That’s at odds with this study that finds premiums to be 16% lower now than was projected. Here is a discussion of the issues, including consideration of how some are misrepresenting the matter, and of important elements that make certain comparisons nonsensical.
What is the date in question?
And are you saying that pretty much everyone who is complaining about massive rate increases bought their insurance only after that date?
That seems to go against the article Terr linked to which indicates that the people had been with Kaiser Permanente since 1995.
Has anyone pointed out the absurdity of it being permissible to charge a smoker a higher premium on the theory that he is at an increased risk for lung cancer, heart disease etc., but that it is impermissible to charge people a higher premium who ACTUALLY HAVE lung cancer, heart disease, etc.?
Plus, since there is no underwriting for pre-existing conditions, how would an insurance company ever know if an individual was a smoker? He gets lung cancer? Plenty of non-smokers get lung cancer. What is the new mechanism for catching smokers who lie and say they are non-smokers?
If you had coverage in March 2010 that you still have, that has significantly raised its premiums, it is not because of merging risk pools. That’s all I was saying. Such people who have experienced increased premiums must be due to the anti-rescission provisions, or the other ones I enumerated earlier.
It’s probably pretty hard to lie about being a smoker and get away with it for very long. The person would have to have lied to all their doctors and also not develop any condition in which it would become apparent that the person was a smoker (at which time their coverage could be rescinded since it would be fraudulent).
But it is ironic that actually having lung cancer can’t be used to increase the premium.
And let’s not lose track of the overall numbers here. According to **brazil’s **link, about 3% of NH residents are in the individual market. And only about 30% of those will see premium increases greater than 30% after subsidies. We’re talking about an average increase of 57% in actual out-of-pocket premiums for less than 1% of the insured population.
And it’s not even clear that these 15,000 New Hampshire residents will be worse off in the long-term, even if you ignore any benefit they’re getting for higher premiums. That depends on the rate of premium increase (which is both directly and indirectly affected by the ACA in various ways). It’s entirely possible that over a timeline of ten years or so, they will have paid less in premiums than in the absence of the ACA.
That’s not saying it isn’t a problem, potentially even one that could be ameliorated by amending the statute. But it doesn’t make the thing bad public policy, necessarily. Almost all big policies negatively affect some small number of people in their attempt to help much larger numbers.
A cheek swab, but it’s not a very new method.
You’re right, it did start at the same day. The effects are the same though. You need to have people manning customer service desks and IT people fixing problems that occur when millions try to log on at once. The shutdown was directly responsible for some unknown part of the website’s issues. And depending on whether you like Obamacare or not, you’d either be happy or upset that it happened but you know it DID happen.
The website was originally not supposed to be handling the traffic of something like half the states. The law was written where states can expand their Medicaid to include more people. Those states with GOP governors or GOP dominated legislatures have fought tooth and nail against expanding it, forcing the federal government (whose original role was to simply facilitate the state-by-state exchanges) to run it themselves. Remember, these are the same people who whine about states’ rights, so of course, when the law gave them the ability to run the exchanges themselves, they’d do the smart and fiscally sensible thing and set up their own, right?
Of course we all know how that story ended. Plus, add to that the continual denial of funds and the litigation and political grandstanding over the past 3 years all designed to obstruct, defund, or repeal Obamacare, then it makes perfect sense that there would be problems with its infrastructure when it finally went live. That’s by design. This is what the GOP wanted and fought for the past 3 years. They wanted more, of course, but they couldn’t get it.
Obama or Sebelius have been working to fix the problems and prevent things from going bad. So they were unsuccessful in stopping the worst of the GOP’s obstructionist tactics. The exchanges are still live, but maybe you have to do it over the phone or in person. People will still be able to get their insurance and after this, tens of millions more will do so and save the country billions in the long run. I’m ecstatic about the job Obama has done in the face of such traitorous opposition. He doesn’t deserve any blame. It is those people who gleefully have said they’d do all they can to stop this law that deserves 100% of the blame. How anyone can look at those people and say THEY ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID THEY ARE DOING and pretend its not their fault is cognitive dissonance at its finest
So you think that the people in the article linked to by Terr are getting much more generous coverage than they had before?
And you believe that’s consistent with “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”?
I don’t know what you mean by “much more generous coverage,” that being a fairly subjective term. Do you consider a prohibition on non-fraud-based rescissions to be much more generous coverage? Do you consider the elimination of lifetime caps to be much more generous coverage?
Yes I do.
Now please answer my questions:
-
Do you think that the people in the article linked to by Terr are getting much more generous coverage than they had before?
-
Do you believe that’s consistent with “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”?
From your second link:
-
Yes. By your own definition of the term, they are.
-
I’ve detailed my view on this above. The short version is that I don’t think the mere fact that all plans were included in the fundamental consumer reforms is inconsistent with the pledge. I do think that to the extent these regulations have cause insurance companies to cancel those plans, that is a consequence that is inconsistent with the pledge.
Aren’t insurance companies pretty much designed for relatively modest profit margins? Isn’t that an expected result if the Free Market (blessings and peace be upon its Holy Name…) is operating as expected?
The arithmetic of risk assessment is known science, has been for years and years. There are no dramatic new discoveries there, its the same for Lloyds of London as it is for State Farm. Seems to me about the only way one health insurance provider can compete, free market wise, is to trim their profit margin. What else is there if your product is precisely the same as the other guy’s product?
Yet one of the aspects that insurance companies found most objectionable is the provision that insurance companies must return a minimum of 80% of their premiums returned to the customer as service. A 20% margin is a problem for these people? WTF?
Reminds me of the student loan crapstorm. The bank makes the loan, the gov’t guarantees the loan, and they get to make a profit to compensate for a risk they don’t even take!
America operates by the Golden Rule: the guy who’s got the gold, makes the rules.
Lol, whatever. That’s a very genteel way of admitting that just like every other high level politician, Obama is a liar. There may be a few small town mayors and county dog catchers who are honest men.
Here I thought you were actually going somewhere with your line of questions. Oh well. Fool me once…
elucidator:
Profit margin is far from the only basis on which the health insurers compete.
They also compete on:
[ul]
[li]Effectiveness (i.e., accuracy) of underwriting[/li][li]Success at negotiating prices with providers[/li][li]Differing models of care and care networks[/li][li]Novel or otherwise tailored coverage arrangements (i.e., what has co-pays, etc.)[/li][li]Amount of premiums devoted to claims services and customer service[/li][li]Litigation strategies (how much to fight claims)[/li][/ul]
I’m sure there are others.
Also, the 20% is not the same as profit margin. It also includes many administrative expenses. The profit margin may be much narrower than that.
No shit. But, also from the second link:
Also:
So, again, no shit. But premiums are lower now - apparently not every one, but on the whole.
Esteemed person Parker!
Is being a good day for you I am hoping! I have for you most excellent business opportunity. My recently being dead father was Minister of Monetary Finance for the nation of Bongo-Bongo, and has left a deposit of twenty billion Bongolian fiascoes (approximately being 5 to 7 million dollars US, depending on what time is being in your most delightful country)…
I posted a link to a study that showed many people that buy their own insurance are now facing higher premiums. You post a link that explicitly says the same.
Ok.
I don’t know what CBO estimates about overall premiums have to do with anything.
Well you pretty much demonstrated if not outright conceded that Obama’s statement was untrue, so where else is there to go?