NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Bump.

     

    Yeah, but some will say none of this counts.  Because, y'know...

    ...liberals and 'socialism' and stuff.

     



    Yah, we went through this with Califorina. Rick Unger, uber liberal columist was all over the California plans being cheaper.  Turns out ot not quite be the case.

    I think I'll wait for all the facts on this one as well.  After all WDYWN claimed that a unicorn just walked through his back yard and Zimmerman shot it.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Crucial piece that seems to be missing from the artilce is plan comparison. It's great that prices are dropping 50%, but are the plans comparable? Are the plans apples to apples in regards to copays, deductibles, out of pocket max, etc? If they are then great. If they aren't and the exchange plans are much lower benefits then not exaclty surprising the plan would be lower in cost. 

     

     

     



    Bingo.

     

     

     

     

    Offering plans that do not have as much coverage does not make the plan 50% cheaper in comparison.

    And, throw in all the socialism stuff, too.  Bad for people.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What part is socialism?

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ALL OF IT!!!!

     

    Socialism, the correct economic definition is:  government control (not nessarily ownership)of the means of production.  

    The government controls both ends of the transaction, what gets purchased, and what gets delivered.  That private companies are executing on these contracts, or that individuals get a few choices does not make it capitalism.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Govt isn't making me choose BCBS coverage offered by my company. I could have also chosen HPHC, NHP or one other which I forget the name. So how is govt "controlling" what gets purchased?

    Govt does not dictate everything that a BCBS delivers for services. The govt requires certain minimums....which the govt has for DECADES. This is nothing new. Do you not like that lifetime max doesn't exist anymore? Would you prefer to possibly run out of coverage because you hit the max? 

    The only thing Obamacare has changed for me is no lifetime max...which is a good thing. Pre-x never applied to me, thank god, but it's a good thing to get rid of that. Shouldn't sick people be able to have health care coverage?

    I still got to choose the plan I've been on for past five years now. 

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    The government controls both ends of the transaction, what gets purchased, and what gets delivered.  That private companies are executing on these contracts, or that individuals get a few choices does not make it capitalism.  



    That's not true.

     

     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Socialism, the correct economic definition is:  government control (not nessarily ownership)of the means of production.  

     



    That's single-payer.

     

     

    Good lord, sometimes I get to thinking a dingleberry could outwit you.

    [/QUOTE]


    No it's not. Gawd, break out a dictionary or talk to an economist.  Control does not mean ownership, socialism by definition is control, not necessarily ownership.

     

    "noun

    • a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

    Regulation is control, control is socialism, in this case.  Or fascist, if your particular interpretation is that htis is being done for the benefit of the state, whihc I do not think is a hard case to make.

     

    but why argue over definitions?  Why don't you tell me how a market in which you MUST participate, in which specific services MUST be provided, under the direct control and regulation of the government, is capitalist?

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The government controls both ends of the transaction, what gets purchased, and what gets delivered.  That private companies are executing on these contracts, or that individuals get a few choices does not make it capitalism.  

     



    That's not true.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Please explain. 

    Do you not have to buy insurance or be fined?  do not insurance companies have to offer plans the government prescribes?  do not doctors have to maintain to practices defined by these health boards?

    Government controls all aspects of the process.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    Crucial piece that seems to be missing from the artilce is plan comparison. It's great that prices are dropping 50%, but are the plans comparable? Are the plans apples to apples in regards to copays, deductibles, out of pocket max, etc? If they are then great. If they aren't and the exchange plans are much lower benefits then not exaclty surprising the plan would be lower in cost. 

     

     

     

     



    Bingo.

     

     

     

     

     

    Offering plans that do not have as much coverage does not make the plan 50% cheaper in comparison.

    And, throw in all the socialism stuff, too.  Bad for people.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What part is socialism?

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ALL OF IT!!!!

     

     

    Socialism, the correct economic definition is:  government control (not nessarily ownership)of the means of production.  

    The government controls both ends of the transaction, what gets purchased, and what gets delivered.  That private companies are executing on these contracts, or that individuals get a few choices does not make it capitalism.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Govt isn't making me choose BCBS coverage offered by my company. I could have also chosen HPHC, NHP or one other which I forget the name. So how is govt "controlling" what gets purchased?

     

    Govt does not dictate everything that a BCBS delivers for services. The govt requires certain minimums....which the govt has for DECADES. This is nothing new. Do you not like that lifetime max doesn't exist anymore? Would you prefer to possibly run out of coverage because you hit the max? 

    The only thing Obamacare has changed for me is no lifetime max...which is a good thing. Pre-x never applied to me, thank god, but it's a good thing to get rid of that. Shouldn't sick people be able to have health care coverage?

    I still got to choose the plan I've been on for past five years now. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Government doesn't make you choose BCBS, but it makes you choose a plan, or be fined/taxed, whatever they decided it was.  That is not Free enterprise or capitalism, that is either fascism or socialism, or something elese if you care to give it a name.

    Government dicitates what BSBS must cover, birth control for example.  the list is much longer than you can imagine. the "choices" of things your insurance company "chooses" to offer is very small and inconsiquential.

     

    Lifetime caps?  Be prepared for significantly higher insurance costs.

    Same with pre-existing care.  Do you think these coverages are free?

    Your argument fell apart.  Sorry.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    skeeter,

    "Hey, while I'm at it, can I do a trade in for one of those sleek models that Sharpton is hanging around with these days?"

     

    Heh, have you passed that idea by your wife by any chance?  :)

     

                                                                



    SHHHH!

    She might be listening.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Crucial piece that seems to be missing from the artilce is plan comparison. It's great that prices are dropping 50%, but are the plans comparable? Are the plans apples to apples in regards to copays, deductibles, out of pocket max, etc? If they are then great. If they aren't and the exchange plans are much lower benefits then not exaclty surprising the plan would be lower in cost. 

     

     

     

     

     



    Bingo.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Offering plans that do not have as much coverage does not make the plan 50% cheaper in comparison.

    And, throw in all the socialism stuff, too.  Bad for people.

     

     

     



    What part is socialism?

     

     

     

     

     

     



    ALL OF IT!!!!

     

     

     

    Socialism, the correct economic definition is:  government control (not nessarily ownership)of the means of production.  

    The government controls both ends of the transaction, what gets purchased, and what gets delivered.  That private companies are executing on these contracts, or that individuals get a few choices does not make it capitalism.  

     




    Well by your definition, voting is a socialist concept. So stop being a socialist.

     

     

     

    The gov't doesn't 'control' either end of the transaction, they regulate and/or authorize what procedures are safe and effective and who is competent to administer them.

    Only an ideological imbecile would confuse the two.

     

     



    Stop being so stupid and crawl out of that bubble you are living in.  It is a big world out there. 

     

    Socialism is an economic concept.  Voting is a social concept.

    Does government make you vote?  Does it tell you who to vote for?  Does it put unwarranted limitations on candidates?  Does it limit the candidates to an unreasonable pool?  If you said yes to any of this, you are looking at socialism through the eyes of Hugo Chavez, likely one of your heroes.  Thankfully, that is not the case here, where elections, though overly regulated in terms of contributions (thansk to McCain that senatorial idiot), are free, and not socialist.  The word doesn't even apply.

    Regulation isn't control?  You slay yourself with your own words.

    Now, it is a matter of opinion as to whether there is too much government regulation in health care.  I say yes, and the cost and loss of freedom reflects it.

    That you can't tell the difference puts you in that growing class of low-information voters.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    It seems to me that in states where they want the exchanges to succeed they are starting to succeed.

    In those states that are refusing to cooperate, well, things are not going as well.

    The House is now up to 38 tries at trying to repeal Obamacare.

    I do not know. Are they going by the saying, If at first you don't succeed, etc.

    It has been suggested they should just add it to the pledge of allegiance at this point.

                                                                



    No, they are not.  the reports are hopelessly propaganda. 

    California:  all sorts of hoopla on cost sgoing down.  turns out to not be true.  On an apple to apples comp[arison, costs up siginificantly.  Same thing in Indiana.  I suspectNY will be the same.

    You can't eliminate lifetime caps, include preexisting conditions, and add mandatory coverage, for starters, and lower costs. 

    If you beleive you can, then I suspect your household budget is a mess and your credit cards are maxxed out.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    The ObamaCare defenders seemingly hold two contradictory beliefs:

    1) that ObamaCare is not socialism, because it isnt "single payer" and supposedly is a "Republican idea" that only makes small changes to the health care system and supposedly leaves alone the free market system (what is left of it);

    2) and also that is will fix the current bad system  because it makes health care "available to all" , and it will cut costs by preventing the "greedy" private insurance and  private sector entities from making profits, by bureaucrats running the system.... 

     

    Reason:
    “The new premium rates do not affect a majority of New Yorkers, who receive
    insurance through their employers, only those who must purchase it
    on their own. Because the cost of individual coverage has soared,
    only 17,000 New Yorkers currently buy insurance on their own.”

    Only 17,000 New Yorkers out of millions purchase their own
    health coverage? What has driven costs so high? And why is
    Obamacare placing such enormous downward pressure on rates? The
    Times covers that nicely, too.

    For years, New York has represented much that can go wrong with
    insurance markets. The state required insurers to cover everyone
    regardless of pre-existing conditions, but did not require everyone
    to purchase insurance — a feature of the new health care law — and
    did not offer generous subsidies so people could afford
    coverage.

    With no ability to persuade the young and the healthy to buy
    policies, the state’s premiums have long been among the highest in
    the nation. “If there was any state that the A.C.A. could bring
    rates down, it was New York,” said Timothy Jost, a law professor at
    Washington and Lee University who closely follows the federal
    law.

    Basically, New York state did exactly what economists say you
    shouldn’t do: Encourage people to wait to buy insurance until
    they’re sick and need coverage. The forecasts of cost savings are
    based on the assumption that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement
    that people buy insurance will actually force those young, healthy
    people to pay in instead of waiting until they’re sick or
    injured.

    Except…As Peter Suderman has
    pointed out
    , even the maximum fine of $695 for going uninsured
    under Obamacare is far less than the cost of the cheapest plan.
    That math is easy enough to grasp that many young people are likely
    to continue to do what New Yorkers have been doing, and go without
    coverage until they’re in need of care. Tim Clifford, president of
    ADP Benefits & Talent Management Services, told CNBC that the fine
    under Obamacare “is probably not enough to change behavior.”

    Which means those “lower rates” in New York will probably prove
    to be illusory.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    The ObamaCare defenders seemingly hold two contradictory beliefs:

    1) that ObamaCare is not socialism, because it isnt "single payer" and supposedly is a "Republican idea" that only makes small changes to the health care system and supposedly leaves alone the free market system (what is left of it);

    2) and also that is will fix the current bad system  because it makes health care "available to all" , and it will cut costs by preventing the "greedy" private insurance and  private sector entities from making profits, by bureaucrats running the system.... 

     

    Reason:
    “The new premium rates do not affect a majority of New Yorkers, who receive
    insurance through their employers, only those who must purchase it
    on their own. Because the cost of individual coverage has soared,
    only 17,000 New Yorkers currently buy insurance on their own.”

    Only 17,000 New Yorkers out of millions purchase their own
    health coverage? What has driven costs so high? And why is
    Obamacare placing such enormous downward pressure on rates? The
    Times covers that nicely, too.

    For years, New York has represented much that can go wrong with
    insurance markets. The state required insurers to cover everyone
    regardless of pre-existing conditions, but did not require everyone
    to purchase insurance — a feature of the new health care law — and
    did not offer generous subsidies so people could afford
    coverage.

    With no ability to persuade the young and the healthy to buy
    policies, the state’s premiums have long been among the highest in
    the nation. “If there was any state that the A.C.A. could bring
    rates down, it was New York,” said Timothy Jost, a law professor at
    Washington and Lee University who closely follows the federal
    law.

    Basically, New York state did exactly what economists say you
    shouldn’t do: Encourage people to wait to buy insurance until
    they’re sick and need coverage. The forecasts of cost savings are
    based on the assumption that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement
    that people buy insurance will actually force those young, healthy
    people to pay in instead of waiting until they’re sick or
    injured.

    Except…As Peter Suderman has
    pointed out
    , even the maximum fine of $695 for going uninsured
    under Obamacare is far less than the cost of the cheapest plan.
    That math is easy enough to grasp that many young people are likely
    to continue to do what New Yorkers have been doing, and go without
    coverage until they’re in need of care. Tim Clifford, president of
    ADP Benefits & Talent Management Services, told CNBC that the fine
    under Obamacare “is probably not enough to change behavior.”

    Which means those “lower rates” in New York will probably prove
    to be illusory.




    Good post on the inner working of NY healht insurance.  So, the high level is NY already had the key elements of Obamacare in place, and these provision already drove costs up.

    I guess this is a weird toofer:  Liberals might be right on the pricing, conservatives are right on the effects.

    So, the net is:  Yet another liberal propaganda talking point busted.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    The ObamaCare defenders seemingly hold two contradictory beliefs:

    1) that ObamaCare is not socialism, because it isnt "single payer" and supposedly is a "Republican idea" that only makes small changes to the health care system and supposedly leaves alone the free market system (what is left of it);

    2) and also that is will fix the current bad system  because it makes health care "available to all" , and it will cut costs by preventing the "greedy" private insurance and  private sector entities from making profits, by bureaucrats running the system.... 

     

    Reason:
    “The new premium rates do not affect a majority of New Yorkers, who receive
    insurance through their employers, only those who must purchase it
    on their own. Because the cost of individual coverage has soared,
    only 17,000 New Yorkers currently buy insurance on their own.”

    Only 17,000 New Yorkers out of millions purchase their own
    health coverage? What has driven costs so high? And why is
    Obamacare placing such enormous downward pressure on rates? The
    Times covers that nicely, too.

    For years, New York has represented much that can go wrong with
    insurance markets. The state required insurers to cover everyone
    regardless of pre-existing conditions, but did not require everyone
    to purchase insurance — a feature of the new health care law — and
    did not offer generous subsidies so people could afford
    coverage.

    With no ability to persuade the young and the healthy to buy
    policies, the state’s premiums have long been among the highest in
    the nation. “If there was any state that the A.C.A. could bring
    rates down, it was New York,” said Timothy Jost, a law professor at
    Washington and Lee University who closely follows the federal
    law.

    Basically, New York state did exactly what economists say you
    shouldn’t do: Encourage people to wait to buy insurance until
    they’re sick and need coverage. The forecasts of cost savings are
    based on the assumption that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement
    that people buy insurance will actually force those young, healthy
    people to pay in instead of waiting until they’re sick or
    injured.

    Except…As Peter Suderman has
    pointed out
    , even the maximum fine of $695 for going uninsured
    under Obamacare is far less than the cost of the cheapest plan.
    That math is easy enough to grasp that many young people are likely
    to continue to do what New Yorkers have been doing, and go without
    coverage until they’re in need of care. Tim Clifford, president of
    ADP Benefits & Talent Management Services, told CNBC that the fine
    under Obamacare “is probably not enough to change behavior.”

    Which means those “lower rates” in New York will probably prove
    to be illusory.



    Why do conservatives always cite the 25-year-old in their examples?  Is it because the 18- 24-year-olds are likely to be students and covered by their parents plans (25-year-olds are also eligible, FYI)?  Or because 26 rounds off to 30, and it feels like an age where young people should plan on visiting the doctor regularly?  Or when they are planning families, and conservatives know that one child birth hospital visit costs as much as five years of insurance premiums for a 25-year-old making $30K.  

    You can almost smell the freshly-picked cherries.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE

     

     

    Prior to Obamacare, if you're a 25-year-old with an "I only have to pay $12K if I get hit by a bus plan" you pay for everything out of pocket.  

    After Obamacare, you're probably not paying anything because you're on your parents' insurance.  

     

    Right....but the parents are paying for it. Maybe you'd be ok with being a 25 year old adult sponging off your parents. To each his own I guess.

     

     

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Puh-lease.  I say it's 50/50 you're typing this from your mother's basement.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Great comeback. So are you saying the parents wouldn't be paying more for having their 25 year old childadult on the plan? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    More than the $92 / month median plan?  No, I think that's unlikely for most families.  The child counts toward the house-hold calculations, so if the family is susidized, it could actually cost more when he/she leaves the plan.  

    California has a cost calculator - plug in the numbers.  A family of four with a house-hold income of 70K pays the same as a family of three with a house-hold income of 70K.  At 90K, the family of four pays less than the family of three.

    http://www.coveredca.com/calculating_the_cost.html

    [/QUOTE]

    Psst...not everyone will be on subsidized exchange plan. So a husband and wife who could have gone to maybe two individual plans, at their respective companies, instead of a family plan now need to stay on the more expensive family plan because Beavis isn't able to be an adult at the age of 25.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE

     

     

    Prior to Obamacare, if you're a 25-year-old with an "I only have to pay $12K if I get hit by a bus plan" you pay for everything out of pocket.  

    After Obamacare, you're probably not paying anything because you're on your parents' insurance.  

     

    Right....but the parents are paying for it. Maybe you'd be ok with being a 25 year old adult sponging off your parents. To each his own I guess.

     

     

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Puh-lease.  I say it's 50/50 you're typing this from your mother's basement.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Great comeback. So are you saying the parents wouldn't be paying more for having their 25 year old childadult on the plan? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    In a two parent household..it would generally not cost more to have a 25 year old dependent on your plan. Most ( not all) insurance plans are defined by Single rate  vs Family rate..so if your family consists of 2 ( husband and wife) or 5 ( parents and 3 kids)..you are paying the same Family rate.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    In many cases husband and wife going onto individual plans at their repsective companies is much cheaper than a family plan.

    Also, many companies offer 3-tier plans: Individual, 2-per, and family. The 2-per is for empty nesters/single parent one child. It's MUCH cheaper than a family plan.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Government doesn't make you choose BCBS, but it makes you choose a plan, or be fined/taxed, whatever they decided it was. That is not Free enterprise or capitalism, that is either fascism or socialism, or something elese if you care to give it a name.

    Well, not really as I would NEVER choose to NOT have health coverage. So the reality is the govt isn't making me do anything. I WANT health coverage.

     

    Government dicitates what BSBS must cover, birth control for example.  the list is much longer than you can imagine. the "choices" of things your insurance company "chooses" to offer is very small and inconsiquential.

    Again....nothing new. Were you outraged when MA made it mandatory to cover IVF procedures back in 1987?

     

    Lifetime caps?  Be prepared for significantly higher insurance costs.

    Same with pre-existing care.  Do you think these coverages are free?

    Your argument fell apart.  Sorry.

    HAHAHAHA....when did I say it was free???? Of course it's not free. I'm a former insurance underwriter...I know richer benefits cost more. But the key to that last sentence of mine is RICHER BENEFITS. We're getting something for that extra cost.

    Now, maybe you don't give a sh!t about people who have a pre-existing illness and as a result can't get health coverage but most people do care. Which is why pre-x was done away with.

    I'm curious...do you not want a fire dept? Police dept? DPW? Should we just police ourselves? If a neighbors house is on fire should the neighbors grab their hoses to put the fire out? Should people be responsible for the part of the road that is in front of their house? Any potholes need filling you should be responsible for fixing it? We should all plow our little section of the road ourselves?

    The point being that we need some level of help as a society. Whether that's having a fire/police dept or having some level of health coverage that EVERYONE should be able to get. 

     




     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Uh...

    All CLC's copy/paste has done is made a case for a stronger mandate.

     

    Either way, it fails to do what the pretenders claim. It does not established that Obamacare is responsible for health care costs increasing. In fact, as the chart skeeter put up months ago accidentally demonstrated, premiums (which are different from 'costs') increased more slowly post-Obamacare.

    That doesn't prove Obamacare slowed them, but it does prove Obamacare didn't make premiums worse.

     

     

     

    Finally, if individual rates through group-bargained exchanges are lower than employer rates, this provides employees with an incentive of bargaining for higher salary with no health benefits...and then buying on the individual market.

    Tell me again why it was ever such a brilliant idea to have health insurance be part of a compensation package? (Apart from the obscene costs even before anyone heard Obama's name?)



    Right.  So, if Obamacare is not raising premiums, and not lowering premiums, wh do we need Obamacare?

     

    The lessons of the free market never seem to sink in t0 the brains of the progresisives, no matter how many times their big government plans fail, or as postulated here, fail to thrive.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Uh...

    All CLC's copy/paste has done is made a case for a stronger mandate.

     

    Either way, it fails to do what the pretenders claim. It does not established that Obamacare is responsible for health care costs increasing. In fact, as the chart skeeter put up months ago accidentally demonstrated, premiums (which are different from 'costs') increased more slowly post-Obamacare.

    That doesn't prove Obamacare slowed them, but it does prove Obamacare didn't make premiums worse.

     

     

     

    Finally, if individual rates through group-bargained exchanges are lower than employer rates, this provides employees with an incentive of bargaining for higher salary with no health benefits...and then buying on the individual market.

    Tell me again why it was ever such a brilliant idea to have health insurance be part of a compensation package? (Apart from the obscene costs even before anyone heard Obama's name?)



    Well, now that you admit that health care insurance is compensation, and not a "right", can we dispense with goverment regulating it out of existence?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Uh...

    All CLC's copy/paste has done is made a case for a stronger mandate.

     

    Either way, it fails to do what the pretenders claim. It does not established that Obamacare is responsible for health care costs increasing. In fact, as the chart skeeter put up months ago accidentally demonstrated, premiums (which are different from 'costs') increased more slowly post-Obamacare.

    That doesn't prove Obamacare slowed them, but it does prove Obamacare didn't make premiums worse.

     

     

     

    Finally, if individual rates through group-bargained exchanges are lower than employer rates, this provides employees with an incentive of bargaining for higher salary with no health benefits...and then buying on the individual market.

    Tell me again why it was ever such a brilliant idea to have health insurance be part of a compensation package? (Apart from the obscene costs even before anyone heard Obama's name?)

     



    Right.  So, if Obamacare is not raising premiums, and not lowering premiums, wh do we need Obamacare?

     

     

    The lessons of the free market never seem to sink in t0 the brains of the progresisives, no matter how many times their big government plans fail, or as postulated here, fail to thrive.

    [/QUOTE]

    Because some things needed to be changed, like pre-x and lifetime max to name two. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Uh...

    All CLC's copy/paste has done is made a case for a stronger mandate.

     

    Either way, it fails to do what the pretenders claim. It does not established that Obamacare is responsible for health care costs increasing. In fact, as the chart skeeter put up months ago accidentally demonstrated, premiums (which are different from 'costs') increased more slowly post-Obamacare.

    That doesn't prove Obamacare slowed them, but it does prove Obamacare didn't make premiums worse.

     

     

     

    Finally, if individual rates through group-bargained exchanges are lower than employer rates, this provides employees with an incentive of bargaining for higher salary with no health benefits...and then buying on the individual market.

    Tell me again why it was ever such a brilliant idea to have health insurance be part of a compensation package? (Apart from the obscene costs even before anyone heard Obama's name?)

     

     



    Right.  So, if Obamacare is not raising premiums, and not lowering premiums, wh do we need Obamacare?

     

     

     

    The lessons of the free market never seem to sink in t0 the brains of the progresisives, no matter how many times their big government plans fail, or as postulated here, fail to thrive.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Because some things needed to be changed, like pre-x and lifetime max to name two. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So, let the market handle them.  It is not like it hasn't in the past.  I've dealt with pre-existing conditions (chronic and serious), and have not had trouble geting health insurance.  Obamacare does absolutely nothing for me in this regard.

    Or, conversely, pass a one line bill, not a 2,700 page behemoth with 13 new taxes, a few hundred thousand new government employees, a two trillion dollar price tag, and a confiscation of our rights to cotrol our own health care, to solve a simple problem, if it is really a problem.

     

    Here's my proposed bill.

     

    No one shall be denied health insurance by reason of a pre-existing medical condition, or be subject to a lifetime cap on expenses.

     

    See?  Easy.  Didn't take 2,700 pages, destroying our economy, and removing our freedoms.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]goverment regulating it out of existence?



    The whatnow?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Health insurance as compensation.  It is now a "right", one companies are forced to provide, given certain broad considerations, and  that we are forced to buy.  The aspect of health insurance being compensation has largely been eliminated by the ACA.

    What's so hard for you to understand?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    So, let the market handle them.  It is not like it hasn't in the past.  I've dealt with pre-existing conditions (chronic and serious), and have not had trouble geting health insurance.  Obamacare does absolutely nothing for me in this regard.

    The market wasn't handling them. Your pre-x condition obviously wasn't that serious since you were able to get coverage without issue. Or you got your insurance through an employer in which case pre-x wasn't an issue.

    Or, conversely, pass a one line bill, not a 2,700 page behemoth with 13 new taxes, a few hundred thousand new government employees, a two trillion dollar price tag, and a confiscation of our rights to cotrol our own health care, to solve a simple problem, if it is really a problem.

     

    Here's my proposed bill.

     

    No one shall be denied health insurance by reason of a pre-existing medical condition, or be subject to a lifetime cap on expenses.

     

    See?  Easy.  Didn't take 2,700 pages, destroying our economy, and removing our freedoms.

     

    And if I was arguing we needed 2,700 pages you'd have a great point. But I wasn't. So you don't. 




     

Share