The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount

[PMZ]

Ah.

So someone is closed minded if they disagree with you. I'm a licensed agent, I've researched this topic extensively, have multiple certifications in health insurance, and continue to keep current on the latest changes. You aren't interested in any discussion, you just want to post opinions and lies with no substantiation nor evidence. I think I'll just move on.

All those qualifications and you tell your clients that higher premiums are unrelated to lower risk?

Amazing.

I'm not sure how you can claim to know what I tell my clients, but since you've made up so much other stuff I guess we'll just add this to the list.

If you believe what you posted here and tell your clients otherwise you are, at the very least, guilty of being disingenuous.

 

[asterism]

All those qualifications and you tell your clients that higher premiums are unrelated to lower risk?

Amazing.

I'm not sure how you can claim to know what I tell my clients, but since you've made up so much other stuff I guess we'll just add this to the list.

If you believe what you posted here and tell your clients otherwise you are, at the very least, guilty of being disingenuous.

What do you think I should tell my clients, and on what resources or knowledge do you base your suggestions?

 

[PMZ]

I'm not sure how you can claim to know what I tell my clients, but since you've made up so much other stuff I guess we'll just add this to the list.

If you believe what you posted here and tell your clients otherwise you are, at the very least, guilty of being disingenuous.

What do you think I should tell my clients, and on what resources or knowledge do you base your suggestions?

That insurance is a simple risk sharing process. That you buy protection from financial risk by sharing it with others through insurance policies. That as life unfolds among all of those who share specific risks under the same policy product, the unfortunate ones will experience the greatest losses but also receive the greatest part of everyone's premiums. The fortunate ones will suffer the least in claims, but lose virtually all of their premiums for the stated time period.

The higher the risks, the greater the premiums.

If the risks are absorbable without insurance, the odds favor those without it.

 

[asterism]

If you believe what you posted here and tell your clients otherwise you are, at the very least, guilty of being disingenuous.

What do you think I should tell my clients, and on what resources or knowledge do you base your suggestions?

That insurance is a simple risk sharing process. That you buy protection from financial risk by sharing it with others through insurance policies. That as life unfolds among all of those who share specific risks under the same policy product, the unfortunate ones will experience the greatest losses but also receive the greatest part of everyone's premiums. The fortunate ones will suffer the least in claims, but lose virtually all of their premiums for the stated time period.

The higher the risks, the greater the premiums.

If the risks are absorbable without insurance, the odds favor those without it.

On what resources or knowledge do you base your suggestions?

The second to the last sentence is inaccurate and I could be sanctioned by the state for giving false information if I said that because premiums in health insurance or not based on risk, they are based on age, geographic area and current tobacco use only. A Downs Syndrome client pays the same premium at 27 as a personal trainer. An overweight alcoholic with diabetes who quit smoking after 40 years pays the same premium at 62 as a man who has run marathons his entire life.

You pontificate out of ignorance and it appears your mind is closed to new information.

Health insurance issuers in the individual and small group markets would only be allowed to vary premiums based on age (within a 3:1 ratio for adults), tobacco use (within a 1.5:1 ratio and subject to wellness program requirements in the small group market), family size, and geography. All other factors – such as pre-existing conditions, health status, claims history, duration of coverage, gender, occupation, and small employer size and industry – would no longer be able to be used by insurance companies to increase the premiums for those seeking insurance.

ObamaCare Health Insurance Rules, Regulations and Standards

 

[PMZ]

What do you think I should tell my clients, and on what resources or knowledge do you base your suggestions?

That insurance is a simple risk sharing process. That you buy protection from financial risk by sharing it with others through insurance policies. That as life unfolds among all of those who share specific risks under the same policy product, the unfortunate ones will experience the greatest losses but also receive the greatest part of everyone's premiums. The fortunate ones will suffer the least in claims, but lose virtually all of their premiums for the stated time period.

The higher the risks, the greater the premiums.

If the risks are absorbable without insurance, the odds favor those without it.

On what resources or knowledge do you base your suggestions?

The second to the last sentence is inaccurate and I could be sanctioned by the state for giving false information if I said that because premiums in health insurance or not based on risk, they are based on age, geographic area and current tobacco use only. A Downs Syndrome client pays the same premium at 27 as a personal trainer. An overweight alcoholic with diabetes who quit smoking after 40 years pays the same premium at 62 as a man who has run marathons his entire life.

You pontificate out of ignorance and it appears your mind is closed to new information.

Health insurance issuers in the individual and small group markets would only be allowed to vary premiums based on age (within a 3:1 ratio for adults), tobacco use (within a 1.5:1 ratio and subject to wellness program requirements in the small group market), family size, and geography. All other factors – such as pre-existing conditions, health status, claims history, duration of coverage, gender, occupation, and small employer size and industry – would no longer be able to be used by insurance companies to increase the premiums for those seeking insurance.

ObamaCare Health Insurance Rules, Regulations and Standards

"premiums in health insurance or not based on risk, they are based on age, geographic area and current tobacco use only."

All risk indicators.

However, what you mention comes from ACA's requirement prohibiting defining populations for risk assessment that exclude people who insurance companies consider high risk. Because they need to spread their risk more than anybody. Once the risk assessment population is defined though you can bet that the premium for that population comes from a great deal of actuarial risk assessment of the population.

If you aren't telling your clients that the ACA bronze plans are cheapest because they are the highest risk for the insured, you are doing them a major disservice.

 

[BlackSand]

I think that it's past time for you to have an introspective intervention. You appear to believe that you are, somehow, useful, despite being unable to provide any supporting evidence.

You also project as delusional about knowing who I am.

I already provided you a list of your symptoms in that article on extremism yesterday.

Perhaps an intervention could nip those potentially serious problems in the bud.

Of Course you have provided the appropriate information to help identify your symptoms.
Now all you have to do is apply them to yourself ... And then you can start to make adjustments that are worthwhile towards your understanding of where the shortcomings reside.

I have faith in your abilities ... And every day you grow closer to a better understanding of your own ideas and how they lack any substance when compared to what most Conservatives accomplish.
You may one day understand that the proof is in what you do ... Not what you say or how willing others are to accept anything.
You can continue to attempt to project your lack of understanding on others ... But we all know that you are only working with what you know in your heart ... And that has nothing to do with us.

.

 

[Listening]

Like I said....nothing on the fact that insurance companies are going broke.

PMS is a moron and liar.

 

[asterism]

That insurance is a simple risk sharing process. That you buy protection from financial risk by sharing it with others through insurance policies. That as life unfolds among all of those who share specific risks under the same policy product, the unfortunate ones will experience the greatest losses but also receive the greatest part of everyone's premiums. The fortunate ones will suffer the least in claims, but lose virtually all of their premiums for the stated time period.

The higher the risks, the greater the premiums.

If the risks are absorbable without insurance, the odds favor those without it.

On what resources or knowledge do you base your suggestions?

The second to the last sentence is inaccurate and I could be sanctioned by the state for giving false information if I said that because premiums in health insurance or not based on risk, they are based on age, geographic area and current tobacco use only. A Downs Syndrome client pays the same premium at 27 as a personal trainer. An overweight alcoholic with diabetes who quit smoking after 40 years pays the same premium at 62 as a man who has run marathons his entire life.

You pontificate out of ignorance and it appears your mind is closed to new information.

Health insurance issuers in the individual and small group markets would only be allowed to vary premiums based on age (within a 3:1 ratio for adults), tobacco use (within a 1.5:1 ratio and subject to wellness program requirements in the small group market), family size, and geography. All other factors – such as pre-existing conditions, health status, claims history, duration of coverage, gender, occupation, and small employer size and industry – would no longer be able to be used by insurance companies to increase the premiums for those seeking insurance.

ObamaCare Health Insurance Rules, Regulations and Standards

"premiums in health insurance or not based on risk, they are based on age, geographic area and current tobacco use only."

All risk indicators.

Not true when compared to other more significant risk factors such as cholesterol, consumption habits, health history, and occupation.

However, what you mention comes from ACA's requirement prohibiting defining populations for risk assessment that exclude people who insurance companies consider high risk. Because they need to spread their risk more than anybody. Once the risk assessment population is defined though you can bet that the premium for that population comes from a great deal of actuarial risk assessment of the population.

If I can bet that this is so, why have you not documented your claim? Go ahead and show us where "the premium for that population comes from a great deal of actuarial risk assessment of the population." Just you saying so doesn't make it true. You're speaking in broad generalizations you have gleaned from a casual look at insurance. I'm talking about specific proven facts.

If you aren't telling your clients that the ACA bronze plans are cheapest because they are the highest risk for the insured, you are doing them a major disservice.

I tell them that the bronze plan premiums are less expensive than the sliver, gold, and platinum plan premiums because the deductibles, co-pays and maximum out of pocket limits are higher. Describing the premiums and benefits as a function of risk would be a disservice (and against my pledge to uphold the NAIFA Code of Ethics) to my clients because it would incorrectly lead them to think that the bronze plans are best unless something unforeseen happens. That's not always the case and there are many other variables to consider.

You made a claim that I'm disingenuous. Here's your exact quote:

If you believe what you posted here and tell your clients otherwise you are, at the very least, guilty of being disingenuous.

You also claimed that when premiums go up, risk goes down. Your exact quote:

If they are unaffordable now they were really unaffordable before ACA. When premiums go up, Rick goes down. Basic actuarial science.

I have a client who has experienced a massive increase in his premium for 2014 (about 50% when it was 5-15% in years past). His co-pays are higher, his deductible is higher. He actually has more risk in his silver plan than he did in his previous plan. So what do you think I should tell him?


Here's the trend as it is actually happening:

source

 

[jon_berzerk]

yikes

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kFqwfiE0Qc#t=102]CNN: New Poll Shows Obama Losing His Own Base Over ObamaCare - YouTube[/ame]

 

[dblack]

That insurance is a simple risk sharing process. That you buy protection from financial risk by sharing it with others through insurance policies. That as life unfolds among all of those who share specific risks under the same policy product, the unfortunate ones will experience the greatest losses but also receive the greatest part of everyone's premiums. The fortunate ones will suffer the least in claims, but lose virtually all of their premiums for the stated time period.

The higher the risks, the greater the premiums.

If the risks are absorbable without insurance, the odds favor those without it.

On what resources or knowledge do you base your suggestions?

The second to the last sentence is inaccurate and I could be sanctioned by the state for giving false information if I said that because premiums in health insurance or not based on risk, they are based on age, geographic area and current tobacco use only. A Downs Syndrome client pays the same premium at 27 as a personal trainer. An overweight alcoholic with diabetes who quit smoking after 40 years pays the same premium at 62 as a man who has run marathons his entire life.

You pontificate out of ignorance and it appears your mind is closed to new information.

Health insurance issuers in the individual and small group markets would only be allowed to vary premiums based on age (within a 3:1 ratio for adults), tobacco use (within a 1.5:1 ratio and subject to wellness program requirements in the small group market), family size, and geography. All other factors – such as pre-existing conditions, health status, claims history, duration of coverage, gender, occupation, and small employer size and industry – would no longer be able to be used by insurance companies to increase the premiums for those seeking insurance.

ObamaCare Health Insurance Rules, Regulations and Standards

"premiums in health insurance or not based on risk, they are based on age, geographic area and current tobacco use only."

All risk indicators.

However, what you mention comes from ACA's requirement prohibiting defining populations for risk assessment that exclude people who insurance companies consider high risk. Because they need to spread their risk more than anybody. Once the risk assessment population is defined though you can bet that the premium for that population comes from a great deal of actuarial risk assessment of the population.

If you aren't telling your clients that the ACA bronze plans are cheapest because they are the highest risk for the insured, you are doing them a major disservice.

[ame=http://youtu.be/rHJoj9IqeKg]Ding Dong The Witch is Dead - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Listening]

States retaliate against ObamaCare website developers, halt payments | Fox News

Wasn't it PMS who said the state stuff was going just great guns ?

Moron.

 

[P@triot]

Since PMZ hates facts, this should make his head burst...

 

[BlackSand]

So 1.1 million of the 42 million (2.6%) it was supposed to help signed up.
More than 5 million lose their existing coverage even though President Obama said that wasn't going to happen.

There is a way the ACA can be seen as helping someone ... And still be an utter failure.

.

 

[Listening]

CNN Poll: Opposition To Obamacare Hits Record Highs, Support Crashes To New Lows | TheBlaze.com

The telephone poll, taken between December 13-19, asked 1035 adults — 950 of whom were registered voters — the following question: “As you may know, a bill that makes major changes to the country’s health care system became law in 2010. Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor or generally oppose it?”

62% of those polled said they oppose the Affordable Care Act (ACA), while support for the law hit an all-time low of just 35%.

*****************888

Of course, they might support Obamacare...just not the ACA (as we've seen already).

 

[beagle9]

We are stuck between two giants fighting one another, where as one is the government fighting the insurance industry by trying to get them to help it's customers old and new, and this by offering them better plans than what they were offering them before, and also at much better rates than what they had before.

The insurance industry is pushing back hard I think, because they don't want to offer the American public what the government is wanting them to, and they ain't waiting around to see how many of the so called forced new clients that were idle in this market place, to hopefully sign up in order to off set their fears in what they see as a huge attack on their bottom lines if it all doesn't work out like they were told it would.

They are hoping that the government will falter now I'm guessing, upon what it has attempted in all of this that they have jumped head and feet first into, and they may be fixing to see it all come true as a catastrophic failure in which it very well could be now, and without a doubt.

Now what will happen as soon as the failure comes or is complete ? Will things get better for the people who just need to be treated fairly and with respect to their health care needs in life (all of their needs) or will things get real bad for most as the vengeance becomes the norm in the on going fight that will ensue afterwards ?

 

[Listening]

We are stuck between two giants fighting one another, where as one is the government fighting the insurance industry by trying to get them to help it's customers old and new, and this by offering them better plans than what they were offering them before, and also at much better rates than what they had before.

The insurance industry is pushing back hard I think, because they don't want to offer the American public what the government is wanting them to, and they ain't waiting around to see how many of the so called forced new clients that were idle in this market place, to hopefully sign up in order to off set their fears in what they see as a huge attack on their bottom lines if it all doesn't work out like they were told it would.

They are hoping that the government will falter now I'm guessing, upon what it has attempted in all of this that they have jumped head and feet first into, and they may be fixing to see it all come true as a catastrophic failure in which it very well could be now, and without a doubt.

Now what will happen as soon as the failure comes or is complete ? Will things get better for the people who just need to be treated fairly and with respect to their health care needs in life (all of their needs) or will things get real bad for most as the vengeance becomes the norm in the on going fight that will ensue afterwards ?

100% horseshyt.

 

[P@triot]

You know it's an epic failure when even Canada is saying that Obamacare proves liberalism is a failed experiment...

Mr. Obama is in a tough spot. It’s not just that he looks incompetent – it’s that he looks deceitful. He told people they could keep their plans, their doctors and their hospitals, and that their insurance payments wouldn’t go up. That turns out not to be true for a lot of people, who feel duped. If they’d known what Obamacare would really mean, they wouldn’t have supported it. And the worst isn’t over. Hundreds of thousands of employers still have to make decisions about their coverage. And if the millennials don’t get on board, prices will go up more.

But Obamacare is much more than a test of a presidency. It’s a test of whether big government can solve big problems. And so far, the answer is very bad for the entire liberal enterprise. As venerable left-leaning pundit Thomas Edsall wrote in The New York Times, “Cumulatively, recent developments surrounding the rollout of Obamacare strengthen the most damaging conservative portrayals of liberalism and of big government – that on one hand government is too much a part of our lives, too invasive, too big, too scary, too regulatory, too in your face, and on the other hand it is incompetent, bureaucratic and expropriatory.”

Obamacare, where the liberal dream crashes and burns - The Globe and Mail

 

[Bern80]

I said that I believe that health care is a right. If business chooses to provide for that, that's great. In fact that was the direction that the country was going until business decided to create unemployment to reduce labor costs. They dropped the ball.

The only one left standing is government. I hope that you're happy with that when it comes.

Tell me this though. Who benefits from a country with sub-optimal health. Companies? Families? Communities? Schools? The wealthy? The poor?

Who?

You can think it all you want. No matter how you slice it isn't a right. It meets not criteria of any other right. You're basically arguing that since a person has a right to life he has the right to the services needed to maintain that life. WRONG. You also you have the right to bare arms. That doesn't mean the government or anyone else is obligated to provide you a gun.

Businesses decided to create unemployment? You really are a collectivist aren't you. It is not the purpose of a business to employ people. It's purpose is to generate profit. How many employees that requires at any given time is always going to fluctuate. It isn't a businesses job to make sure it has x number of people working for it.

A business treating sick people is the obvious answer, but let's cut to the chase. You're basically saying since no one benefits from it, we should just provide it for people. That isn't a valid argument either. Government does not exist to alleviate your life of life's problems.

 

[Geaux4it]

I said that I believe that health care is a right. If business chooses to provide for that, that's great. In fact that was the direction that the country was going until business decided to create unemployment to reduce labor costs. They dropped the ball.

The only one left standing is government. I hope that you're happy with that when it comes.

Tell me this though. Who benefits from a country with sub-optimal health. Companies? Families? Communities? Schools? The wealthy? The poor?

Who?

I disagree. Healthcare is not a right.

Rights are equal.

Healthcare decisions are fluid.

-Geaux

 

[Listening]

Another one bites the dust....

Awful: Disabled Family of Four Slammed By Exorbitant Obamacare Costs - Guy Benson

Target drops coverage for part-time workers.

Target Joins Other Companies in Dropping Health Coverage - Kevin Glass