(07-05-2015 01:55 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  More bad news for rate increases…
and it's not just Oregon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us/hea....html?_r=0

"Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives."
…
"Coventry Health Care, now owned by Aetna, is seeking rate increases that average 22 percent for 70,000 consumers in Missouri. “The claims experience for these plans has been worse than anticipated,” Coventry reported."
…
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas sought increases averaging 37 percent for 2016 and said the increase could affect 28,600 consumers.

“Kansans who purchased these individual plans since 2014 were older, in general, than expected and required more medical services than anticipated,” the company told federal health officials.

Based on the article, the insurance companies mentioned lost millions in 2014 because claims were much much higher in cost and number than premiums could cover.

If that continues (and there is no factual reason to assume it won't) one of two things will happen: taxes must be raised to increase subsidies to keep premiums affordable or premiums continue to escalate and subsidies don't and insurance is unaffordable.

We will certainly have to see how it goes once the proposals are looked at by the various insurance commissioners and approved, adjusted or rejected. It will be October before everything is in from all 50 states.

Kaiser FF looked at 11 cities and found rates for the lowest and second lowest silver plans to average about 4.4% increases.

"In most of these 11 major cities, we find that the costs for the lowest and second-lowest cost silver plans – where the bulk of enrollees tend to migrate – are changing relatively modestly in 2016, although increases are generally bigger than in 2015. The cost of a benchmark silver plan in these cities is on average 4.4% higher in 2016 than in 2015. These premiums are still preliminary in some cases and could be raised or lowered through these states’ rate review processes, and it is difficult to generalize to all states based on this small sample of states where all rate filings are available. We also find that the number of insurers participating has stayed the same or increased in 9 states, while insurer participation decreased in Michigan and the District of Columbia."

(07-05-2015 12:47 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2015 10:52 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-05-2015 10:35 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-05-2015 10:19 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 10:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Was it through your employer or did you get it as an individual? Silver is $30. Specialist $60 Urgent care $75. Deductable $5000 total OOP $6500
It isn't great by any stretch but it is still a hell of a lot better than nothing.

He has an employer plan. He doesn't understand the difference. You can explain until you are blue in the face that employers have been increasing employee costs for years now to cut their costs and it has little to do with the ACA and everything to do with the medical cost increases. He compares apples to oranges.

As far as individual policies there are a variety of combinations of silver plans with varied deductibles, co pays and OOP maximums. But you can't really compare individual plans with employer provided plans. Employers decide how much skin their employees will have in the game.

Hey sh*ttard, I know exactly what type of plan I have. We're not Gruber swallowing fools like you who get on here and tout the benefits your family has seen with your Obamcare policy, only to be told you didnt have an obamacare policy. We're not the fool who gets on here and says how great their covereage is on their Obamacare policy, only to be outted as having a grandfathered plan that isnt touched by Obamacare.

Unlike the libtard like yourself, I WAS THE EMPLOYER prior to OBlndershit. I know exactly what my plans were, and exactly how much they cost in total. I'm not a clueless f*ck like you, who is dependant on others to tell them what things are and how much they cost, I AM THE ONE THAT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THAT.

Prior to OBlundershit, I paid 100% of my employees monthly premiums. In 2007, I swapped plans for my company and was able to reduce rates by 60% without much being changed as far as co-pays or deductibles.

THAT WAS LIFE PRIOR TO OBLUNDRSHIT YOU CLUELESS F*CK!

Now, I work for an employer. But because they didnt have a plan that could be granfathered, we are living life under the rules of OBlundershit. High premiums for high deductible policies, with no co-pays.


THIS IS WHAT IS COMING TO NEARLY EVERYONE AT SOME POINT. If you believe things are ok right now, its likely because, like the libtard Dawg, you have a grandfathered or exempted plan. You havent lived the life of OBlunderhit. But if you need to change jobs, get ready to take it in the azz. At some point, your grandfathered plan will be gone.

If there is one law that needs to be passed immediately, it is the removal of all grandfathered and exempted plans. Everyone should have to live under this **** for brains law.

Why are right wingers always so angry?

He is always angry. It is groundhog day on here whenever I post anything positive about the ACA or offer a counterpoint to something the right posts about it. Basically they can't understand how anyone can be for something for the common good without having major direct benefits for themselves. When I talked about my particular situation they jumped all over the fact that my policy wasn't an "obamacare" policy, ignoring the fact that the ACA is much more than just exchange policies. Technically, my employer policy was, "grandfathered" but in reality it, like most employer group plans already offered the ACA minimum standards with the exception of the lifetime maximum. They dropped the maximum despite being grandfathered, so his "you have a grandfathered policy so you don't know" argument is a red herring.

(07-05-2015 02:32 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2015 01:55 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  More bad news for rate increases…
and it's not just Oregon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us/hea....html?_r=0

"Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives."
…
"Coventry Health Care, now owned by Aetna, is seeking rate increases that average 22 percent for 70,000 consumers in Missouri. “The claims experience for these plans has been worse than anticipated,” Coventry reported."
…
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas sought increases averaging 37 percent for 2016 and said the increase could affect 28,600 consumers.

“Kansans who purchased these individual plans since 2014 were older, in general, than expected and required more medical services than anticipated,” the company told federal health officials.

Based on the article, the insurance companies mentioned lost millions in 2014 because claims were much much higher in cost and number than premiums could cover.

If that continues (and there is no factual reason to assume it won't) one of two things will happen: taxes must be raised to increase subsidies to keep premiums affordable or premiums continue to escalate and subsidies don't and insurance is unaffordable.

We will certainly have to see how it goes once the proposals are looked at by the various insurance commissioners and approved, adjusted or rejected. It will be October before everything is in from all 50 states.

Kaiser FF looked at 11 cities and found rates for the lowest and second lowest silver plans to average about 4.4% increases.

"In most of these 11 major cities, we find that the costs for the lowest and second-lowest cost silver plans – where the bulk of enrollees tend to migrate – are changing relatively modestly in 2016, although increases are generally bigger than in 2015. The cost of a benchmark silver plan in these cities is on average 4.4% higher in 2016 than in 2015. These premiums are still preliminary in some cases and could be raised or lowered through these states’ rate review processes, and it is difficult to generalize to all states based on this small sample of states where all rate filings are available. We also find that the number of insurers participating has stayed the same or increased in 9 states, while insurer participation decreased in Michigan and the District of Columbia."

Why cant you just say "this sucks, another year of price increases. I thought the ACA was supposed to make this stuff more affordable?"

Go ahead. Man up. Meet reality and say it.

(07-05-2015 02:32 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2015 01:55 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  More bad news for rate increases…
and it's not just Oregon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us/hea....html?_r=0

"Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives."
…
"Coventry Health Care, now owned by Aetna, is seeking rate increases that average 22 percent for 70,000 consumers in Missouri. “The claims experience for these plans has been worse than anticipated,” Coventry reported."
…
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas sought increases averaging 37 percent for 2016 and said the increase could affect 28,600 consumers.

“Kansans who purchased these individual plans since 2014 were older, in general, than expected and required more medical services than anticipated,” the company told federal health officials.

Based on the article, the insurance companies mentioned lost millions in 2014 because claims were much much higher in cost and number than premiums could cover.

If that continues (and there is no factual reason to assume it won't) one of two things will happen: taxes must be raised to increase subsidies to keep premiums affordable or premiums continue to escalate and subsidies don't and insurance is unaffordable.

We will certainly have to see how it goes once the proposals are looked at by the various insurance commissioners and approved, adjusted or rejected. It will be October before everything is in from all 50 states.

Kaiser FF looked at 11 cities and found rates for the lowest and second lowest silver plans to average about 4.4% increases.

"In most of these 11 major cities, we find that the costs for the lowest and second-lowest cost silver plans – where the bulk of enrollees tend to migrate – are changing relatively modestly in 2016, although increases are generally bigger than in 2015. The cost of a benchmark silver plan in these cities is on average 4.4% higher in 2016 than in 2015. These premiums are still preliminary in some cases and could be raised or lowered through these states’ rate review processes, and it is difficult to generalize to all states based on this small sample of states where all rate filings are available. We also find that the number of insurers participating has stayed the same or increased in 9 states, while insurer participation decreased in Michigan and the District of Columbia."

Kaiser is hardly an unbiased source as they have a huge dog in the fight to keep the ACA.

And so what if they found plan with 4.4% increases. What are the deductibles on those plans? What are the co-pays? Does the insured person on those plans get to keep their doctors or are their choices for care a small limited network?

Commissioners may elect to allow for smaller increases but if they don't allow for ones large enough to cover the insurance companies' costs to provide coverage they are just kicking the insolvency can down the road a wee bit.

Get rid of the insurance companies!!!

(07-05-2015 04:16 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-05-2015 02:32 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2015 01:55 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  More bad news for rate increases…
and it's not just Oregon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us/hea....html?_r=0

"Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives."
…
"Coventry Health Care, now owned by Aetna, is seeking rate increases that average 22 percent for 70,000 consumers in Missouri. “The claims experience for these plans has been worse than anticipated,” Coventry reported."
…
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas sought increases averaging 37 percent for 2016 and said the increase could affect 28,600 consumers.

“Kansans who purchased these individual plans since 2014 were older, in general, than expected and required more medical services than anticipated,” the company told federal health officials.

Based on the article, the insurance companies mentioned lost millions in 2014 because claims were much much higher in cost and number than premiums could cover.

If that continues (and there is no factual reason to assume it won't) one of two things will happen: taxes must be raised to increase subsidies to keep premiums affordable or premiums continue to escalate and subsidies don't and insurance is unaffordable.

We will certainly have to see how it goes once the proposals are looked at by the various insurance commissioners and approved, adjusted or rejected. It will be October before everything is in from all 50 states.

Kaiser FF looked at 11 cities and found rates for the lowest and second lowest silver plans to average about 4.4% increases.

"In most of these 11 major cities, we find that the costs for the lowest and second-lowest cost silver plans – where the bulk of enrollees tend to migrate – are changing relatively modestly in 2016, although increases are generally bigger than in 2015. The cost of a benchmark silver plan in these cities is on average 4.4% higher in 2016 than in 2015. These premiums are still preliminary in some cases and could be raised or lowered through these states’ rate review processes, and it is difficult to generalize to all states based on this small sample of states where all rate filings are available. We also find that the number of insurers participating has stayed the same or increased in 9 states, while insurer participation decreased in Michigan and the District of Columbia."

Kaiser is hardly an unbiased source as they have a huge dog in the fight to keep the ACA.

And so what if they found plan with 4.4% increases. What are the deductibles on those plans? What are the co-pays? Does the insured person on those plans get to keep their doctors or are their choices for care a small limited network?

Commissioners may elect to allow for smaller increases but if they don't allow for ones large enough to cover the insurances companies costs to provide coverage they are just kicking the insolvency can down the road a wee bit.

Kaiser does good solid research. Everyone buying on the individual market needs to research and shop around. That is probably the most important things they can do. Premiums, deductibles, co pays, networks all have to be considered. Last year large numbers of people just rolled over their old plans.

Health Insurance Companies Seek Big Rate Increases for 2016
by: Robert Pear, New York Times
Monday, July 6, 2015

WASHINGTON — Health insurance companies around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned out to be sicker than expected. Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back.





"Health Insurers said their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned out to be sicker than they thought."

Well, Duh. Anyone healthy cannot afford to be in the ACA...so they don't, instead they just go without. The sick people feel they have no choice but to sign up for this UN affordable government mess, so they do...driving up costs further.

Glad everyone is saving that $2,500 per year in health insurance costs over their previous plans like Obama and the Democrats said everyone would--NOT!

and from four years ago: Video uploaded July 11, 2011:

If you buy on the individual market do your due diligence and compare plans. The exchange makes it much easier to do so. Those most in need of health insurance that hadn't had it before signed up in 2014 and 2015. They had pent up need for treatment. The additions in the 16 cycle will be less so and many of the grandmothered policies expire in 16 and they are more healthy and will be added to the risk pool. Those are just some things to be added to the discussion. It seems obvious that rates will in general spike higher this year as opposed to last year but there are also indications that they could level off after that. When acutaries have several years of data to look at the insurance companies will be much more accurate from year to year in hitting the right balance. And of course the actual increases will not be fully known until October.

Dawg, what you just posted is Bull$#!% and a complete lie.

Obama and the Democrats promised over and over again everyone would reduce their costs by an average of $2,500 per year. Defending the lies of the ACA with continued excuses and rationalizations is:

(07-06-2015 02:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If you buy on the individual market do your due diligence and compare plans. The exchange makes it much easier to do so. Those most in need of health insurance that hadn't had it before signed up in 2014 and 2015. They had pent up need for treatment. The additions in the 16 cycle will be less so and many of the grandmothered policies expire in 16 and they are more healthy and will be added to the risk pool. Those are just some things to be added to the discussion. It seems obvious that rates will in general spike higher this year as opposed to last year but there are also indications that they could level off after that. When acutaries have several years of data to look at the insurance companies will be much more accurate from year to year in hitting the right balance. And of course the actual increases will not be fully known until October.

What does any of that have to do with rates skyrocketing and you being wrong once again.

You posted earlier this year that spending on health care was BELOW forecasts. We all called bull**** on that. Now we have the proof. It was bull****.

So once again Dawg posts fantasy, we call bull****, and when the truth comes out, it is indeed bull****.

(07-06-2015 04:02 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-06-2015 02:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If you buy on the individual market do your due diligence and compare plans. The exchange makes it much easier to do so. Those most in need of health insurance that hadn't had it before signed up in 2014 and 2015. They had pent up need for treatment. The additions in the 16 cycle will be less so and many of the grandmothered policies expire in 16 and they are more healthy and will be added to the risk pool. Those are just some things to be added to the discussion. It seems obvious that rates will in general spike higher this year as opposed to last year but there are also indications that they could level off after that. When acutaries have several years of data to look at the insurance companies will be much more accurate from year to year in hitting the right balance. And of course the actual increases will not be fully known until October.

What does any of that have to do with rates skyrocketing and you being wrong once again.

You posted earlier this year that spending on health care was BELOW forecasts. We all called bull**** on that. Now we have the proof. It was bull****.

So once again Dawg posts fantasy, we call bull****, and when the truth comes out, it is indeed bull****.

Indications are that premiums will go up significantly more this year as opposed to last. We will not know how much until October. Some of the reasons (pent up demand for care, less healthy signing up first couple of years, grandmothered policies with healthier people out of the pool, incomplete data for actuaries to base rates on) are listed or implied in my above post and they have everything to do with the why.

Health care spending has seen lower increases for the last five or six years but it is up for 2014. In 2013 they were only up 3.6% but preliminary indications are that 2014 will be around 5%. One of the main reasons the increases had slowed was the recession and of course we have been climbing out of that hole. With more people insured, remember all those previously uninsured folks that have all that pent up need, spending naturally will increase. Drug costs also contribute to increases.

Here is a good article on health care spending that covers much of this.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...rise-again

Nice painting.

(05-25-2015 10:39 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 07:42 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I remember before ObamaCare our premiums would go up more than 9.6% a year. Heck one year in the late 90's our premiums when up 16%. This isn't a new phenomena Socratic.

Prior to Obamacare, my healthcare premiums would increase ~20% per year, every year. Usually combined with lower levels of coverage.

Cost containment could take the form of pharma reform, limits on payments to persons not involved in direct delivery of medical care, etc.

You were in a high risk pool due to pre-existing health problems. Now you and all your high risk buddies, are dumped in with people who aren't high risk, and they subsidize your health issues. Great for you, bad for the majority of folks.

Here's why premiums are going up. Medicaid expansion is drawing in a lot of healthy young people who can't get good jobs. They should've been paying for coverage in the public plans. But the economy sucks for them, and they qualify for Medicaid. Meanwhile we get Tom and his buddies who are/were high utilizers of care, and just got their premiums reduced big-time by their high risk pool being done away with so that they could buy with all the healthy people on the state exchanges, whose coverage was cancelled because they like their plans but couldn't keep them.

We have people with AIDS, Leukemia, and any number of severe health issues that were segregated from the rest of the healthy individuals and groups, who now are utilizing services because of health problems, that are costing the rest of us big-time.

(07-07-2015 12:56 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(05-25-2015 10:39 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 07:42 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I remember before ObamaCare our premiums would go up more than 9.6% a year. Heck one year in the late 90's our premiums when up 16%. This isn't a new phenomena Socratic.

Prior to Obamacare, my healthcare premiums would increase ~20% per year, every year. Usually combined with lower levels of coverage.

Cost containment could take the form of pharma reform, limits on payments to persons not involved in direct delivery of medical care, etc.

You were in a high risk pool due to pre-existing health problems. Now you and all your high risk buddies, are dumped in with people who aren't high risk, and they subsidize your health issues. Great for you, bad for the majority of folks.

Here's why premiums are going up. Medicaid expansion is drawing in a lot of healthy young people who can't get good jobs. They should've been paying for coverage in the public plans. But the economy sucks for them, and they qualify for Medicaid. Meanwhile we get Tom and his buddies who are/were high utilizers of care, and just got their premiums reduced big-time by their high risk pool being done away with so that they could buy with all the healthy people on the state exchanges, whose coverage was cancelled because they like their plans but couldn't keep them.

We have people with AIDS, Leukemia, and any number of severe health issues that were segregated from the rest of the healthy individuals and groups, who now are utilizing services because of health problems, that are costing the rest of us big-time.

I assume your plan is to always be in perfect health and never grow old.

(07-07-2015 10:04 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 12:56 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(05-25-2015 10:39 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 07:42 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I remember before ObamaCare our premiums would go up more than 9.6% a year. Heck one year in the late 90's our premiums when up 16%. This isn't a new phenomena Socratic.

Prior to Obamacare, my healthcare premiums would increase ~20% per year, every year. Usually combined with lower levels of coverage.

Cost containment could take the form of pharma reform, limits on payments to persons not involved in direct delivery of medical care, etc.

You were in a high risk pool due to pre-existing health problems. Now you and all your high risk buddies, are dumped in with people who aren't high risk, and they subsidize your health issues. Great for you, bad for the majority of folks.

Here's why premiums are going up. Medicaid expansion is drawing in a lot of healthy young people who can't get good jobs. They should've been paying for coverage in the public plans. But the economy sucks for them, and they qualify for Medicaid. Meanwhile we get Tom and his buddies who are/were high utilizers of care, and just got their premiums reduced big-time by their high risk pool being done away with so that they could buy with all the healthy people on the state exchanges, whose coverage was cancelled because they like their plans but couldn't keep them.

We have people with AIDS, Leukemia, and any number of severe health issues that were segregated from the rest of the healthy individuals and groups, who now are utilizing services because of health problems, that are costing the rest of us big-time.

I assume your plan is to always be in perfect health and never grow old.

The bolded is not a sufficient rebuttal dawg. If you think that everyone should just be lumped together so be it, but lets not dance around the fact that there are winner in losers in such a scenario.

(07-07-2015 10:22 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 10:04 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 12:56 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(05-25-2015 10:39 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 07:42 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I remember before ObamaCare our premiums would go up more than 9.6% a year. Heck one year in the late 90's our premiums when up 16%. This isn't a new phenomena Socratic.

Prior to Obamacare, my healthcare premiums would increase ~20% per year, every year. Usually combined with lower levels of coverage.

Cost containment could take the form of pharma reform, limits on payments to persons not involved in direct delivery of medical care, etc.

You were in a high risk pool due to pre-existing health problems. Now you and all your high risk buddies, are dumped in with people who aren't high risk, and they subsidize your health issues. Great for you, bad for the majority of folks.

Here's why premiums are going up. Medicaid expansion is drawing in a lot of healthy young people who can't get good jobs. They should've been paying for coverage in the public plans. But the economy sucks for them, and they qualify for Medicaid. Meanwhile we get Tom and his buddies who are/were high utilizers of care, and just got their premiums reduced big-time by their high risk pool being done away with so that they could buy with all the healthy people on the state exchanges, whose coverage was cancelled because they like their plans but couldn't keep them.

We have people with AIDS, Leukemia, and any number of severe health issues that were segregated from the rest of the healthy individuals and groups, who now are utilizing services because of health problems, that are costing the rest of us big-time.

I assume your plan is to always be in perfect health and never grow old.

The bolded is not a sufficient rebuttal dawg. If you think that everyone should just be lumped together so be it, but lets not dance around the fact that there are winner in losers in such a scenario.

It is a fact that, on average, a person who makes good health choices will have fewer lifestyle related health problems.

It is also fact that, on average, the person who makes poor lifestyle choices will likely have health problems that are directly related to those lifestyle CHOICES — bad diet, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, risky sexual habits, drug use, etc.

Why should someone who takes care of themselves have to offset the cost of someone who CHOOSES not to?

(07-07-2015 11:00 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 10:22 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 10:04 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 12:56 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(05-25-2015 10:39 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Prior to Obamacare, my healthcare premiums would increase ~20% per year, every year. Usually combined with lower levels of coverage.

Cost containment could take the form of pharma reform, limits on payments to persons not involved in direct delivery of medical care, etc.

You were in a high risk pool due to pre-existing health problems. Now you and all your high risk buddies, are dumped in with people who aren't high risk, and they subsidize your health issues. Great for you, bad for the majority of folks.

Here's why premiums are going up. Medicaid expansion is drawing in a lot of healthy young people who can't get good jobs. They should've been paying for coverage in the public plans. But the economy sucks for them, and they qualify for Medicaid. Meanwhile we get Tom and his buddies who are/were high utilizers of care, and just got their premiums reduced big-time by their high risk pool being done away with so that they could buy with all the healthy people on the state exchanges, whose coverage was cancelled because they like their plans but couldn't keep them.

We have people with AIDS, Leukemia, and any number of severe health issues that were segregated from the rest of the healthy individuals and groups, who now are utilizing services because of health problems, that are costing the rest of us big-time.

I assume your plan is to always be in perfect health and never grow old.

The bolded is not a sufficient rebuttal dawg. If you think that everyone should just be lumped together so be it, but lets not dance around the fact that there are winner in losers in such a scenario.

It is a fact that, on average, a person who makes good health choices will have fewer lifestyle related health problems.

It is also fact that, on average, the person who makes poor lifestyle choices will likely have health problems that are directly related to those lifestyle CHOICES — bad diet, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, risky sexual habits, drug use, etc.

Why should someone who takes care of themselves have to offset the cost of someone who CHOOSES not to?

Where would you draw the line on unhealthy activities though? It's obviously bad to smoke, but diet can be very much a grey area, especially since dietary advice seems to change every few months.

(07-07-2015 11:05 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 11:00 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 10:22 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 10:04 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 12:56 AM)G-Man Wrote:  You were in a high risk pool due to pre-existing health problems. Now you and all your high risk buddies, are dumped in with people who aren't high risk, and they subsidize your health issues. Great for you, bad for the majority of folks.

Here's why premiums are going up. Medicaid expansion is drawing in a lot of healthy young people who can't get good jobs. They should've been paying for coverage in the public plans. But the economy sucks for them, and they qualify for Medicaid. Meanwhile we get Tom and his buddies who are/were high utilizers of care, and just got their premiums reduced big-time by their high risk pool being done away with so that they could buy with all the healthy people on the state exchanges, whose coverage was cancelled because they like their plans but couldn't keep them.

We have people with AIDS, Leukemia, and any number of severe health issues that were segregated from the rest of the healthy individuals and groups, who now are utilizing services because of health problems, that are costing the rest of us big-time.

I assume your plan is to always be in perfect health and never grow old.

The bolded is not a sufficient rebuttal dawg. If you think that everyone should just be lumped together so be it, but lets not dance around the fact that there are winner in losers in such a scenario.

It is a fact that, on average, a person who makes good health choices will have fewer lifestyle related health problems.

It is also fact that, on average, the person who makes poor lifestyle choices will likely have health problems that are directly related to those lifestyle CHOICES — bad diet, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, risky sexual habits, drug use, etc.

Why should someone who takes care of themselves have to offset the cost of someone who CHOOSES not to?

Where would you draw the line on unhealthy activities though? It's obviously bad to smoke, but diet can be very much a grey area, especially since dietary advice seems to change every few months.

Sure we do get dietary recommendations from researchers regularly but whether or not you choose to have coffee or not have coffee based on a research study is not what we are talking about with a basic healthy diet and healthy weight.

Most people are aware of the basics of a healthy diet — fruits, vegetables, lean meats and fish, dairy, and limited simple carbs.

Everyone knows that a diet high in sugar and carbs, heavy on fried and fast food will lead to type 2 diabetes in some and obesity in most.

(07-04-2015 04:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 03:44 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 03:29 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 07:36 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Since some of the Obama apologists were fond of posting that these were "requested" rate hikes, we now have information on approved hikes from the People's Republic of Oregon.

Quote:Oregon’s insurance regulator has approved big premium increases sought by health plans for 2016 under the health law, and in some cases ordered higher raises than insurers requested, signaling that the cost of insurance for people who buy it on their own could jump after two years of relatively modest growth......approved an average 25.6% increase for Moda Health Plan Inc., the biggest plan on the state’s health exchange. She also gave a green light to average increases of 30% or more for four smaller companies, in a decision released this week.

Oregon Insurance Commissioner Laura Cali concluded:

Quote:We share the concerns expressed through public comment about the affordability of health insurance in Oregon, and these final rates were approved in order to protect consumers from extreme rate increases in the future. Inadequate rates could also result in companies going out of business in the middle of the plan year, or being unable to pay claims,

Link

The link requires a subscription.
Here is one to an Oregon paper.
http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.s...ns_fa.html

It should be pointed out that Oregon insurance rates were some of the lowest in the nation and these increases put them more in line with other states, not higher than other states.

Charles Gaba took a look at it and here are some of his observations.

An overall average weighted increase of about 24%.

The silver lining here (pun intended) is that, as noted in the Oregonian article, even with these hikes, the rates are still pretty much in line with other states, and shopping around could result in a decrease for some people. For instance, using the 40-year old Portland example above, someone enrolled in a Silver plan via PacificSource (currently paying $284/month this year and looking at a 37% hike to $389/month) could switch to a Kaiser plan and only pay $271/month...a decrease of 4.5%, or $13/month!

Of course, that also depends on the different networks, deductibles, co-pays and so on between the two, but that's why it's vitally important that everyone shop around instead of blindly autorenewing. I cannot stress that enough.

http://acasignups.net/15/07/01/oregon-fi...e-increase

Using switching to the Kaiser Plan as an examples of savings isnt relevant unless you include the other bolded elements (co-pays, deductibles) which combined equal the real cost of the insurance.

Which is exactly why everyone should shop around!

Unfortunately there is no viable alternative for me in our area to reduce costs other than to try and buy an even more lousy policy and put the savings in an account to pay for doctors visits. Even with this...the savings are minimum. They have these plans figured out. Even the cheapest ones are silly expensive. In a nutshell...the older you get...the more you get fcked by the ACA.

(07-07-2015 11:05 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 11:00 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 10:22 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 10:04 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 12:56 AM)G-Man Wrote:  You were in a high risk pool due to pre-existing health problems. Now you and all your high risk buddies, are dumped in with people who aren't high risk, and they subsidize your health issues. Great for you, bad for the majority of folks.

Here's why premiums are going up. Medicaid expansion is drawing in a lot of healthy young people who can't get good jobs. They should've been paying for coverage in the public plans. But the economy sucks for them, and they qualify for Medicaid. Meanwhile we get Tom and his buddies who are/were high utilizers of care, and just got their premiums reduced big-time by their high risk pool being done away with so that they could buy with all the healthy people on the state exchanges, whose coverage was cancelled because they like their plans but couldn't keep them.

We have people with AIDS, Leukemia, and any number of severe health issues that were segregated from the rest of the healthy individuals and groups, who now are utilizing services because of health problems, that are costing the rest of us big-time.

I assume your plan is to always be in perfect health and never grow old.

The bolded is not a sufficient rebuttal dawg. If you think that everyone should just be lumped together so be it, but lets not dance around the fact that there are winner in losers in such a scenario.

It is a fact that, on average, a person who makes good health choices will have fewer lifestyle related health problems.

It is also fact that, on average, the person who makes poor lifestyle choices will likely have health problems that are directly related to those lifestyle CHOICES — bad diet, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, risky sexual habits, drug use, etc.

Why should someone who takes care of themselves have to offset the cost of someone who CHOOSES not to?

Where would you draw the line on unhealthy activities though? It's obviously bad to smoke, but diet can be very much a grey area, especially since dietary advice seems to change every few months.

It's not really a grey area at all when you think about it. Doctors can easily keep records of measures like BMI for instance. Many health insurance companies also provide discounts on things such a gym memberships. People who are taking good care of themselves shouldn't have to pay as much as some lazy fat ass who stuffs his face with Twinkies all day. What's really messed up is we actually have the INVERSE of that happening. Young, healthy people are paying more under Obamacare.

In the case of old folks, it's clearly a different situation.... BUT.... the elderly who DID take it upon themselves to live a healthy lifestyle shouldn't pay as much as the one's that didn't.