it helps when you don't have to wait a year to cure your cancer
I am pretty sure in places like Canada if it's a life threatening disease you will get immediate treatment.
Obamacare good?
- Thread starter bio-chem
- Start date
I am pretty sure in places like Canada if it's a life threatening disease you will get immediate treatment.
it helps when you don't have to wait a year to cure your cancer
and you know this from never having lived in Canada. because my gf's father in law who is Canadian and does have colon cancer had ZERO problem at all getting treatment in rural Canada close to where Shania Twain lives.
Where exactly in that document does it say premiums go away?
Which document? If you have insurance you don't get taxed, you're not paying a tax AND premiums
Health insurers are privately warning brokers that premiums for many individuals and small businesses could increase sharply next year because of the health-care overhaul law, with the nation's biggest firm projecting that rates could more than double for some consumers buying their own plans.
The projections, made in sessions with brokers and agents, provide some of the most concrete evidence yet of how much insurance companies might increase prices when major provisions of the law kick in next year—a subject of rigorous debate.
The projected increases are at odds with what the Obama Administration says consumers should be expecting overall in terms of cost. The Department of Health and Human Services says that the law will "make health-care coverage more affordable and accessible," pointing to a 2009 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office that says average individual premiums, on an apples-to-apples basis, would be lower.
The gulf between the pricing talk from some insurers and the government projections suggests how complicated the law's effects will be. Carriers will be filing proposed prices with regulators over the next few months.
Part of the murkiness stems from the role of government subsidies. Federal subsidies under the health law will help lower-income consumers defray costs, but they are generally not included in insurers' premium projections. Many consumers will be getting more generous plans because of new requirements in the law. The effects of the law will vary widely, and insurers and other analysts agree that some consumers and small businesses will likely see premiums go down.
Starting next year, the law will block insurers from refusing to sell coverage or setting premiums based on people's health histories, and will reduce their ability to set rates based on age. That can raise coverage prices for younger, healthier consumers, while reining them in for older, sicker ones. The rules can also affect small businesses, which sometimes pay premiums tied to employees' health status and claims history.
The law's 2014 effect on larger companies is likely to be more limited. Many of the big changes coming next year won't touch them as directly as individual consumers and small businesses, though some will have to grapple with the cost of covering more workers or paying a penalty.
The possibility of higher premiums has become the latest focal point of the political tussle over the health law, which marks its third anniversary Saturday. Republican lawmakers have held hearings on the issue, and six GOP members of the House Energy and Commerce committee wrote last week to more than a dozen insurers asking them to turn over internal analyses on the law's impact on premiums and costs.
The insurance industry has also been talking publicly about big potential premium increases in lobbying for tweaks to the law.
The individual market includes about 15 million people, and around 18% of the roughly 149 million with employer coverage were at small companies, according to 2011 figures from the Kaiser Family Foundation. The individual market is expected to grow to around 35 million people by 2016 as a result of the law.
In a private presentation to brokers late last month, UnitedHealth Group Inc., the nation's largest carrier, said premiums for some consumers buying their own plans could go up as much as 116%, and small-business rates as much as 25% to 50%. The company said the estimates were driven in part by growing medical costs not directly tied to the law. It also cited the law's requirements that health status not affect rates and that plans include certain minimum benefits and limits to out-of-pocket charges, among other things.
Jeff Alter, who leads UnitedHealth's employer and individual insurance business, said the numbers represented a "high-end scenario," not an average. "There are some scenarios in which a member could see as much as a 116% increase or over," he said, though others, such as some older consumers, could see decreases. He said the company dwelled on the possible increases because it was trying to prepare brokers to speak with clients facing big jumps.
Other carriers have also projected steep rate increases during private meetings and conversations with brokers. Brokers say they are being told to prepare the marketplace for small-business and individual rate increases as carriers get ready to file specific rate proposals and plan designs with regulators.
Insurers are "not being shy that premiums are going to increase in 2014," and are urging brokers to "brace our clients," said John Lacy, vice president of group benefits at Bouchard Insurance, a brokerage in Clearwater, Fla. His firm has been hearing from carrier representatives that individual premiums in Florida could go up 35% to 50%, on average, and small-business rates around 30%, though it hopes to find strategies to blunt the impact.
Aetna Inc., in a presentation last fall to its national broker advisory council, suggested rates on individual plans not being grandfathered under the law could go up 55%, on average, and gave a figure of 29% for small business rates. Both numbers included 10 percentage points tied to medical-cost inflation, not the law. An Aetna spokesman said the numbers are "still generally in line with what we've been estimating," and represented the average impact in a typical state.
An official with Blue Cross & Blue Shield of North Carolina told a gathering of brokers last week that individual premiums could go up by as much as 40% to 50%, according to brokers who were present. A spokeswoman for the insurer said "we don't have final numbers" yet on premiums.
There has long been debate, even among insurance experts, over how the law will affect premiums. Because the effect is likely to vary, different measurements can arrive at different conclusions. The CBO analysis cited by the administration determined that average premiums for consumers who buy their own coverage would be 14% to 20% lower because of the law—if the law didn't change the types of plans they purchased.
But the CBO also suggested the law would lead to consumers buying more expensive plans, largely because it requires coverage to include certain benefits and limit charges such as deductibles. When this effect was taken into account, the average premiums would go up 10% to 13%, the agency said, though subsidies would ease the bite for most people. The agency also said small-business policies were likely to cost within a few percentage points of the amount they would have without the law.
Health and Human Services officials say competition among insurers, as well as provisions to limit their financial risk from attracting high-cost consumers, will exert downward pressure on premiums, and point to the tax subsidies that will limit many consumers' costs.
Subsidies will be available on a sliding scale for people with incomes of up to four times the federal poverty level—currently $45,960 for a single person and $94,200 a year for a family of four. More than half of the 35 million people expected to be in the individual market by 2016 are likely to qualify for credits. People whose incomes are around the poverty level could see almost all of the cost of their insurance subsidized, while people at the upper end will get only a small discount toward their premiums.
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682?mg=reno64-wsj
The projections, made in sessions with brokers and agents, provide some of the most concrete evidence yet of how much insurance companies might increase prices when major provisions of the law kick in next year—a subject of rigorous debate.
The projected increases are at odds with what the Obama Administration says consumers should be expecting overall in terms of cost. The Department of Health and Human Services says that the law will "make health-care coverage more affordable and accessible," pointing to a 2009 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office that says average individual premiums, on an apples-to-apples basis, would be lower.
The gulf between the pricing talk from some insurers and the government projections suggests how complicated the law's effects will be. Carriers will be filing proposed prices with regulators over the next few months.
Part of the murkiness stems from the role of government subsidies. Federal subsidies under the health law will help lower-income consumers defray costs, but they are generally not included in insurers' premium projections. Many consumers will be getting more generous plans because of new requirements in the law. The effects of the law will vary widely, and insurers and other analysts agree that some consumers and small businesses will likely see premiums go down.
Starting next year, the law will block insurers from refusing to sell coverage or setting premiums based on people's health histories, and will reduce their ability to set rates based on age. That can raise coverage prices for younger, healthier consumers, while reining them in for older, sicker ones. The rules can also affect small businesses, which sometimes pay premiums tied to employees' health status and claims history.
The law's 2014 effect on larger companies is likely to be more limited. Many of the big changes coming next year won't touch them as directly as individual consumers and small businesses, though some will have to grapple with the cost of covering more workers or paying a penalty.
The possibility of higher premiums has become the latest focal point of the political tussle over the health law, which marks its third anniversary Saturday. Republican lawmakers have held hearings on the issue, and six GOP members of the House Energy and Commerce committee wrote last week to more than a dozen insurers asking them to turn over internal analyses on the law's impact on premiums and costs.
The insurance industry has also been talking publicly about big potential premium increases in lobbying for tweaks to the law.
The individual market includes about 15 million people, and around 18% of the roughly 149 million with employer coverage were at small companies, according to 2011 figures from the Kaiser Family Foundation. The individual market is expected to grow to around 35 million people by 2016 as a result of the law.
In a private presentation to brokers late last month, UnitedHealth Group Inc., the nation's largest carrier, said premiums for some consumers buying their own plans could go up as much as 116%, and small-business rates as much as 25% to 50%. The company said the estimates were driven in part by growing medical costs not directly tied to the law. It also cited the law's requirements that health status not affect rates and that plans include certain minimum benefits and limits to out-of-pocket charges, among other things.
Jeff Alter, who leads UnitedHealth's employer and individual insurance business, said the numbers represented a "high-end scenario," not an average. "There are some scenarios in which a member could see as much as a 116% increase or over," he said, though others, such as some older consumers, could see decreases. He said the company dwelled on the possible increases because it was trying to prepare brokers to speak with clients facing big jumps.
Other carriers have also projected steep rate increases during private meetings and conversations with brokers. Brokers say they are being told to prepare the marketplace for small-business and individual rate increases as carriers get ready to file specific rate proposals and plan designs with regulators.
Insurers are "not being shy that premiums are going to increase in 2014," and are urging brokers to "brace our clients," said John Lacy, vice president of group benefits at Bouchard Insurance, a brokerage in Clearwater, Fla. His firm has been hearing from carrier representatives that individual premiums in Florida could go up 35% to 50%, on average, and small-business rates around 30%, though it hopes to find strategies to blunt the impact.
Aetna Inc., in a presentation last fall to its national broker advisory council, suggested rates on individual plans not being grandfathered under the law could go up 55%, on average, and gave a figure of 29% for small business rates. Both numbers included 10 percentage points tied to medical-cost inflation, not the law. An Aetna spokesman said the numbers are "still generally in line with what we've been estimating," and represented the average impact in a typical state.
An official with Blue Cross & Blue Shield of North Carolina told a gathering of brokers last week that individual premiums could go up by as much as 40% to 50%, according to brokers who were present. A spokeswoman for the insurer said "we don't have final numbers" yet on premiums.
There has long been debate, even among insurance experts, over how the law will affect premiums. Because the effect is likely to vary, different measurements can arrive at different conclusions. The CBO analysis cited by the administration determined that average premiums for consumers who buy their own coverage would be 14% to 20% lower because of the law—if the law didn't change the types of plans they purchased.
But the CBO also suggested the law would lead to consumers buying more expensive plans, largely because it requires coverage to include certain benefits and limit charges such as deductibles. When this effect was taken into account, the average premiums would go up 10% to 13%, the agency said, though subsidies would ease the bite for most people. The agency also said small-business policies were likely to cost within a few percentage points of the amount they would have without the law.
Health and Human Services officials say competition among insurers, as well as provisions to limit their financial risk from attracting high-cost consumers, will exert downward pressure on premiums, and point to the tax subsidies that will limit many consumers' costs.
Subsidies will be available on a sliding scale for people with incomes of up to four times the federal poverty level—currently $45,960 for a single person and $94,200 a year for a family of four. More than half of the 35 million people expected to be in the individual market by 2016 are likely to qualify for credits. People whose incomes are around the poverty level could see almost all of the cost of their insurance subsidized, while people at the upper end will get only a small discount toward their premiums.
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682?mg=reno64-wsj
what ever happened to our premiums going down by $2,500.? Did Obama lie to me again so that the insurance industry can profit off the backs of the poor and middle class? you'd think this guy would do at least one thing to help the poor and middle class. But no he lets the lobbyist and insurance industry write the health care law sticking to the poor and middle class once again. shame on you, Obama.
Shame on the entire government, not just Obama.
Bowden
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,798
- Reaction score
- 736
In quotes is the entire problem.
"The company said the estimates were driven in part by growing medical costs not directly tied to the law."
Health care costs are escalating, the private insurance sector cannot control medical costs due to the way that the private for profit sector is inflating what they charge for health care products/supplies that they sell that are used for medical care delivery.
The issue is within the private for profit industries associated with manufacturing and selling health care products/supplies used for medical care delivery, price inflation on those health care products/supplies that are sold over the so called free market to hospitals, doctors.
Insurance premiums reflect the increased cost that is passed along to patients from hospitals and doctors.
The only way to control medical cost price inflation in the U.S. would be to put price controls on what health care companies can charge for health care products/supplies used for medical care delivery that they sell.
If insurance companies were allowed to compete and sell across state lines, an argument put forth by 'free market' capitalists who apply the free market competition reduces cost theory to the health care industry e.g. competition within the free market in selling a product like toasters reduces the price to consumers can be applied to medical care delivery, it still would not reduce the cost inflation associated with health care products/supplies used for medical care.
There are many companies selling health care products/supplies used for medical care that are sold over the so called free market to hospitals, doctors.
Competition on the free market by these companies has not reduced the cost of their products sold in the U.S.
If anything the cost of their products is escalating thus increasing insurance premiums.
Some countries, in example Canada, have price controls on certain patented non generic pharmaceuticals that are imported into Canada.
These pharmaceuticals fall under U.S. regulatory requirements.
Price controls are the reason that the same patented prescription medicine sold in the U.S. and Canada costs much less in Canada than in the U.S.
It is also why people either drive into Canada to buy medicine or they order it over the internet.
Higher costs for patented prescription medicine sold in the U.S. are passed along to U.S. patients whose premiums are increased by insurance companies to maintain their profit margins, wall street quarterly EPS numbers and ROI to their investors.
Last edited:
irish_2003
Board Rep
they're called liberals
exphys88
Registered
Really? Like warren buffet?
irish_2003
Board Rep
warren buffet is a big fraud...he takes billions in tax breaks and doesn't pay a dime in yet claims the wealthy should pay more...he's typical
Ding Ding Ding!!!!! You are right!!!!! The middle class are already suffering and it is only getting worse.......I am really pissed about Obama Care and everyone with that entitlement mentallity.....Just saying.....
and this is why the blue states have the highest wages, the highest GDP, pay the most in federal taxes, have the lowest teen pregnancy rates and the highest high school and college graduation rates and home to 70% of the country's global 500 company's...
more like your type. the ones that know absolutely nothing about the country or economics, only what tv and politicians tell them. the ones that don't READ and actually look information and for answers, the extremely ignorant and the stupid.
Obama care puts a tax on all medical devices. thus increasing the costs for everyone.
irish_2003
Board Rep
you beat me to it...point exactly!!!...
that is just an ignorant statement, you think Repubs give a fuck about you, they only care about their own personal gain.
hypo_glycemic
Registered
You drink way to much Koch brothers coffee, don't you?
heckler7
Registered
California is actually one of the few states in the black, despite all the illegals we manage to proffit. strange?
heckler7
Registered
irish_2003
Board Rep
the koch's companies employ hundreds of thousands of americans in nearly every state combined...they can't be all that bad
heckler7
Registered
if I was president I would just issue everyone a canadien license and tell them to visit canada for free meds
irish_2003
Board Rep
i'm curious now how much the US gives to canada in foreign aid (whether they need it or not)...it's the american way to give away our tax money to everyone else instead of using it to solve our own issues...
exphys88
Registered
He pays taxes and makes them public. He's also giving his entire fortune to charity when he dies. How is that living off the system?
while I don't really agree with Berkshire Hathaway's ability to use insurance premiums to fund investments Buffet is probably one of the least destructive capitalists in the US. he has put actual effort into not participating in the massive non-productive investment opportunities in the US, which are mostly nothing but recurring bubble/burst cycles of overvalued assets.
Yea and you care about everyone here .You care about everyone as much as a stray dog..and you like to line your pockets just like me..and i'm doing it right now as we speak
You lament the smae system that you profit from....
they have the most debt in the nation.
At $617.6 billion, California had by far the biggest total debt, more than twice the total of No. 2, New York, with $300.1 billion owed, according to State Budget Solutions, a research and non-partisan advocacy group.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/08/28/state-debt-report_n_1836603.html
they also have the highest population double that of NY and they are also the state with the highest GDP. but my guess is that you don't understand the correlation between any of this data/information. correct?
like how Vermont has the lowest GDP, debt and population.