General Political Thread

[uncool2pillow]

I have heard that some states have had premiums go up, others go down.  There could be a ton of economic factors at play.  One would expect them to go down because you have more healthy people joining the insured.  But now purchasing insurance is a requirement, increasing demand, and possibly allowing insurance companies to take advantage of the requirement by raising or keeping rates the same to increase their profits.

[Guest Don Draper]

can someone explain to me why folks premiums would get higher by the private insurance market being more open and adding millions to its roles?? I just don't get the line of thought here.

Unless youre arguing that their work will drop them or something. Otherwise it doesn't seem to make any sense? Anyone?

 

A doctor of mine was explaining this to me, in the context of her cost-per-visit increasing.  All of the providers have no idea how ACA is going to affect them, and seem to be plucking premiums out of the air in a panic.  Things are going to be erratic for a while I guess.

[Hixter]

But now purchasing insurance is a requirement, increasing demand

If the young and healthy decide to roll the dice and pay the penalty instead of buying insurance, then it could all fall apart if most of the new enrollees are people with chronic health issues.

 

But, as you mentioned, demand will increase. Increased demand equals increased costs for things like food, gasoline and housing, so it's not much of a stretch to assume that premiums are likely to rise.

[KevinG]

If the young and healthy decide to roll the dice and pay the penalty instead of buying insurance, then it could all fall apart if most of the new enrollees are people with chronic health issues.

 

But, as you mentioned, demand will increase. Increased demand equals increased costs for things like food, gasoline and housing, so it's not much of a stretch to assume that premiums are likely to rise.

But the really purpose of ACA is offer more choice in healthcare, thus the markets. If premiums rise you should shop around. (But aca is socialist program right?) For awhile I agree it may be erratic, but every thing will even out.

[Guest Don Draper]

But the really purpose of ACA is offer more choice in healthcare

Pretty sure the purpose of ACA is to provide healthcare, not increase choices.  Or rather, the ACA has many objectives and one of the primary objectives is to provide healthcare to those for whom healthcare coverage has been elusive/unaffordable.

[KevinG]

Pretty sure the purpose of ACA is to provide healthcare, not increase choices. Or rather, the ACA has many objectives and one of the primary objectives is to provide healthcare to those for whom healthcare coverage has been elusive/unaffordable.

But they do this by offering greater choice.

[Guest Don Draper]

But they do this by offering greater choice.

Compelling insurance companies to offer coverage available to all, and a imposing a penalty on those who do not sign up, is not a choice to me so much as access. Multiplying any number of choices by the zero choices the uninsured/pre-existing condition presently have available to them still produces a sum of zero.  Compelling access brings everybody up to a base of one.

 

But we're mincing words I suppose.

[John Smith]

If the young and healthy decide to roll the dice and pay the penalty instead of buying insurance, then it could all fall apart if most of the new enrollees are people with chronic health issues.

 

But, as you mentioned, demand will increase. Increased demand equals increased costs for things like food, gasoline and housing, so it's not much of a stretch to assume that premiums are likely to rise.

As opposed to former conditions where premiums and medical costs grew at rates below the rate of inflation.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

If anything, the ACA will expose the insurance companies as the greedy bloodsuckers they truly are. I have had my premiums in the past rise as much as 16% across the board for the entire company. And this was before the ACA legislation was ever introduced. I guess they don't make enough from auto, home, and life insurance.

[KevinG]

Compelling insurance companies to offer coverage available to all, and a imposing a penalty on those who do not sign up, is not a choice to me so much as access. Multiplying any number of choices by the zero choices the uninsured/pre-existing condition presently have available to them still produces a sum of zero.  Compelling access brings everybody up to a base of one.

 

But we're mincing words I suppose.

 

I guess you are misunderstanding what I am trying to get at.  And truth be told, I can't understand what you are trying to say.  

 

But let me put it this way, one of the purposes of the Exchanges is to offer several competing plans and (in theory) make it easier to find and choose an insurer.  Thus increasing competition and lowering prices.  My God, it is like a play book right out of Marx Engles, right?

 

BTW and I have said this before, the penalty for not having health insurance is way too low.  It should be at minimum the same as the lowest cost average health plan for your state.  

[The High Heat]

BTW and I have said this before, the penalty for not having health insurance is way too low.  It should be at minimum the same as the lowest cost average health plan for your state.

 

That penalty ought to be higher and also be a premium for actual healthcare insurance.

[Guest Jules]

Example: Blue Cross Blue Shield already has about 75% of the Illinois insurance business. They advertise a ton on TV, etc. making them very recognizable in this state. BCBS is also participating in the exchanges. It is feasible (I have no evidence of this, just a theory) they will offer good pricing to get young people in Illinois to sign up (because no one here has ever heard of Lincoln Financial, etc), thereby increasing Illinois market share even further. Hence, less competition, not more.  Then comes the gradual price increases.

 

At least, this is how I would do it if I was BCBS.

[John Smith]

As with many businesses I can easily see bigger insurance co's gobbling up the smaller ones till it gets to the point that there are a few major players I'm each state.

[Guest Jules]

Yep

[KevinG]

Example: Blue Cross Blue Shield already has about 75% of the Illinois insurance business. They advertise a ton on TV, etc. making them very recognizable in this state. BCBS is also participating in the exchanges. It is feasible (I have no evidence of this, just a theory) they will offer good pricing to get young people in Illinois to sign up (because no one here has ever heard of Lincoln Financial, etc), thereby increasing Illinois market share even further. Hence, less competition, not more.  Then comes the gradual price increases.

 

At least, this is how I would do it if I was BCBS.

 

Ok, that is a nice theory, but you make it sound like once you pick a health insurer you are stuck with that insurer for the rest of your life.  The beauty of the Exchange is you can change your insurance (yearly if memory serves).  So prices, start increasing (or services are cut) then you have the option to go elsewhere, through the Healthcare Exchange.  So it would behoove these companies to keep prices low to keep customers.    

 

ACA really is a free market solution to healthcare.  The same problems that you are pointing out with ACA now are the same problems with our current system (and the free market in general).

 

Furthermore this could have been long ago by BCBS (lowering their prices and jacking them up), why haven't they done so and what makes you think they will do so in the future?

[Guest Don Draper]

Lowering their prices and jacking them up? Huh?

 

BCBS also has a strong presence in Minnesota, and seems to be one of the better plans. That being said, I've been at my current job for almost 10 years and in that time BCBS has raised premiums, deductibles, and co-pays every year.

 

So I think Jules thinks they will do that because they do that.

[Guest Don Draper]

Additionally, if one provider starts increasing prices the others are likely to follow suit just because they can. If BCBS raises their annual cost by 'x' amount, the other providers can raise theirs to sums just below 'x' and still be a more affordable option.

[Guest Jules]

Furthermore this could have been long ago by BCBS (lowering their prices and jacking them up), why haven't they done so and what makes you think they will do so in the future?

 

They're not lowering anything. I'm just thinking the rates will be attractive enough for people (specifically single, young) to go with the name they recognize. Increased market share, less competition, rates eventually go up. Also, you're giving people way too much credit assuming they will shop around every year.  People don't like change and in general aren't very smart. When in doubt they will just cancel it and hope to avoid paying the penalty.  Shop around and change every year? I don't see it.

 

We have BCBS and received a 13% increase this year (enrollment is Dec. 1).  Actually, make that 17% which includes the (estimated) 4% in ACA fees being charged to insurance companies which is being passed along to employers. Oh, you haven't hear about the ACA fees?  Imagine that.

[KevinG]

They're not lowering anything. I'm just thinking the rates will be attractive enough for people (specifically single, young) to go with the name they recognize. Increased market share, less competition, rates eventually go up. Also, you're giving people way too much credit assuming they will shop around every year.  People don't like change and in general aren't very smart. When in doubt they will just cancel it and hope to avoid paying the penalty.  Shop around and change every year? I don't see it.

 

So essentially you are complaining about the Free Market here, not ACA.  It is the free market that is the GOP's solution to healthcare.  Also you are complaining that people are too stupid to use the free market as it should be used.  

 

ACA gives the opportunity for more companies to participate in the healthcare market., what is done beyond that really isn't an issue with ACA it is an issue with the Companies.  

 

It sounds like you are making the case for single payer, universal healthcare.  

 

 

We have BCBS and received a 13% increase this year (enrollment is Dec. 1).  Actually, make that 17% which includes the (estimated) 4% in ACA fees being charged to insurance companies which is being passed along to employers. Oh, you haven't hear about the ACA fees?  Imagine that.

 

I have not heard of these ACA fees please provide information.  

[Guest Jules]

So essentially you are complaining about the Free Market here, not ACA.

 

Wrong. I'm not complaining about anything.

[Guest Jules]

I have not heard of these ACA fees please provide information.  

 

Search "ACA fees on insurers" or something like that. It's $8B in 2014 and goes up from there.

[KevinG]

Wrong. I'm not complaining about anything.

 

I see it differently.  

[Guest Jules]

I'm more observing than complaining.

[KevinG]

I'm more observing than complaining.

 

But my original assessment still rings true.  Your complaints observations, are not about ACA, they are about the Free Market.  Insurance companies are going to try to make as much money as possible, as it their purpose.    

 

Also this is an interesting read on how ACA will affect premiums.

 

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-health-insurance-premiums.php

[Guest Jules]

Yes, and I have no problem with that. Where am I complaining about it?