B-Man Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 Insurers Left to Guess at Rate Hikes Needed for Next Year By Jim Geraghty Here’s why Obamacare’s perpetual delays and deadline extensions matter: …Health insurers are already preparing to raise rates next year for plans issued under the Affordable Care Act. But their calculation about how much depends on their ability to predict how newly enrolled customers – for whom little is known regarding health status and medical needs – will affect 2015 costs. “We’re working with about a third of the information that we usually have,” said Brian Lobley, senior vice president of marketing and consumer business at Pennsylvania’s Independence Blue Cross. “We’ve really been combing the data to get a first look.” … WellPoint, the biggest player in the online exchanges, is already talking about double-digit rate hikes for 2015. How many insurers will hike rates a bit bigger than normal, to account for the uncertainty? .
keepthefaith Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 Ok, so removing regulations would decrease basement prices. Would they decrease prices overall? Would removing regulations ensure that coverage is more comprehensive, and that more people would have relevant coverage? Or is it just back to "if you can't afford it, you don't deserve it"? For the life of me, I can't wrap my head around any "solutions" that aren't either a universal healthcare system, or a single payer insurance system. I'm open to free market ideas, but I don't really understand how they solve things in this case, hence the (possibly) stupid questions. Is this just an assumption, or has there been proof of increased speed of price increases compared to before ACA? And is that a price increase for the same level of coverage? Our costs at our company have risen dramatically since the ACA began to phase in and we've been warned about near future larger increases. I'm sure we mirror the market based on others I have spoken with. No one here, conservative or otherwise, has ever had a problem with a safety net for those with genuine need. What you need to do is verify the need without people running around yelling how it's racist to make a poor person prove they're poor. We would be able to significantly help many of the poor EASILY if we did one thing well: PROVE they are not only poor, but are incapable of improving on their lot. Make a massive effort to go after fraud. Let's go after people who commit fraud against the government like we treat a white NBA owner who doesn't like blacks. Give it THAT kind of discussion. THAT kind of effort and commitment. Billions are lost in fraud. Step one should be to get it back from every fraudulent act out there, not create a new law that is prime breeding ground for new fraud. That an there should be a cap on government benefits for able bodied, able minded people. Give 'em 5 years or something similar. After that, get your act together or go to your family or your state for help.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 Our costs at our company have risen dramatically since the ACA began to phase in and we've been warned about near future larger increases. I'm sure we mirror the market based on others I have spoken with. That an there should be a cap on government benefits for able bodied, able minded people. Give 'em 5 years or something similar. After that, get your act together or go to your family or your state for help. I say we set the cap on federal assistence to zero years.
IDBillzFan Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 I say we set the cap on federal assistence to zero years. I get what you're saying, but there is no way you can do that with Generation Selfie. The left has done a tremendous job getting people dependent on the government. In Obama's time alone, more people are on government handouts than ever before and few people have any incentive to better their lives if their parents haven't taught them otherwise. Those who do rely on handouts mostly do so as a right of passage from one generation to the next, and they remain a part of a large network of single-parent homes, and that's if they're lucky. It starts, however, with raising the bar for earning free anything. You'll have to listen to progressives cry about killing grandma and starving babies, but they're going to cry about that stuff anyway so we may as well start the cuts as soon as possible. Oh, that's right. It'll never happen. Sorry.
birdog1960 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Ok, so removing regulations would decrease basement prices. Would they decrease prices overall? Would removing regulations ensure that coverage is more comprehensive, and that more people would have relevant coverage? Or is it just back to "if you can't afford it, you don't deserve it"? For the life of me, I can't wrap my head around any "solutions" that aren't either a universal healthcare system, or a single payer insurance system. I'm open to free market ideas, but I don't really understand how they solve things in this case, hence the (possibly) stupid questions. Is this just an assumption, or has there been proof of increased speed of price increases compared to before ACA? And is that a price increase for the same level of coverage? you're not alone. nor can anyone else. hence HMO's, PPO's, medical homes and ACO's. they're all poor attempts at doing what single payer does best while preserving a for profit system. they're incompatible. how many times does the experience need to be repeated on a large scale before that's understood. the only hope is that the ACA is the trojan horse to single payer that many of us think it is. and yes, "can't pay don't deserve" (even if prices for self payers are outrageously inflated) is a fairly well represented attitude, especially here. Edited April 30, 2014 by birdog1960
Keukasmallies Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 you're not alone. nor can anyone else. hence HMO's, PPO's, medical homes and ACO's. they're all poor attempts at doing what single payer does best while preserving a for profit system. they're incompatible. how many times does the experience need to be repeated on a large scale before that's understood. the only hope is that the ACA is the trojan horse to single payer that many of us think it is. and yes, "can't pay don't deserve" (even if prices for self payers are outrageously inflated) is a fairly well represented attitude, especially here. It appears to me that the "can't pay you don't deserve" attitude you mentioned has been replaced by "just come up with a need and someone else will pay for it." Is there no end to throwing money at a vastly inflated continuum of "social needs" that includes cell phones and massages?
birdog1960 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 It appears to me that the "can't pay you don't deserve" attitude you mentioned has been replaced by "just come up with a need and someone else will pay for it." Is there no end to throwing money at a vastly inflated continuum of "social needs" that includes cell phones and massages? no one had to invent a need for the ACA to fill. you've seen the statistics on the uninsured and how poorly we compare in outcomes and costs to other countries (i know because i've linked those numbers before). how can you write something so ridiculous? ,
Dorkington Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Heres the bottom line. Free Market in healthcare is pay in cash, if you can't pay, you don't get. That is where price would come in line with a cosumers ability to pay for services., you would see fierce compeition for people who had money to pay, and you would see crystal clear price transprancy. You would see alot of hospitals close, innovation in pharma and tech would wane, and there would be alot of fellow Americans whose life would be vastly shortened. Amercians in general arent really comfortable with that scenario. Every other system is a cost shifting model. Cost Shifting, Cost Sharing, Wealth Distribution, etc- its all the same. The difference in access, delivery and rationing will be just about the same in a Single Payor Model, Socialized Medicine model or the Private Insurance model- just who do you feel the most comfortable with restricting and trying to limit your care. We argue they are vastly different, but in the end are very similar The best we can hope for is the partial free market hybrid. To me, this means ALOT of money out of a citzens pocket before insurance pays for a dime- it will force people to be thoughtful and deliberate about what care they seek, and were the seek it out. You pay for your penvetative care, you pay for basic services, you pay for the small tickets items. To me, there is no free lunch, everybody pays, and everybody will eventually take. Rarely do I think Government can do somethig better, but I'd love to get State based Single Payor a real shot- maybe it would suck, and I eat crow- but how much worse could it be than the boondoggle we have now, and had in the past? Probably not much worse. I basically agree with you. I'm just trying to keep an open mind for views that are the opposite of mine. Hence the questions. It appears to me that the "can't pay you don't deserve" attitude you mentioned has been replaced by "just come up with a need and someone else will pay for it." Is there no end to throwing money at a vastly inflated continuum of "social needs" that includes cell phones and massages? I think this is where the divide comes in. I see healthcare as an essential need. Many see healthcare as a luxury. If we have national defense, emergency services, public education, and comprehensive food stamp programs... why is healthcare something that is a "luxury" compared to those? This isn't a discussion of giving everyone everything for free, but rather getting people basic *needs* no matter what situation they were born/raised into. We have plenty of money and resources. It makes no sense for it to not happen. If there's a free market solution, great, go for it. I don't care if it's free market, regulated capitalism, or full on socialism. To me, everyone should have unhindered access to healthcare in this country. Edited April 30, 2014 by Dorkington
Rob's House Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 no one had to invent a need for the ACA to fill. you've seen the statistics on the uninsured and how poorly we compare in outcomes and costs to other countries (i know because i've linked those numbers before). how can you write something so ridiculous? , Are you measuring outcomes by life expectancy or are you using something relevant?
birdog1960 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Are you measuring outcomes by life expectancy or are you using something relevant? i'm using WHO data. it's easily accessed. most everyone accepts it as meaningful with the exception of american conservatives who disregard it usually based on the myth of american exceptionalism
Rob's House Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 I think this is where the divide comes in. I see healthcare as an essential need. Many see healthcare as a luxury. If we have national defense, emergency services, public education, and comprehensive food stamp programs... why is healthcare something that is a "luxury" compared to those? This isn't a discussion of giving everyone everything for free, but rather getting people basic *needs* no matter what situation they were born/raised into. We have plenty of money and resources. It makes no sense for it to not happen. If there's a free market solution, great, go for it. I don't care if it's free market, regulated capitalism, or full on socialism. To me, everyone should have unhindered access to healthcare in this country. There are flaws in this logic. First, some medical treatment is a luxury. For example, if I had unlimited resources I'd have my left knee operated on because I have a minor injury, but it doesn't inhibit my daily life so I don't waste the money on it. If I had a broken arm that would be different. As to us having "plenty of money" that's just simply not true. We can't afford to provide everyone with unlimited access to all the most advanced medical technology known to man. I'll use myself as an example: If I had unlimited resources I'd get an MRI tomorrow just to see what's going on with my knee. I'd have all the best neurosurgeons figuring out the best way to treat my slipped cervical disks. I'd take my daughter to the doctor every time she got a runny nose, and I'd get an annual full body scan just to make sure I'm okay. Not only do I not need any of these things, we don't have the resources to give everyone living in the country access to that level of care. There necessarily have to be some limitations on access. Most people agree, regardless of political afiliation or ideology, that there should be some level of healthcare provided for indigents. But at some point you have to have market forces kick in or you're going to sacrifice efficiency and innovation to the point where the net result will be a net decrease in the level of healthcare available across the board. i'm using WHO data. it's easily accessed. most everyone accepts it as meaningful with the exception of american conservatives who disregard it usually based on the myth of american exceptionalism That's refreshing (I assume, I've not reviewed that data). All too often people use the term "outcomes" as being synonymous with life expectancy. It's nice to see you don't.
birdog1960 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 That's refreshing (I assume, I've not reviewed that data). All too often people use the term "outcomes" as being synonymous with life expectancy. It's nice to see you don't. i'm certainly not excluding life expectancy as an outcome. why would anyone except if the results didn't fit their belief system? it's the most objective endpoint one can measure.
Rob's House Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 i'm certainly not excluding life expectancy as an outcome. why would anyone except if the results didn't fit their belief system? it's the most objective endpoint one can measure. Because it presupposes healthcare is the only relevant variable to explain the difference, which is patently retarded.
birdog1960 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Because it presupposes healthcare is the only relevant variable to explain the difference, which is patently retarded. it doesn't presuppose any such thing. it's implicit that healthcare is a significant contributor to that outcome.
Dorkington Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Even with ****ty American diets, if Americans had "free" access to preventative medicine, life expectancy would increase. People would better be able to detect diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc.
Rob's House Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 it doesn't presuppose any such thing. it's implicit that healthcare is a significant contributor to that outcome. So are a multitude of factors which are not held constant in arriving at that number. You're doing what you accuse others of doing. It's not possible that you don't understand why that's a horribly inaccurate indicator.
birdog1960 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Even with ****ty American diets, if Americans had "free" access to preventative medicine, life expectancy would increase. People would better be able to detect diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. while that is likely true, i believe the larger impact would be in access to treatment of these and other treatable illnesses. it does no good to be prescibed a cocktail of pills to treat diabetes and minimize it's consequences if the patient has no way of obtaining them. this is often the case. cue "doc" to cite the oregon medicaid study that lasted a few months.
B-Large Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Even with ****ty American diets, if Americans had "free" access to preventative medicine, life expectancy would increase. People would better be able to detect diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. Interesting. That a primary consideration in the ACA, but I don't know if it has widespread truth in practice.
Rob's House Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Even with ****ty American diets, if Americans had "free" access to preventative medicine, life expectancy would increase. People would better be able to detect diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. I'm not sure if you're addressing Birddog's point, but if you are you should know that anyone who tells you life expectancy is a meaninful indication of healthcare outputs is either an idiot or takes you for one. Let me list a few other variables besides diet and healthcare: Exercise, murder rate, drinking, smoking, drug use, and car accidents to name a few. Not to mention differences in demographics that can contribute to that number due to varying genetic factors. All of these factors and more contribute to differences in life expectancy, but Birddog conveniently ignores them and arbitrarily attributes the lion's share of the variation to the one variable that fits his prejudice.
birdog1960 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) So are a multitude of factors which are not held constant in arriving at that number. You're doing what you accuse others of doing. It's not possible that you don't understand why that's a horribly inaccurate indicator. not at all. it's one of a number of measures from which a correlation on heathcare quality by country can be made. some would also argue that lifestyle issues are also in the realm of healthcare. drinking, smoking and even seatbelt use generally are. another example: in some countries, high risk pregnancies (because of lifestyle) are successfully followed with home visits by a nurse to minimize risk. i can already hear you yelling nanny state. Edited April 30, 2014 by birdog1960
Recommended Posts