Sure.
No policy is guaranteed renewable, as far as I’m aware - though there may be law in some states that provides for a minimum number of renewals. I’ll look into that further.
For those blasting governmental incompetence in general, or Obama’s specifically: Where is your indignation toward the web developers entrusted (and well-paid) to get the job done? Is it your experience that, when you bungle a job, you get to blame the *client *for their incompetence in *managing *you?
Yes, I was looking at mycancellation.com and found the following note from “Julie”:
I suppose the most charitable interpretation of this statement is that “Julie” feels comfortable with a modest premium increase in order to subsidize unhealthy people but not a 100% increase.
Anyway, I am not an expert on Obamacare, but it seems part of the law is that unhealthy people get put in the same actuarial pool as healthy people. Necessarily resulting in large premium increases for healthy people.
One can ask what exactly is meant by “your plan,” but one important aspect of a plan – which people probably don’t think about very much – is who is excluded from the plan. I do think the politicians should have been more open about the fact that some people are going to have to pay more in order to make insurance affordable for others.
Except for group plans, no grandfathered plan is required to accept people with pre-existing conditions.
And even those group plans are required to accept only children with such conditions.
OK let’s see about mycancellation.com
Whois lookup indicates its registered to an organization called Independent Women’s Voice.
Google search for ‘Independent Women’s Voice’ leads me to:
Yeah, a rightwing group creating a website to slam Obamacare. Big surprise. Is this supposed to be a neutral source? Why should we care about anything at this site?
I don’t know enough about the law to dispute this . . . why do you think it is that people like “Julie” are seeing massive increases in their premiums? Is it just that the revised plan provides far more generous coverage?
How do we know ‘Julie’ is real? That site is a right wing front. You can’t honestly expect anyone here to take that site seriously do you? What proof do they offer that ‘Julie’ isn’t just one of the people behind that site writing a fake story about how awful Obamacare is?
You can’t trust any ‘stories’ you see on a site with that clear an agenda.
Especially when they say “and I’m a Democrat!”. Just reeks of bullshit.
Impossible to say without knowing details, but remember that “more generous coverage” is not something required of grandfathered plans.
A family plan on the individual market would have to: eliminate lifetime limits (but can keep annual limits); stop rescinding coverage except for fraud.; would have to cover the kids for a few more years (though many already did this); and would have to rebate premiums that exceed coverage expenses + 25%.
It’s hard to see how that adds up to a 100% premium increase, but I wouldn’t know for sure without more information about the underwriting. Maybe the plan she had was really good at rescinding coverage right when people needed it most, and their inability to do that make the model more expensive. Who knows.
ETA: It is also worth noting that the GOP alternatives at the time would have included these same insurance regulations except for the premium rebate. IOW, they were also advocating eliminating lifetime limits, limiting rescission, and expanding coverage for kids.
Well I don’t know if this individual’s plan is “grandfathered” – whatever that means.
But regardless it does seem that a lot of people are seeing substantial increases in their premiums. My impression – from reading this blog post – is that much of the increase is due to pooling of (relatively) unhealthy and healthy people.
I guess my question to you is this:
-
Do you agree that a lot of people are seeing substantial increases in their health insurance premiums?
-
If so, why do you think it is?
I believe Julie is real. In fact, whenever I interact with someone on the internet using a woman’s name, I always assume they are exactly who they say they are.
But then Obama had to be in favor of them too …
-
Do you agree that a lot of people are seeing substantial decreases in their health insurance premiums?
-
If so, why do you think that is?
I thought the use of the phrase “your plan” in your first recent post was a reference to “keep your plan.” That’s why I was discussing grandfathering as it relates to premium increases.
As for new plans, if that’s what we’re talking about, I think we have always anticipated premium jumps for some insureds because, as you say, there is greater coverage (indeed–in some sense the increase can *only *be because of greater coverage since the law requires rebates for premiums not going toward coverage expenses).
I think the real question is whether, averaged over 10 years or so, premiums will be lower for the vast majority than they would have been in the absence of Obamacare. That’s the goal, and we don’t know whether we’ll meet it or not (nor will we ever know with certainty, given the hypothetical baseline).
Your thought was correct.
So you believe that the reported increases in premiums are primarily due to enhancements in coverage and not – as claimed in the blog post I linked to – due to the pooling of healthy and unhealthy people?
Then I’m unclear on your surprise that I referenced grandfathered plans. Obviously, the “keep your plan” rhetoric is about grandfathered plans.
I don’t know. I haven’t read your link. I was just suggesting that, in some sense, premium increases have to be connected to coverage as a matter of law (now).
Whether costs associated with coverage (and therefore not subject to rebate) also means coverage for other people in your actuarial unit, I’m not entirely clear on. I suppose it must, but I haven’t read the regs. I’ll try to do that.
Here is an HHS report on the regulations in the individual market from 2008
nm. idea.
It’s not obvious to me. Here’s what Obama apparently said:
Nothing about “grandfathered plans.” On the contrary, he used the word “period” twice, which reasonable people would understand to mean “without qualification or exceptions.”
Then I stand by my original point. Although most people probably don’t give it a lot of thought, an essential part of health insurance is who is excluded from their risk pool.
Feel free – I have a strong feeling that the blog post I read is correct. Besides which, it’s common sense.
Here’s a study that claims premiums for buyers in the individual health insurance market have gone up an average of 41% due to ACA. Methodology here.
I think it is entirely unreasonable to understand “keep your plan” to mean something other than “keep the plan you had before the ACA.” But there’s not much to debate beyond that. Obviously you disagree.
That seems to be right for policies purchased after the ACA, as a consequence of the law’s requirements that: (a) you have to accept everyone who signs up; and (b) you cannot charge them different premiums except for by age and smoking status.
People with high morbidity are subsidized by average folks, and the whole set is subsidized by the government. So people who are: (1) healthy; (2) wealthy; (3) and in the individual market get somewhat boned. Even though that’s a tiny percentage of the population, it is still bad.