So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

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

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

    No need to reply as I already know your anwser.

    Just ignore him, there are smarter, much more interesting people to argue wiith here.


  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: So Bloomberg surveyed insurance premiums after ACA kicked in Oct 1 and the wingnuts are not going to like it.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to thehub's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to thehub's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to thehub's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to thehub's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    The left clings bitterly to every article that shows that Obamacare may just work.  I think Rick Unger's article was the last one, proven wrong.  Truth is, no one knows. But, that doesn't mean we don't have expereince that points towards likely outcomes.

    Like the attempted rollout of the websites, the government is proving that government is simply the wrong tool to fix the health care market.  My prognosis is that costs will go up, costs will be distributed unevenly, just like the income tax, and the middle class in particular, will suffer the greatest.  Why?  Because that is the history of government intervention.

    Point to consider:  Do you think there is a corelation between government regulation increasing over the past 30-40 years and insurance prices going up? 

    Only a fool would not think so.  Similarly, only a fool thinks Obamacare will bring costs down, or if it does so, do it by cutting coverage.  This is simple gravity, and the left doesn't get it.

    What government regulation in the 2000s caused health care costs and premiums to double?


    Tons. Go research health care regulations. I suspect the Medicare act of 2003 rings a bell.

    just because Bush didn't push for socialized medicine didn't mean he didn't add to the pile.  The point is that there is a correlation. Other things added to the cost as well, such as new and improved procedures, which tend to be expensive.

    you can cherry pick and try to make some point that in the past, Bush was worse than Obama.  BFD, your object of worship, Obama is one cool dude.  Satisfied?

    now back to the present. Obamacare is going to drive costs up dramatically, and the middle class will suffer.  So, drop the ideological purity and admit your way doesn't work. Read this.


    Medicare part D caused private health insurance premiums to double.  Got it.  A two-decade trend is cherry-picking.  got it.  

    There was no regulation, or action of any kind on the health care front during the Bush years.  



    Part D is for 65 + only. It was needed as the country (no pension plans) RX benefit was very weak. It should have been paid for and that is on Bush. It was needed and could have been better but its a pretty good plan as is. 95% of the cost is covered post the donut hole that every hates. If you dont like the donut hole in part D wait until you see the holes (high memeber cost) the new plans will be. I have seen them. Wow! 

    So why is Part D "needed" and basic health insurance not?

    You've pointed out the costs some customers are facing but the fact is many more people will have at least basic healthcare services, which will reduce overall costs in the long run, and the vast majority will see the same or lower premiums.

    If you have a better solution that would allow everyone the opportunity to receive the same basic healthcare with less of a negative impact on the least amount of people then I'm all ears.

    I'm sure there are tweaks to ACA that would make it better but overall I think it is a good market oriented appraoch that the wingnuts came up with, and implemented....



    Basic healthcare is needed and so in reform. The insurance compaines could not control the rate increase the past 10 years and now ACA has it moment. It will fail as well. My plan. I will keep this short, typing on the IPAD stinks.

    100% covered yearly checkups. No doctor networks. Doc bills uncle Sam and we (tax payers) pick up the tab. Lets catch illness before they become costly. I hate mandates but mandate they everyone gets thier check up somehow. 

    Reduce some of the manadates of coverage and allow the end user to select a plan that works for them. Making us all pay for things we dont want it is silly. Think alacarte to some degree. Change the rules to bring in more insurance carriers in the market to fight fornour business. So many have exited the business. 

    Think like auto insurance. What would the cost of our auto insurance be if we could fill up the gas tank for a copay of $10? Brakes for a copay as well. Nope, we pay for everything until we crash the car bigtime and then the insurance kicks in. We expect too much from the medical plans. 

    Health insurance pays for our healthcare needs. Healthcare keeps going up - lets not reform the insurance market without reform the cost of care. 

    I would disagree w/ your opening statement that ACA is doomed to fail for the simple reason that the inflation in health insurance premiums has already been halved in 2 yrs.

    Is there overwhelming evidence that it is because of ACA? No.

    But your statement in light of that fact seems rather ironic.

    As for your other points, I don't get the sense that you've thought this through.

    How would you cover doctor visits without a health insurance plan in place? That would just be open to so much abuse it would quickly overwhelm any system. Imagine a doctor could just send in random paperwork saying he treated X number of people, and get a check from the gov't. At least with an insurance policy there is a data trail that you can access and review and analyze.

    Your attempt to equate the ACA plans with 'gas for your car' is nonsensical. You have posted yourself, in not so many words, that the bronze plans are inadequate with high deductibles. That doesn't sound like a 'tank full of gas' plan but more like a 'take responsibility for your own healthcare choices' plan because high deductibles will disuade people from exploiting the system.

    As for the cost generators: In my opinion the insurance industry has had a captive market for too long. Collusion between insurers and hospitals has led to skewed pricing models for favored insurers which doesn't allow for competition and charges different patients, different prices for the exact same procedure. This system doesn't allow patients to make informed decisions regarding their healthcare or treatments. The out-of-control and hidden costs of doctor visits and hospital stays precludes anyone but the wealthy from going without insurance, especially families.

    And the most stupid argument made by opponents of the mandate is that people should be able to 'opt-out' of insurance. That is the bass ackwards way of looking at it. It's not about insurance, it's about healthcare and no one opts out of healthcare. If you have a major illness or a catastrophic accident  you - will - seek -  medical - care  regardless of your ability to pay. So the ACA law recognizes the fact that no one 'opts out' of healthcare. What they are 'opting out' of is the personal responsibility that comes the ability to pay for that care.

    To use your car insurance analogy: States won't allow you to drive on public roads without some form of insurance to pay for any injuries you may cause to other drivers. They mandate a minimum of insurance so that any costs that you may incur or otherwise be reponsible for will be paid, and in a timely manner.

    You expect me to solve this very complicated issue on my couch with and IPAD. We are just sharing thoughts. The consumer needs to part of the solution to bend the cost curve. We did not need to hurt 85% of us to help 15%. Perhaps Medicare for those under a certain income level would have been a better plan. 

    Regading rates - not sure what you are reading but they are goig up faster than in years past. Now will the law help in a few years as they predict when so many join in. Time will tell that story. Put me in the heck no camp however. My 15 years in the business, my reading of the bill and my daily talks with so many very experince people in the know make me feel that way. Not my polical agenda.  You may have one or at least it seems that way. 

    Now I know your just being a wingnut shill.

    I've shown sourced articles, including the thread source, which shows the exact opposite.

    So unless you have any data other than your limited exposure to the health insurance market, then such blanket statements like you make are both ill-informed and politically motivated.

    Nice try though, you had me going ...

    So my real life everyday examples mean nothing to you but some article you source tells the truth. Then you name call all over this place like a child. Do you want to talk through our issues as americans on the same team or do want to divide some more? No need to reply as I already know your anwser. 

    Your argument should work both ways...right?.

    I've presented broad, fact based, well sourced evidence that ACA works better than you are willing to admit yet you refuse to consider it.

    And not only do you refuse to consider it or even argue specific points, you post "I know what I know and no contrarian facts will be considered" generalities that are not supported by majority evidence.

    Even in your latest post you choose to ignore the facts I posted that premiums have doubled in a decade and that explosion has been halved in the last few years.

    You extrapolate your experience in a tiny sliver of the market to make general statements like; "...hurt 85% of us to help 15%" without a shred of evidence and yet when I state a contrary opinion, with posted evidence and sources who cite nat'l numbers, you dismiss it out of hand and refuse to address it.

    So sorry if I was harsh but I felt your argument had devolved into you just posting your opinion, which you have every right to, but it's something that is not a basis for debate.

    I view thousands and or discuss thousands of small group renewals  / individuals and the rates are going up more now than before. The rates increases have been a huge problem for the past decade. The market has not fixed in the past and now ACA will try. The early evidence I see every day is very real. Rates are going way up, plans are weaker (trying to reduce cost) and if ACA works will know in 24 to 36 month. Manay groups are renewing early in 12/1/13 to avoid a higher increase.

    One carrier sent agents a spreadsheet showing the rates if the group renewed ealry on 12/1/13 the rate increase would be between 0 and 9% and if the waited to their normal renewal date in 2014 the rate increase would be 30 to 50%. I have seen two groups now benefit from ACA, why? They were loaded up due to health conditions. Ok, great news for them and I am happy to deliver that news. However, someone has to pay for that.The healthy groups (small market) may see very larger increase. CEO's have warned us that some qill recieve 140% increase. Wait until that hit the news.

    I enjoy the talk, I want and we need Healthcare Reform in a bad way. My experince tells me this is not the way to help those in need. We should help those in need. I help low income single moms on a regular basis. It is harder now because of this law.