90% of Americans have health insurance....

Gern Blansten

inmyNC said:

EdsonNascimento said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healthcare/obamacare-worries-largest-texas-insurer-asks-for-60-percent-price-hike/ar-BBtKIHr?li=BBnbfcN

Who is paying for 70% of those rate increases? The small % of people that actually pay Federal Income Taxes.

All he did was a massive expansion of Medicaid. Everyone laughed at the Republicans who said - hidden tax. Well, they were clearly correct.

Expect roll backs in required benefits. We are already in a massive deficit. Where is this money coming from?

I paid $450per mo for my son and i back in 2009. Then my residential construction business went south as if a light switch had been turned off. I went 3 years with no coverage and paid all health care out of pocket. In 2013 I once again got coverage with at $500per mo. Then the Affordable Care Act came into affect. I was excited to maybe save money on health insurance. I went to healthcare.gov. put in my info and was quoted $500per mo. I was surprised and confused. Not "affordable ", not "caring" and not an. "act" of helping me with the cost of health care insurance. I saw no difference but a slight increase. But I suppose its cause I pay taxes?

No it's because of our for profit healthcare system.

If your premium stayed the same that's the benefit. Mine has consistently gone up 15-25%/year since 1998

gimmesometruth27

medicare for all.

inmyNC

Gern Blansten said:

inmyNC said:

EdsonNascimento said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healthcare/obamacare-worries-largest-texas-insurer-asks-for-60-percent-price-hike/ar-BBtKIHr?li=BBnbfcN

Who is paying for 70% of those rate increases? The small % of people that actually pay Federal Income Taxes.

All he did was a massive expansion of Medicaid. Everyone laughed at the Republicans who said - hidden tax. Well, they were clearly correct.

Expect roll backs in required benefits. We are already in a massive deficit. Where is this money coming from?

I paid $450per mo for my son and i back in 2009. Then my residential construction business went south as if a light switch had been turned off. I went 3 years with no coverage and paid all health care out of pocket. In 2013 I once again got coverage with at $500per mo. Then the Affordable Care Act came into affect. I was excited to maybe save money on health insurance. I went to healthcare.gov. put in my info and was quoted $500per mo. I was surprised and confused. Not "affordable ", not "caring" and not an. "act" of helping me with the cost of health care insurance. I saw no difference but a slight increase. But I suppose its cause I pay taxes?

No it's because of our for profit healthcare system.

If your premium stayed the same that's the benefit. Mine has consistently gone up 15-25%/year since 1998

My point is that is wasn't affordable then or now.. The ACA in my my case did nothing except force me to have health insurance.yes it has given affordability to the less financially stable but once again who pays for it? The taxpayers who are burden with higher premiums.

mickeyrat

I wonder how much of this rate increase is due to short term increases in payouts as those who can now have things seen toin order to get to better overall health? That it is really just short term on the whole? I do understand some previously uninsurable conditions would be a continuing payout for service.

I am under NO illusion that if Ins companies saw a decrease in payouts , they would lower rates. Afterall , shareholder is king.

EdsonNascimento

mickeyrat said:

I wonder how much of this rate increase is due to short term increases in payouts as those who can now have things seen toin order to get to better overall health? That it is really just short term on the whole? I do understand some previously uninsurable conditions would be a continuing payout for service.

I am under NO illusion that if Ins companies saw a decrease in payouts , they would lower rates. Afterall , shareholder is king.

It's actually simpler than that. As expected, healthier people are paying the penalty and a sicker than priced population chose to pay for benefits. It's actually very simple to understand and it baffles me that people don't get it. It's a simple economic decision - does the price I pay get me my perceived value? Those that do, buy off the exchange/get expanded Medicaid. Those that don't pay their extra taxes.

And, they would have to lower rates as all rates are regulated including Minimum Medical Loss Ratios and such. So, you can bust your illusion.

You understand that large carriers are reporting 100's of millions of dollars in losses, right? that's not profit that went away. That's claims that got paid that the Gov't would have had to pay if it was a direct FFS Federal plan that health carriers have paid and lost. I guess the Gov't has a better way of funding that - by not funding it. One of the biggest failures was the "stop loss" the Feds promised and couldn't fund appropriately. And Federal Co-ops opened (on your tax dollar) betting that worst case someone else (the stop loss pool) would pay for it. Then, the Feds who backed those companies didn't fund the pool. Do you not see that the Gov't is the least able and least efficient at running anything? They didn't even have a means to fund the pool to support the companies they opened!

Gern Blansten

EdsonNascimento said:

mickeyrat said:

I wonder how much of this rate increase is due to short term increases in payouts as those who can now have things seen toin order to get to better overall health? That it is really just short term on the whole? I do understand some previously uninsurable conditions would be a continuing payout for service.

I am under NO illusion that if Ins companies saw a decrease in payouts , they would lower rates. Afterall , shareholder is king.

It's actually simpler than that. As expected, healthier people are paying the penalty and a sicker than priced population chose to pay for benefits. It's actually very simple to understand and it baffles me that people don't get it. It's a simple economic decision - does the price I pay get me my perceived value? Those that do, buy off the exchange/get expanded Medicaid. Those that don't pay their extra taxes.

And, they would have to lower rates as all rates are regulated including Minimum Medical Loss Ratios and such. So, you can bust your illusion.

You understand that large carriers are reporting 100's of millions of dollars in losses, right? that's not profit that went away. That's claims that got paid that the Gov't would have had to pay if it was a direct FFS Federal plan that health carriers have paid and lost. I guess the Gov't has a better way of funding that - by not funding it. One of the biggest failures was the "stop loss" the Feds promised and couldn't fund appropriately. And Federal Co-ops opened (on your tax dollar) betting that worst case someone else (the stop loss pool) would pay for it. Then, the Feds who backed those companies didn't fund the pool. Do you not see that the Gov't is the least able and least efficient at running anything? They didn't even have a means to fund the pool to support the companies they opened!

source?

EdsonNascimento

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20151119/NEWS/151119858

The loss numbers are actually higher since this was posted, but the one I found was on Fox News, so didn't want to get into that argument. Please let me know if there was something else you wanted me to source.

Edit: Bonus - it also mentions the half of coops that have failed (and growing!)

Edit2 - an update on UHC - http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20160119/NEWS/301199998

EdsonNascimento

Just for fun- the direct link to the coops failing:

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20151105/NEWS/151109937

I wonder who funded those unpaid loans. Hmmmmmm.....

Gern Blansten

I guess I was referring to the "large carriers reporting 100s of millions in losses"