How much did the "Affordable" Care Act raise your premium?

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i'm 56. it just snuck up on me.

That's too young to retire. Go back to work.

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by Danzig

mine didn't change from last year. so, it's not about the same, it's the same.

but i didn't expect it to change. company i work for is in 14 states, and should have a pretty good group rating.

....same here, i work for the triumph group valencia ca. Div. but, you never know whats in store end of next year.

[bigrun]

This lady got free birth control...





obama hip.jpg

[Crown@club]

No wonder there is problems with the website.

http://home.roadrunner.com/~pjrpole/ACA.html

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Crown@club

No wonder there is problems with the website.

http://home.roadrunner.com/~pjrpole/ACA.html

I thought it was only me

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by bigrun

This lady got free birth control...





Attachment 2243

Probably not far from the truth. Watch how "bending the cost curve" manifests itself.

[bigrun]

jus sayin


boner.jpg

[joeydb]

Many of you will be experiencing much higher premiums next year:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...ld-lose-plans/


Excerpt: "... David Allen, president of a company bearing his name in Boulder, Colorado. He told a Congressional hearing recently that his carrier discontinued his company policy because it wasn't compliant with ObamaCare.
It does not meet the minimum standards as stipulated under the law. Due to this one change," he said, "our premiums are now scheduled to increase by 52.3 percent in January 2014."

[joeydb]

O'Reilly: "No one (except those receiving free or subsidized health care) from the government will pay less for insurance. No one."

A stinging and factual analysis that the Democrats will find it hard to hide from:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/287088448...-of-obamacare/

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

O'Reilly: "No one (except those receiving free or subsidized health care) from the government will pay less for insurance. No one."

A stinging and factual analysis that the Democrats will find it hard to hide from:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/287088448...-of-obamacare/

not necessarily.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgot...sing-premiums/

Meanwhile, plans sold entirely outside the exchanges will be subject to a different risk pool, and as a result, lower pricing.

Over time, conforming and non-conforming insurance policies sold entirely outside the exchanges could look increasingly attractive to consumers; even accounting for the subsidies many people would get for staying inside the exchanges.

Health plans would be encouraged to drop out of the exchanges, or in the case of national insurers like Aetna [NYSE:AET] and United Healthcare [NYSE:UNH] and Cigna [NYSE:CI] (who have largely stayed out of these schemes) decide not to get in. For these insurers, their decision to stay out of the exchanges is looking smart.


Under the law, insurers who offer policies inside the Obamacare exchanges are required to treat their enrollees inside and outside the exchange as a single risk pool. Among other things, this provision was meant to reduce the chance that insurers would steer healthier patients into plans sold outside the exchanges.

But the law doesn’t prevent insurers from offering plans exclusively outside the exchange. If they are entirely outside the exchange, they get to create their own risk pool, and aren’t subject to the same pricing that burdens plans inside the exchange. (See this Commonwealth Fund Brief for a fuller explanation)

As the pool inside the exchange becomes older, sicker, and costlier, more plans will have an economic incentive to get out of the Obamacare market altogether.

Once outside, they are free to price their products to match a better risk pool.


of course, you are talking about bill o'reilly, who has an agenda and doesn't have to answer to anyone for not giving the whole story.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

not necessarily.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgot...sing-premiums/

Meanwhile, plans sold entirely outside the exchanges will be subject to a different risk pool, and as a result, lower pricing.

Over time, conforming and non-conforming insurance policies sold entirely outside the exchanges could look increasingly attractive to consumers; even accounting for the subsidies many people would get for staying inside the exchanges.

Health plans would be encouraged to drop out of the exchanges, or in the case of national insurers like Aetna [NYSE:AET] and United Healthcare [NYSE:UNH] and Cigna [NYSE:CI] (who have largely stayed out of these schemes) decide not to get in. For these insurers, their decision to stay out of the exchanges is looking smart.


Under the law, insurers who offer policies inside the Obamacare exchanges are required to treat their enrollees inside and outside the exchange as a single risk pool. Among other things, this provision was meant to reduce the chance that insurers would steer healthier patients into plans sold outside the exchanges.

But the law doesn’t prevent insurers from offering plans exclusively outside the exchange. If they are entirely outside the exchange, they get to create their own risk pool, and aren’t subject to the same pricing that burdens plans inside the exchange. (See this Commonwealth Fund Brief for a fuller explanation)

As the pool inside the exchange becomes older, sicker, and costlier, more plans will have an economic incentive to get out of the Obamacare market altogether.

Once outside, they are free to price their products to match a better risk pool.


of course, you are talking about bill o'reilly, who has an agenda and doesn't have to answer to anyone for not giving the whole story.

He reports using the Faux handbook on reporting facts..the standard fox MO..

you ever watch Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism(2004), it is on netflix..

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

He reports using the Faux handbook on reporting facts..the standard fox MO..

you ever watch Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism(2004), it is on netflix..

haven't seen it. i doubt fox is worried about facts. just ratings.

[dellinger63]

Get a quote quick at http://www.thehealthsherpa.com/

Still need to get on gov. site if eligible for a subsidy. Not sure it's correct as for the same insurance plan (bronze ppo $6K deductible) I got a 'quote' for an individual making 25K a year (all non-smokers):

25 years old out of pocket $97.38/month ($22.22 subsidy)
50 years old $61.01 ($151.75)
60 years old $17.85 ($305.45)

Making 50K a year (no subsidies)

25 years old 119.60
50 years old 212.75
60 years old 323.30

So how is it a 25 year old struggling on $25K/yr. will pay $1,168/year while a 60 year old struggling on the same amount will pay $214.20/year or 18% what the younger/healthier insured paid?

Of course once we get out of the subsidized plans reality takes course.

[jms62]

In case you missed this on Faux and Rush Limbaugh

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/op...cess.html?_r=0

The law establishing Obamacare was officially titled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And the “affordable” bit wasn’t just about subsidizing premiums. It was also supposed to be about “bending the curve” — slowing the seemingly inexorable rise in health costs.
Much of the Beltway establishment scoffed at the promise of cost savings. The prevalent attitude in Washington is that reform isn’t real unless the little people suffer; serious savings are supposed to come from things like raising the Medicare age (which the Congressional Budget Office recently concluded would, in fact, hardly save any money) and throwing millions of Americans off Medicaid. True, a 2011 letter signed by hundreds of health and labor economists pointed out that “the Affordable Care Act contains essentially every cost-containment provision policy analysts have considered effective in reducing the rate of medical spending.” But such expert views were largely ignored.
So, how’s it going? The health exchanges are off to a famously rocky start, but many, though by no means all, of the cost-control measures have already kicked in. Has the curve been bent?
The answer, amazingly, is yes. In fact, the slowdown in health costs has been dramatic.
O.K., the obligatory caveats. First of all, we don’t know how long the good news will last. Health costs in the United States slowed dramatically in the 1990s (although not this dramatically), probably thanks to the rise of health maintenance organizations, but cost growth picked up again after 2000. Second, we don’t know for sure how much of the good news is because of the Affordable Care Act.
Still, the facts are striking. Since 2010, when the act was passed, real health spending per capita — that is, total spending adjusted for overall inflation and population growth — has risen less than a third as rapidly as its long-term average. Real spending per Medicare recipient hasn’t risen at all; real spending per Medicaid beneficiary has actually fallen slightly.
What could account for this good news? One obvious answer is the still-depressed economy, which might be causing people to forgo expensive medical care. But this explanation turns out to be problematic in multiple ways. For one thing, the economy had stabilized by 2010, even if the recovery was fairly weak, yet health costs continued to slow. For another, it’s hard to see why a weak economy would have more effect in reducing the prices of health services than it has on overall inflation. Finally, Medicare spending shouldn’t be affected by the weak economy, yet it has slowed even more dramatically than private spending.
A better story focuses on what appears to be a decline in some kinds of medical innovation — in particular, an absence of expensive new blockbuster drugs, even as existing drugs go off-patent and can be replaced with cheaper generic brands. This is a real phenomenon; it is, in fact, the main reason the Medicare drug program has ended up costing less than originally projected. But since drugs are only about 10 percent of health spending, it can only explain so much.
So what aspects of Obamacare might be causing health costs to slow? One clear answer is the act’s reduction in Medicare “overpayments” — mainly a reduction in the subsidies to private insurers offering Medicare Advantage Plans, but also cuts in some provider payments. A less certain but likely source of savings involves changes in the way Medicare pays for services. The program now penalizes hospitals if many of their patients end up being readmitted soon after being released — an indicator of poor care — and readmission rates have, in fact, fallen substantially. Medicare is also encouraging a shift from fee-for-service, in which doctors and hospitals get paid by the procedure, to “accountable care,” in which health organizations get rewarded for overall success in improving care while controlling costs.
Furthermore, there’s evidence that Medicare savings “spill over” to the rest of the health care system — that when Medicare manages to slow cost growth, private insurance gets cheaper, too.
And the biggest savings may be yet to come. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel with the power to impose cost-saving measures (subject to Congressional overrides) if Medicare spending grows above target, hasn’t yet been established, in part because of the near-certainty that any appointments to the board would be filibustered by Republicans yelling about “death panels.” Now that the filibuster has been reformed, the board can come into being.
The news on health costs is, in short, remarkably good. You won’t hear much about this good news until and unless the Obamacare website gets fixed. But under the surface, health reform is starting to look like a bigger success than even its most ardent advocates expected.


It is both dastardly and evil genius that Healthcare insurers are raising rates in the face of this information. Spend a ton of money villainizing the Affordable Care Act knowing the Bloods will swallow it hook line and sinker. Boot people and raise rates knowing that the blame will be placed elsewhere. I wonder how much advertising dollars Rush gets from the Healthcare industry.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by jms62

It is both dastardly and evil genius that Healthcare insurers are raising rates in the face of this information. Spend a ton of money villainizing the Affordable Care Act knowing the Bloods will swallow it hook line and sinker. Boot people and raise rates knowing that the blame will be placed elsewhere. I wonder how much advertising dollars Rush gets from the Healthcare industry.

It's actually pretty simple. Rates have gone up to pay for subsidies. That and requiring young healthy people to be 'over-insured'.

As far as Rush getting money from the Healthcare Industry? I think that's a bit far out there considering what Obamacare has done for the industry. But who knows? Politics make for strange bedfellows and there are 'down-low' rumors out on both Rush and Obama.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

It's actually pretty simple. Rates have gone up to pay for subsidies. That and requiring young healthy people to be 'over-insured'.

As far as Rush getting money from the Healthcare Industry? I think that's a bit far out there considering what Obamacare has done for the industry. But who knows? Politics make for strange bedfellows and their are 'down-low' rumors out on both Rush and Obama.

Rates have gone up to pay for subsidies? That is even more evil Genius. Insurance companies raising rates because of subsidies paid by someone else (You and me the taxpayer). Del maybe you shouldn't respond until you have had your first cup of coffee

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by jms62

Rates have gone up to pay for subsidies? That is even more evil Genius. Insurance companies raising rates because of subsidies paid by someone else (You and me the taxpayer). Del maybe you shouldn't respond until you have had your first cup of coffee

The racing cards today far outweigh politics. I'm done.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The racing cards today far outweigh politics. I'm done.

Good luck. See you in Selections thread.

[bigrun]

Belated thanksgiving thanks from cartoonists..

[Danzig]

http://news.msn.com/us/retooled-obam...roblems-remain

it works 'most of the time'. not exactly glowing praise