(05-23-2015 08:03 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  My policy was a group policy and ours went up more than 10% many times before Obamacare. I think you guys have selective memory.

Actually, by definition 'your experience' is what is selective.

Here's an article from the NY Times. Not exactly a right wing propaganda factory that alludes to it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/upshot...0002&abg=0

Individual market increases are in the 10% area, but the Employer market was around 3%. That was the low, but the recent average was about 5% as I said. The article also says that 8.4% would be an ABSURDLY HIGH rate for Medicare increases and that they've also been historically low... recently 1%.

So we are talking about actual national averages, and you are talking about your selective personal experience.

KFF has the actual data, but honestly, it's a lot to go through to put it together.

(05-22-2015 09:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Cue Dawgital to call BS on this.

Well considering the OP noted that these were insurance company requests, not increases do I really need to comment? That is unless people are ignoring that little detail.

Obamacare was passed about 5 years ago and I still haven't received a good answer on why some people pay for the subsidies other people receive.

Don't forget the Cadillac tax that starts in 2017 (??). Maybe 2018, Obama had it pushed beyond his second term because it is a legitimate sh!tstorm awaiting most major corporations. It can be as high as a 40% penalty for plans that are deemed "Cadillac". Most corporations are simply dialing everything back to avoid that tax.

What a horrific joke of a national health insurance plan. And, as Owl69 has consistently preached, health insurance is NOT health care. Two different damn things.

(05-23-2015 04:55 PM)boss man Wrote:  Don't forget the Cadillac tax that starts in 2017 (??). Maybe 2018, Obama had it pushed beyond his second term because it is a legitimate sh!tstorm awaiting most major corporations. It can be as high as a 40% penalty for plans that are deemed "Cadillac". Most corporations are simply dialing everything back to avoid that tax.

What a horrific joke of a national health insurance plan. And, as Owl69 has consistently preached, health insurance is NOT health care. Two different damn things.

There are quite a few of the "executive orders" that will expire at the end of 2016, including the Cadillac tax and non-compliant plan extensions.

(05-23-2015 04:36 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Obamacare was passed about 5 years ago and I still haven't received a good answer on why some people pay for the subsidies other people receive.

Because there are so many people hard working people that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford health insurance coverage.

(05-23-2015 08:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 04:36 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Obamacare was passed about 5 years ago and I still haven't received a good answer on why some people pay for the subsidies other people receive.

Because there are so many people hard working people that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford health insurance coverage.

But when all you've done is make it harder for some hard working people to be able to afford insurance, in order to make it easier for others, that's hardly a valid reason. Particularly when that health insurance provides piss poor coverage in many areas, and even more so when the effect of providing that health insurance to some means taking health care away from others.

Before, John had health insurance and Mary didn't, so if there was only one doctor, John got to see the doc and Mary didn't. Now John pays for Mary's insurance, but there's still only one doc, so now Mary gets to see the doc instead of John who is paying for it. How is that right or fair?

Health insurance =/= coverage =/= health care. What we need is health CARE.

(05-23-2015 08:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 08:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 04:36 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Obamacare was passed about 5 years ago and I still haven't received a good answer on why some people pay for the subsidies other people receive.

Because there are so many people hard working people that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford health insurance coverage.

But when all you've done is make it harder for some hard working people to be able to afford insurance, in order to make it easier for others, that's hardly a valid reason. Particularly when that health insurance provides piss poor coverage in many areas, and even more so when the effect of providing that health insurance to some means taking health care away from others.

Health insurance =/= coverage =/= health care. What we need is health CARE.

One would have to agree with your assertions above to agree with you. I think they tend to be overstated and in some cases completely incorrect. But then we will never see eye to eye on this. The answer to the question you posed remains the same even if you don't believe the result has accomplished what was intended.

(05-23-2015 08:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  One would have to agree with your assertions above to agree with you. I think they tend to be overstated and in some cases completely incorrect.

Nope.

Please point out where you think they are.

(05-23-2015 08:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 08:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  One would have to agree with your assertions above to agree with you. I think they tend to be overstated and in some cases completely incorrect.

Nope.

Please point out where you think they are.

costs, quality of coverage, taking away coverage

(05-23-2015 08:42 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 08:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 08:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  One would have to agree with your assertions above to agree with you. I think they tend to be overstated and in some cases completely incorrect.

Nope.

Please point out where you think they are.

costs, quality of coverage, taking away coverage

WTF?

(05-23-2015 10:23 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 07:28 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  In many cases, people are better off paying the penalty, I mean tax, no wait...it's really a penalty....nooooo, Supreme Courty-worty sez it's really a tax and self-paying the rest. This stupid government program is textbook making problems worse for most Americans by its unnatural intervention in what should be a private market.

Would have been much better for them if they merely sought to give everyone a "free' catastrophic policy from the market instead of shoving the liberal agenda down everyone's throats with this thing. Just a matter of time, yeah, maybe unfortunately one term of Hilliary to boot, but this program fundamentally will implode of it's own volition, sooner or later.

I paid the fine, but gonna have to break down and buy insurance soon because i have a knee that needs a little work.

This is exactly the reason "preexisting conditions" were a staple of health insurance. A person can skip buying a policy until they need it. That's really a great way to raise others' rates.

I had insurance for 12 years until my divorce last year. Ill be buying and have to wait 6 months to have the surgery.

(05-23-2015 11:44 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Cue Dawgital to call BS on this.

Well considering the OP noted that these were insurance company requests, not increases do I really need to comment? That is unless people are ignoring that little detail.

Most states will grant the increases or an amount close to it, at least thats the way medicare supplement increases and private policies used to work.
For example, last year BCBS asked for 51% increase on medicare supplements, but the state of NC approved just a 36% increase. I imagine the process and results will be very similar with obamacare plans.

(05-23-2015 09:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 11:44 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Cue Dawgital to call BS on this.

Well considering the OP noted that these were insurance company requests, not increases do I really need to comment? That is unless people are ignoring that little detail.

Most states will grant the increases or an amount close to it, at least thats the way medicare supplement increases and private policies used to work.
For example, last year BCBS asked for 51% increase on medicare supplements, but the state of NC approved just a 36% increase. I imagine the process and results will be very similar with obamacare plans.

Medicare and private insurance are two different things. Assuming that the process and results would be the same would be incorrect. Last year's requests and actual changes were in many cases far different. In many states the insurance commissioner or an insurance commission hear the request and accept it, reject it or reduce it. There are some states where they don't have that power but I believe most do. Also there are sometimes companies that offered exceptionally low rates in order to try and get a bigger share of the market and will come back this year with a high increase that puts them more in line with other carriers in the market.

Here are five things that have to be considered regarding rate increase requests.
1. Is the "average" weighted by company?
2. Is the "average" weighted by plan/metal level?
3. What's the actual old/new pricing?
4. Have the rates been approved yet?
5. Does the rate change reflect how many people switched policies and/or companies?

The above is from Charles Gaba not me. Here are couple of links.
http://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2015...-hysteria/

http://acasignups.net/15/05/22/wsj-story...e-requests

(05-22-2015 07:46 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  that is only for people who don't work. those of us in the middle class have to pay for everyone else.

Wow. Not sure how to respond to something so incredibly wrong.

(05-22-2015 12:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  In many cases, people are better off paying the penalty, I mean tax,

For now it probably has been. There were better options out there for those who were forced to the exchanges. Pay the tax, and join some other non-Obamacare compliant option. Far less expensive, and real insurance and healthcare involved.

However, that tax keeps increasing every year. So I dont know when the opt-out would no longer be financially viable.

It depends on the person's income. I know someone in a high deductible plan that pays about $20/month(subsidy included) with an income of about $17,000(which is technically middle class Mr. NCeagle) this year. If this person took the penalty/tax, it would be about $400. So essentially, this person would save roughly $200(which for someone making that amount is not pocket change unlike it is for the snobby people on here-you know who you are) and actually have coverage(though not very good) should the need arise to have to use it.

(05-23-2015 09:44 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 10:23 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 07:28 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  In many cases, people are better off paying the penalty, I mean tax, no wait...it's really a penalty....nooooo, Supreme Courty-worty sez it's really a tax and self-paying the rest. This stupid government program is textbook making problems worse for most Americans by its unnatural intervention in what should be a private market.

Would have been much better for them if they merely sought to give everyone a "free' catastrophic policy from the market instead of shoving the liberal agenda down everyone's throats with this thing. Just a matter of time, yeah, maybe unfortunately one term of Hilliary to boot, but this program fundamentally will implode of it's own volition, sooner or later.

I paid the fine, but gonna have to break down and buy insurance soon because i have a knee that needs a little work.

This is exactly the reason "preexisting conditions" were a staple of health insurance. A person can skip buying a policy until they need it. That's really a great way to raise others' rates.

I had insurance for 12 years until my divorce last year. Ill be buying and have to wait 6 months to have the surgery.

So I take it you didn't buy a policy during the purchase window? Otherwise why would you have to wait six months?

I wish some of yall knew about the amount of data mining the physicians are being forced to do for the government or else the government penalizes them. Google "meaningful use" or "PQRS" and read about all the extra crap that we have to do.

(05-23-2015 08:11 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 04:55 PM)boss man Wrote:  Don't forget the Cadillac tax that starts in 2017 (??). Maybe 2018, Obama had it pushed beyond his second term because it is a legitimate sh!tstorm awaiting most major corporations. It can be as high as a 40% penalty for plans that are deemed "Cadillac". Most corporations are simply dialing everything back to avoid that tax.

What a horrific joke of a national health insurance plan. And, as Owl69 has consistently preached, health insurance is NOT health care. Two different damn things.

There are quite a few of the "executive orders" that will expire at the end of 2016, including the Cadillac tax and non-compliant plan extensions.

And how could I forget the changes to Medicare Advantage, an option that almost 1 in 3 Medicare subscribers choose. MA had been scheduled to take huge cuts but Obama ruled that a few well timed (ie. election year) "tweaks" maintained the program with low adjustments (low is relative, my rate went up 23% this year alone and saw higher deductables). Unless another tweak is made, the seniors on MA will receive notice of outrageous rate increases in September 2016. Not sure Hillary is going to be happy about that.

(05-23-2015 08:03 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  My policy was a group policy and ours went up more than 10% many times before Obamacare. I think you guys have selective memory.

So did mine. I did though have a $200 deductible. I had to jump to 5K to keep the same premium last year. I expect it to again rise. I thought the ACA was supposed to improve HC? Sorry...It hasn't.