Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 211 to 228 of 228

Thread: Questions For Americans About New Health Insurance Exchanges

  1. #211
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    You really need to think what you said through. While you're at it, think about what the advantages of a capitalist economic system are and how they are obtained.
    Actually; in some situations predictability is the preferable choice. That implies a limitation on investment vehicles. Financing health care is not very different from financing pensions.
    Congratulations America

  2. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Actually; in some situations predictability is the preferable choice. That implies a limitation on investment vehicles. Financing health care is not very different from financing pensions.
    I didn't limit my remarks to any particular industry. GGT seems to think we should be telling the Apples and Googles of the world how much risk is acceptable..
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #213
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I didn't limit my remarks to any particular industry. GGT seems to think we should be telling the Apples and Googles of the world how much risk is acceptable..
    We were talking about monetary risks in health insurance. Private insurance companies aren't exempt from capital requirements any more than private casinos, they just have different regulatory and oversight agencies....to ensure they have sufficient funds to *pay claims*.

    Insurance companies can use re-insurance issuers (insurance for insurance) and/or turn their product into an investment vehicle using Wall Street financiers, bankers, or shareholders to buffer and pad their accounts. They're chimeras, exposed to many "risks"....but they have to be capitalized well enough to *pay claims*, even during disasters, epidemics, economic downturns, or market crashes.

  4. #214
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Actually; in some situations predictability is the preferable choice. That implies a limitation on investment vehicles. Financing health care is not very different from financing pensions.
    But the US has a political faction that wants to privatize everything, including healthcare and retirement pensions (SS)....but they don't want to regulate those industries on behalf of the public, either.

  5. #215
    Veteran healthcare has been in contention since the post Viet Nam era.

    Would the US healthcare system be better if we did away with special hospitals/clinics designated for veterans, and instead incorporated veteran services into every facility?

  6. #216
    There's no great solution. I think the bigger question is why we created a government-rationed healthcare system where Veterans can get care for issues beyond those directly related to combat?

  7. #217
    The GGTs of the world.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  8. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    There's no great solution. I think the bigger question is why we created a government-rationed healthcare system where Veterans can get care for issues beyond those directly related to combat?
    Because most civilian facilities weren't designed to handle large numbers of people with War injuries (amputations, shrapnel wounds, traumatic brain injuries)....let alone distribute wheelchairs or prosthetics. Plus, some combat-related health problems don't show up for years (like Agent Orange exposure) or even PTSD.

    It might have made sense after World War II and Viet Nam, when there were so many surviving vets. But the medical industry has changed dramatically since then, with full-service and specialty hospitals, EDs and Level I trauma centers all over the country. Since access isn't the problem it used to be -- it might work better if vets used the same facilities everyone else does, with providers reimbursed by the VA -- and just have a few regional VA Medical Centers for the severe cases or long-term patients.

  9. #219
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    There's no great solution. I think the bigger question is why we created a government-rationed healthcare system where Veterans can get care for issues beyond those directly related to combat?
    Because there are also not directly combat related health issues, and because it's what's (presumably) promised to new recruits to get them to risk their health and even life for you?

    Why it has to be handled in an apparently very shitty way is of course another matter.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  10. #220
    Perhaps we should have "negotiated" WWII *debts* and Veteran health care costs differently....and mandated that European nations with the "best" medical services transport, and treat, any US veteran AND their family. Our military protections were underestimated economically.

    Maybe we should send every US WWII veteran, and their families, to Switzerland for their health care needs.

  11. #221
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    A wee bit late for that now ain't it?
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  12. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Perhaps we should have "negotiated" WWII *debts* and Veteran health care costs differently....and mandated that European nations with the "best" medical services transport, and treat, any US veteran AND their family. Our military protections were underestimated economically.

    Maybe we should send every US WWII veteran, and their families, to Switzerland for their health care needs.
    Switzerland wasn't a party to WWII.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  13. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Switzerland wasn't a party to WWII.
    Swiss banks weren't either, eh?

  14. #224
    Ten bullets in the chest to anyone who tries to stop the intefadah!

    But seriously, this thing is built around a totally bizarre concept of what market competition actually means.

    Premiums Rise at Big Insurers, Fall at Small Rivals Under Health Law
    Many Consumers Face Choice of Paying More for Old Plan or Saving Money by Switching

    By LOUISE RADNOFSKY
    Updated June 18, 2014 8:50 p.m. ET

    Hundreds of thousands of consumers nationwide who bought insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act will face a choice this fall: swallow higher premiums to stay in their plan, or save money by switching.

    That is the picture emerging from proposed 2015 insurance rates in the 10 states that have completed their filings, which stretch from Rhode Island to Washington state. In all but one of them, the largest health insurer in the state is proposing to increase premiums between 8.5% and 22.8% for next year, according to a Wall Street Journal review of the filings. That percentage represents the average rate increases for all individual health plans offered by that carrier.

    At the same time, insurers with the smallest enrollments are proposing to cut rates so they can lure customers as the cheapest plans in their markets.


    The rate proposals reflect a combination of big carriers stepping back from initial aggressive pricing, rising medical costs and increased competition during the second year of President Barack Obama's health law. Indeed, several insurers plan to enter new states next year after sitting out some markets in the law's first year. United HealthCare, for example, is going into Connecticut, Michigan, Rhode Island and Washington for 2015.

    Complicating next year's pricing is the fact that insurers have scant data on their enrollees' use of health services, because many consumers waited until the March deadline to buy plans.

    "Carriers are as much in the dark as they were last year, but what they do know is where the rest of the market is," said Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy & Strategy Associates LLC, a health-insurance consultant in Alexandria, Va.

    In all 10 states with complete public rate filings, the insurers with the largest enrollment in 2014 also offered the lowest or second-lowest prices for coverage in the first year of the law's new online insurance exchanges.

    With dominant market share now, analysts say, carriers feel they have room to raise rates. Nine of the carriers are proposing average increases for 2015 that range from 8.5% by Anthem Inc. in Virginia to 22.8% from CareFirst for its BlueChoice plans in Maryland. Most of these large carriers' proposed rate increases hover around 10%. Maine's carrier is keeping rates flat.

    In Oregon, Moda Health Plan Inc. said it captured about three-quarters of the state's plans sold under the health law for a total of 117,000 enrollees. It has sought a 12.5% increase for next year, citing rising medical costs and the expectation that it will receive less money from a fund designed to offset the cost of sick enrollees.

    William Johnson, president of the plan, said price had clearly been a big factor for consumers in 2014, but that he was comfortable his products would continue to be attractive to consumers. "We may lose some, we may gain some, but overall we'll still have a pretty significant market share."

    At least two Oregon plans are looking to undercut Moda by lowering their rates for next year. Oregon's Health CO-OP, a nonprofit start-up that enrolled fewer than 1,000 people in the first main enrollment period in 2014, is seeking to slash rates by 21%.

    Moda's $221 monthly premium for a midrange "silver" plan for a 40-year-old nonsmoker in Salem, Ore., would go up to $249 in 2015 if the company's rate-increase request is approved by state regulators. Oregon's Health CO-OP would offer a $228 premium for 2015. Such plans cover around 70% of medical costs and have been the most popular choice among consumers buying on state exchanges and the federal HealthCare.gov site.

    The co-op's chief executive, Ralph Prows, said it was counting on the lower rates to lift enrollment, and noted health costs from the newly insured might be more modest than initially expected. "We have proposed a significant decrease, and it will leave us in a much better market position on price," he said.

    Meanwhile, in Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington, insurers that had low enrollments in 2014 or are newly joining the market for 2015 are now bidding to become the least-expensive option for consumers who want to buy silver plans for 2015.

    The proposed increases by large carriers partly reflect medical inflation, which is currently projected at around 5.4% for insured people this year, said Richard Evans, an analyst at SSR Health LLC, an investment-research firm in Montclair, N.J. Those increases will outpace gains in household income, making it probable that consumers will feel them, he said.

    It is difficult to determine precisely what impact the Affordable Care Act has had on insurance premiums. Insurance companies say fees and coverage mandates in the law have forced them to raise their rates.

    Supporters of the law point to research showing that, before the law passed, premiums were rising steadily for those who buy policies without an employer's help. Jonathan Gruber, a professor of economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a backer of the health-care overhaul, this month published research suggesting that from 2008 to 2010, individual-market premiums grew by 10% or more a year.

    Erin Shields Britt, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the new exchange system "drives competition among plans, requiring issuers to be more conscious of how they stack up to their competitors, which is a trend we are already seeing accelerate in a number of states, with new plans entering the market."

    Opponents say the health law was sold on the premise that it would lower rates, and that increases are evidence the law is falling short. "There's going to be an uproar over premiums right before the election," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a top adviser to the 2008 presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.).

    America's Health Insurance Plans, the main insurer lobbying group, says that sharply rising prescription-drug costs are a main force pushing premiums upward. "We have some very high $100,000 cancer drugs coming on at the end of the year," said Karen Ignagni, the association's president and CEO.

    In several of the states where the rate filings have been made available, insurance commissioners have the power to negotiate with companies over their proposed rates. In other states, the health law has created a process by which insurers must issue public justifications of proposed rate increases that exceed 10%. Some consumer groups have said the process doesn't guarantee consumers will see the justifications in time to protest.

    One big factor affecting whether consumers stick with their current plans or switch to a lower-priced option is how the Obama administration designs the re-enrollment process for people who bought coverage in 2014. Insurers are waiting to see if the federal government will make it easy for most consumers to renew their coverage without going through many of the steps they did in the first year, which could make it more likely they would also stick with their existing insurance plans.

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/premi...law-1403135040

  15. #225
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Lowering prices to attract more customers and raising them if you think you have room for it is not market competition?
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  16. #226
    Dread, for decades "big insurers" and "big employers" used tax subsidies, preferential pooling, purchasing power, and cost-shifting to set premium rates....that didn't reflect the true cost of health care, let alone health insurance. The people paying higher premiums now (for the same coverage) don't realize they'd been under-paying for years, and pushing cost burdens to hospitals and tax payers.

    Basically, the US health insurance market was closed to individuals; the self-employed, contract workers, small businesses, part-time workers, retirees that didn't meet Medicare requirements, and anyone that didn't meet Medicaid eligibility. That's why 40-50 million people couldn't buy affordable health insurance even when they wanted to and went uninsured.....or were stuck buying crap plans that didn't really cover anything, and faced medical bankruptcy after practically any kind of medical treatment.

    That wasn't a sustainable 'model' by any measure. The ACA was a political compromise, tailored to the for-profit Insurance Industry sector. Because anything that hinted toward single-payer, or a National Health System, would've been SSSocialism, or commie pinko lib'rulism, or something.

  17. #227
    Bump. Now that SCOTUS has ruled that certain parts of the ACA (regarding women's reproductive health) can be exempted by private, for-profit corporations claiming religious conscience.....in part because "the government" provides alternatives using federal tax dollars....

    is the US one step closer to a single payer National Health Care System?

  18. #228
    New York Healthcare Premiums Are About To Explode

    By BrettLoGiurato 7/15/2014

    Insurancecompanies operating in New York State's marketplace are expected to ask fordouble-digit premium hikes next year, according to new filings from thecompanies.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/york-h...132658547.html

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •