fully funded for as long as needed and that he would take the same stance on the mandate as Obama did (which lets be honest, wasn't that strict) that these rate hikes would still be ridiculous, because quite frankly they need to be due to the system we have. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, matttyl said:

I didn't mean to be confrontational or anything, just making sure I was asking the proper question, and that you understood exactly what I was asking.  Since Trump was elected I thought that insurance companies would use it to blame their high rate requests on.  They thought that since no one (or hardly any) people really really like Trump, he'd make a perfect scapegoat.  I mean they blamed much of their earlier rate hikes on some particular things that Obama did as well (transitional plans and such). 

I just mean that if Trump had come out and said that the CRS would be fully funded for as long as needed and that he would take the same stance on the mandate as Obama did (which lets be honest, wasn't that strict) that these rate hikes would still be ridiculous, because quite frankly they need to be due to the system we have. 

Fair enough.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Not in the group I was referencing.  We can just say your are right though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

Obamacare or trumpcare....nothing is going to work until those in the group pool are contributing to covering the poor and sick

Many of us are already via the tax increases in the ACA.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

 

12 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

Obamacare or trumpcare....nothing is going to work until those in the group pool are contributing to covering the poor and sick

Many of us are already via the tax increases in the ACA

 

What taxes are you referring to?  There's a .9% tax that went into affect for those over the $250,000 mark that is going to medicare.  Cadillac tax (which I think has been eliminated?  Sorry, don't remember) is on group plans that provide really good coverage, but the employer pays that and doesn't start paying that until 2020.  There is a provision that moves the medical expense write-off from 7.5% to 10%....that what you're talking about?

None of these seem to be taxes where the funds specifically target the people BnB is referring to.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Many Some of us are already via the tax increases in the ACA.  

Even a moron (unless they're an elected official) knows that 5% of the population can't carry another 5% of the population.  This (xxxxxCare) doesn't work until you pull in the 50% to help carry the load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Commish said:
6 hours ago, tommyGunZ said:

 

18 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

Obamacare or trumpcare....nothing is going to work until those in the group pool are contributing to covering the poor and sick

Many of us are already via the tax increases in the ACA

 

What taxes are you referring to?  There's a .9% tax that went into affect for those over the $250,000 mark that is going to medicare.  Cadillac tax (which I think has been eliminated?  Sorry, don't remember) is on group plans that provide really good coverage, but the employer pays that and doesn't start paying that until 2020.  There is a provision that moves the medical expense write-off from 7.5% to 10%....that what you're talking about?

None of these seem to be taxes where the funds specifically target the people BnB is referring to.

bump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

Even a moron (unless they're an elected official) knows that 5% of the population can't carry another 5% of the population.  This (xxxxxCare) doesn't work until you pull in the 50% to help carry the load.

I'm fairly certain the top 5% of American earns can carry 5% of the population.  If you don't understand that, perhaps you should refresh yourself on what the top 5% of earners are bringing home compared to the very bottom 5%.

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tommyGunZ said:

I'm fairly certain the top 5% of American earns can carry 5% of the population.  If you don't understand that, perhaps you should refresh yourself on what the top 5% of earners are bringing home compared to the very bottom 5%.

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

 

I wasn't referring to the top 5%.  I was referring to the 5% of the population that are relatively healthy and paying for individual policies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2017 at 4:43 PM, tommyGunZ said:

I'm fairly certain the top 5% of American earns can carry 5% of the population.  If you don't understand that, perhaps you should refresh yourself on what the top 5% of earners are bringing home compared to the very bottom 5%.

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

 

This, for whatever it's worth, is what I was talking about in the other thread about the new proposed healthcare bill when talking about the number of pregnancies financed by Medicaid.  Currently, over half of births in this country are funded by Medicaid - so when looking at the charts at the start of your video, that's roughly about the population in the two blue sections of the chart (which you can barely even see on the bar chart at 1:07 of the video). 

Meaning this problem (if you believe it is a problem, and I think you and I both do) is only getting worse, and quickly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2018 rate increases requests for Indiana - a shockingly low 7.65% (though that assumes CSRs will be paid, and an enforced individual mandate).  The reason, though, that number is so low - is that it's only for the 1/3rd of the market that will keep their plan (though the range on that ranges between 9.1% price cut and a 117.7% increase).  The other 2/3rds of the market will have their plan terminated at end of year as both Anthem BCBS and MDWise are leaving the market.  So all of those people will need to obtain new coverage, which may be much higher than the policy they currently have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, matttyl said:

2018 rate increases requests for Indiana - a shockingly low 7.65% (though that assumes CSRs will be paid, and an enforced individual mandate).  The reason, though, that number is so low - is that it's only for the 1/3rd of the market that will keep their plan (though the range on that ranges between 9.1% price cut and a 117.7% increase).  The other 2/3rds of the market will have their plan terminated at end of year as both Anthem BCBS and MDWise are leaving the market.  So all of those people will need to obtain new coverage, which may be much higher than the policy they currently have. 

Well Obama was technically right.  If you like you plan you can keep your plan.....no one likes their individual plan anymore.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't figure out what Repubs really want. Great health insurance for some and no affordable insurance for others? From an admittedly simplistic perspective, it would seem that running insurance companies out of certain areas isn't going to win them any new voters. If anything, it would seem to be something that would hasten the growing public support for transitioning to a single payer plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

I can't figure out what Repubs really want. Great health insurance for some and no affordable insurance for others? From an admittedly simplistic perspective, it would seem that running insurance companies out of certain areas isn't going to win them any new voters. If anything, it would seem to be something that would hasten the growing public support for transitioning to a single payer plan.

They can't either.  All they know is "Obamacare = Bad".  It appears that's all the thought they've put into it at this point.  It's one thing to be there simply to prevent someone from doing something.  It's another to lead.  It's pretty clear they suck at leading right now.  Funny thing is, the public is pretty much telling them which way to go and they still can't figure it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

I can't figure out what Repubs really want. Great health insurance for some and no affordable insurance for others? From an admittedly simplistic perspective, it would seem that running insurance companies out of certain areas isn't going to win them any new voters. If anything, it would seem to be something that would hasten the growing public support for transitioning to a single payer plan.

The harm the GOP does by suspending the payments to insurance companies will benefit them politically. They will use it as proof that Obamacare is a failure. This will be constantly parroted by the right-wing media bubble and the 40% of the country that pulls out their pray rugs 5 times a day and face Mar-a-Log will believe it and look no further. The people on the left will claim that the GOP is deliberately sabotaging healthcare. Most of the non-political types won't go to the effort to examine the facts and will probably agree with what the last person that expressed an opinion told them to think. The balance of that favors the GOP gaining votes. Simplistic attacks on "Socialized Medicine" worked for all of my lifetime, there's no reason to think they'll stop now.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

I can't figure out what Repubs really want. Great health insurance for some and no affordable insurance for others? From an admittedly simplistic perspective, it would seem that running insurance companies out of certain areas isn't going to win them any new voters. If anything, it would seem to be something that would hasten the growing public support for transitioning to a single payer plan.

9D chess bud.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, The Commish said:

For some clarity on this - these payments are ones that happen FROM insurance companies TO insurance companies (with the government being the middleman/referee/accountant for the transaction).  So if their suspension causes some carriers to raise their rates (because they didn't receive their payments), it would thus have to mean other carriers lowering their rates (because they didn't make their payments).  There are no additional monies coming from the government. 

Here is a good read about what these payments (risk adjustment) actually are, and what they've done in the past.  Also, article talks about how this could have been resolved in the past, but wasn't.  In the end, much like my thoughts on risk corridors, this may have been just another good intentioned idea that didn't work out as planned - and could have done more harm than good in the end.  

Edited by matttyl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, matttyl said:

For some clarity on this - these payments are ones that happen FROM insurance companies TO insurance companies (with the government being the middleman/referee/accountant for the transaction).  So if their suspension causes some carriers to raise their rates (because they didn't receive their payments), it would thus have to mean other carriers lowering their rates (because they didn't make their payments).  There are no additional monies coming from the government. 

Here is a good read about what these payments (risk adjustment) actually are, and what they've done in the past.  Also, article talks about how this could have been resolved in the past, but wasn't.  In the end, much like my thoughts on risk corridors, this may have been just another good intentioned idea that didn't work out as planned - and could have done more harm than good in the end.  

I was reading a bit about this and it's really confusing to me.  Is this "rollback" simply the government saying "hey, that law we passed that you have to pay other insurance companies X amount of dollars, well, you don't have to do that now"?  If that's the case, then why is the bold true?  Wouldn't the insurance companies who don't have to pay simply pocket the money and keep rates as they are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I was reading a bit about this and it's really confusing to me.  Is this "rollback" simply the government saying "hey, that law we passed that you have to pay other insurance companies X amount of dollars, well, you don't have to do that now"?  If that's the case, then why is the bold true?  Wouldn't the insurance companies who don't have to pay simply pocket the money and keep rates as they are?

Well, possibly, but the 80/20 rule could prevent them from doing that (they'd still have to pay back to customers monies to be in compliance with the 80/20 rule). 

With the above, I just meant to say that if carriers are going to use this as a reason to increase rates for 2019 (which was the claim in your article), then regulators will also use it as a reason for other carriers to not raise their rates as much, or possibly lower them for next year.  Risk adjustment is a zero net sum.  It's something like $5B going from some carriers, and that same $5B going to other carriers.  That's actually why it's claimed to be ~$11B by some....they are counting both sides of the ledger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, matttyl said:

Well, possibly, but the 80/20 rule could prevent them from doing that (they'd still have to pay back to customers monies to be in compliance with the 80/20 rule). 

With the above, I just meant to say that if carriers are going to use this as a reason to increase rates for 2019 (which was the claim in your article), then regulators will also use it as a reason for other carriers to not raise their rates as much, or possibly lower them for next year.  Risk adjustment is a zero net sum.  It's something like $5B going from some carriers, and that same $5B going to other carriers.  That's actually why it's claimed to be ~$11B by some....they are counting both sides of the ledger.

I don't know how you do this for a living....good info as always :thumbup: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Commish said:

I don't know how you do this for a living....good info as always :thumbup: 

Honestly, it's getting tougher and tougher.  I'm a commission based sales guy, and they've been dropping and dropping.  At least in the individual market (which this whole risk adjustment ordeal is about), my area now has 1 carrier (as is the case for about 90% of Virginia, and about 50-60% of the counties in the country) - and that one carrier pays me on a per contract basis, not a per person basis.  Selling a gold tier policy to a family of 5 that might cost $2k a month gets me $9 for each monthly premium they actually make....which I then split with my agency.  Yeah me!  I've worked what I net per hour of actual work out of the whole ordeal, and it's getting to be not worth being in the individual market anymore, which is why lots of agents don't even mess with it anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.