Popular Provision Of Obamacare Is Fueling Sticker Shock For Some Consumers

Geaux4it

Intensity Factor 4-Fold
May 31, 2009
22,873
4,295
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Sto...th-insurance-premium-increases-obamacare.aspx

When setting premiums for next year, insurers baked in bigger-than-usual adjustments, driven in large part by a game-changing rule: They can no longer reject people with medical problems.

Popular in consumer polls, the provision in the health law transforms the market for the estimated 14 million Americans who buy their own policies because they don’t get coverage through their jobs. Barred from denying coverage, insurers also can’t demand higher rates from unhealthy people and those deemed high risks because of conditions including obesity, high blood pressure or a previous cancer diagnosis.


But the provision also adds costs. To a larger degree than other requirements of the law, it is fueling the “sticker shock” now being voiced by some consumers about premiums for new policies, say industry experts.

In setting next year’s rates, insurers must factor in “assumptions about who will sign up, high users or healthy people,” said David Axene, a fellow of the Society of Actuaries. “You can imagine who most of the health plans thought would be predominantly signing up.”

“I’m kind of shocked,” said Leo Lenaghan, who lives in the Chicago suburbs. The $336-a-month BlueCross Blue Shield policy for his wife and daughter, which had a $2,250 per person annual deductible, is being discontinued and the plan his insurer says is most similar to it in benefits will cost an additional $205 a month. It has a $3,000 per person deductible. “I guess we’re just going to have to suck it up.”

The less their policies covered previously, the more consumers’ premiums are likely to rise, experts say. While adding some benefits only costs “pennies on the dollar,” said Georgetown University research professor Sabrina Corlette, others are more expensive. A Maryland Health Care Commission report from last year, for example, said the state’s requirement that insurers include maternity coverage added about 4 percent to the cost of a premium.

The actuarial firm Milliman estimated that changes from the health law – including the take-all-applicants provision - could be expected to result in about a 14 percent increase to the average premium in California. On top of that, general medical inflation from 2013 to 2014 would add another 9 percent. Of all the factors, the biggest cited by Milliman was the guaranteed coverage provision.
 
Well of course. The healthy have to pay more to cover the unhealthy.

Wonder what happens when all those young people they are depending on opt for the penalty??

I also wonder just who the hell the ACA is affordable for??
 
Most Republicans supported a pre-existing condition protection measure. Or at least they pretended to.

Once everyone is covered the pre-existing condition provision won't be an issue.
 
Well of course. The healthy have to pay more to cover the unhealthy.

Wonder what happens when all those young people they are depending on opt for the penalty??

I also wonder just who the hell the ACA is affordable for??

So you would prefer that insurance companies be able to drop you when you get sick, and then that the rest of the insurance business be able to refuse you coverage because you are sick?

Get out of my country.
 
Show us that with the subsidies the citizen is paying more for better insurance.
 
Most Republicans supported a pre-existing condition protection measure. Or at least they pretended to.

Once everyone is covered the pre-existing condition provision won't be an issue.

Just like once the website is released, everyone will be able to sign up for healthcare, If you like your plan, you can keep your plan?

Promises, promises.
 
Popular Provision Of Obamacare Is Fueling Sticker Shock For Some Consumers - Kaiser Health News

When setting premiums for next year, insurers baked in bigger-than-usual adjustments, driven in large part by a game-changing rule: They can no longer reject people with medical problems.

Popular in consumer polls, the provision in the health law transforms the market for the estimated 14 million Americans who buy their own policies because they don’t get coverage through their jobs. Barred from denying coverage, insurers also can’t demand higher rates from unhealthy people and those deemed high risks because of conditions including obesity, high blood pressure or a previous cancer diagnosis.


But the provision also adds costs. To a larger degree than other requirements of the law, it is fueling the “sticker shock” now being voiced by some consumers about premiums for new policies, say industry experts.

In setting next year’s rates, insurers must factor in “assumptions about who will sign up, high users or healthy people,” said David Axene, a fellow of the Society of Actuaries. “You can imagine who most of the health plans thought would be predominantly signing up.”

“I’m kind of shocked,” said Leo Lenaghan, who lives in the Chicago suburbs. The $336-a-month BlueCross Blue Shield policy for his wife and daughter, which had a $2,250 per person annual deductible, is being discontinued and the plan his insurer says is most similar to it in benefits will cost an additional $205 a month. It has a $3,000 per person deductible. “I guess we’re just going to have to suck it up.”

The less their policies covered previously, the more consumers’ premiums are likely to rise, experts say. While adding some benefits only costs “pennies on the dollar,” said Georgetown University research professor Sabrina Corlette, others are more expensive. A Maryland Health Care Commission report from last year, for example, said the state’s requirement that insurers include maternity coverage added about 4 percent to the cost of a premium.

The actuarial firm Milliman estimated that changes from the health law – including the take-all-applicants provision - could be expected to result in about a 14 percent increase to the average premium in California. On top of that, general medical inflation from 2013 to 2014 would add another 9 percent. Of all the factors, the biggest cited by Milliman was the guaranteed coverage provision.

Lies!!

The name of the legislation is the AFFORDABLE Care Act.

Notice the term AFFORDABLE.

There, another extremist teabagger debunked.
 
Well of course. The healthy have to pay more to cover the unhealthy.

Wonder what happens when all those young people they are depending on opt for the penalty??

I also wonder just who the hell the ACA is affordable for??

So you would prefer that insurance companies be able to drop you when you get sick, and then that the rest of the insurance business be able to refuse you coverage because you are sick?

Get out of my country.

How about people with higher risks paying higher premiums? Well tobacco smokers do, but for some reason discriminating against that high risk is just hunky dory.
 
Last edited:
Well of course. The healthy have to pay more to cover the unhealthy.

Wonder what happens when all those young people they are depending on opt for the penalty??

I also wonder just who the hell the ACA is affordable for??

So you would prefer that insurance companies be able to drop you when you get sick, and then that the rest of the insurance business be able to refuse you coverage because you are sick?

Get out of my country.

Fuck off dickhead.

How bout they pay for their own insurance instead of everyone else paying higher cost to cover them.

Get the hell out of MY country you idiot.
 
You have to prove that, and you can't.

You need to move to another country, Geaux. You don't support Americanism.
 
Well of course. The healthy have to pay more to cover the unhealthy.

Wonder what happens when all those young people they are depending on opt for the penalty??

I also wonder just who the hell the ACA is affordable for??

So you would prefer that insurance companies be able to drop you when you get sick, and then that the rest of the insurance business be able to refuse you coverage because you are sick?

Get out of my country.

Being dropped was acceptable risk for those who could not afford to reduce said risk

-Geaux
 
You have to prove that, and you can't.

You need to move to another country, Geaux. You don't support Americanism.

So americanism is getting other people to pay for shit you want, and using the government gun to get it?

Facsist asshole. FOAD.
 
You have to prove that, and you can't.

You need to move to another country, Geaux. You don't support Americanism.

I don't have to move to another country, I'm living in one now that is as foreign as can be.

I need to continue to try and change that

-Geaux
 
Well of course. The healthy have to pay more to cover the unhealthy.

Wonder what happens when all those young people they are depending on opt for the penalty??

I also wonder just who the hell the ACA is affordable for??

So you would prefer that insurance companies be able to drop you when you get sick, and then that the rest of the insurance business be able to refuse you coverage because you are sick?

Get out of my country.

Fuck off dickhead.

How bout they pay for their own insurance instead of everyone else paying higher cost to cover them.

Get the hell out of MY country you idiot.

Um...that's the point of the individual mandate. If you can afford insurance, you now have to buy it. If you can't afford it, you will get assistance in the way of subsidies and medicare, especially if your governor isn't a fucking a moron and turned down the expansion, but it is a subsidy for insurance, not just having the taxpayer pay your emergency room bill.
 
So you would prefer that insurance companies be able to drop you when you get sick, and then that the rest of the insurance business be able to refuse you coverage because you are sick?

Get out of my country.

Fuck off dickhead.

How bout they pay for their own insurance instead of everyone else paying higher cost to cover them.

Get the hell out of MY country you idiot.

Um...that's the point of the individual mandate. If you can afford insurance, you now have to buy it. If you can't afford it, you will get assistance in the way of subsidies and medicare, especially if your governor isn't a fucking a moron and turned down the expansion, but it is a subsidy for insurance, not just having the taxpayer pay your emergency room bill.

Geaux would prefer to the poor to suck off the government, which hurts all of us, instead of being given a helping hand to a better life and quality of health.
 
So you would prefer that insurance companies be able to drop you when you get sick, and then that the rest of the insurance business be able to refuse you coverage because you are sick?

Get out of my country.

Fuck off dickhead.

How bout they pay for their own insurance instead of everyone else paying higher cost to cover them.

Get the hell out of MY country you idiot.

Um...that's the point of the individual mandate. If you can afford insurance, you now have to buy it. If you can't afford it, you will get assistance in the way of subsidies and medicare, especially if your governor isn't a fucking a moron and turned down the expansion, but it is a subsidy for insurance, not just having the taxpayer pay your emergency room bill.

Remind me how many people didnt have insurance before all this started. How many won't after we're done?
 
So you would prefer that insurance companies be able to drop you when you get sick, and then that the rest of the insurance business be able to refuse you coverage because you are sick?

Get out of my country.

Fuck off dickhead.

How bout they pay for their own insurance instead of everyone else paying higher cost to cover them.

Get the hell out of MY country you idiot.

Um...that's the point of the individual mandate. If you can afford insurance, you now have to buy it. If you can't afford it, you will get assistance in the way of subsidies and medicare, especially if your governor isn't a fucking a moron and turned down the expansion, but it is a subsidy for insurance, not just having the taxpayer pay your emergency room bill.

So we are re-writing the entire way we do our healthcare for an area that handles 2% of the total cost of healthcare in this country, and of that, how much is actually being "eaten" by the government?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/28/nick-gillespie/does-emergency-care-account-just-2-percent-all-hea/

Gillespie said emergency rooms account for "2 percent of all health care spending." Experts told us that’s not the only way to calculate it, but it’s a credible way, and even if that figure is too low, other calculations put it in the single digits. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.

That brings us back to Boxer's claim. We find it is flawed in two ways.

First, she says the cost for "every American who is insured" is $1,100. If she had said that was per family as Clinton did, she would be in the ballpark according to the Families USA and New America Foundation studies. But those studies say the cost per individual policy was $368 and $468. So she is way off on that count.

Secondly, the Kaiser report has raised significant questions about the Families USA study and made a plausible case that much of the cost of the uninsured is absorbed by doctors and hospitals. So in our view that discounts the accuracy of the groups' studies. So we find Boxer's claim Barely True.
 
My employer providied insurance Doubled for a Family plan. My monthly contribution will double starting Jan 1. Fuck you liberal cocksuckers and your goddam nightmare of a President.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top