If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Consumerist)   The Affordable Care Act that requires state insurance authorities to review health insurance premium increases of at least 10%. They can't actually do anything about it. But they will review them   (consumerist.com) divider line 52
    More: Dumbass, Affordable Care Act, premiums, health insurance premiums, HMOs, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, health insurance, HHS  
•       •       •

788 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Sep 2012 at 9:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-17 09:38:35 AM
in America, the State does what its corporate Owners tell it to do. they call that "Freedom" and "Democracy".
 
2012-09-17 09:41:00 AM
fark you pay me, unreasonable fark you pay me, sick and dieing fark you pay me.

/didn't RTFA
 
2012-09-17 09:41:02 AM
They are collecting information, but aren't empowered to take unilateral action. . .I'm ok with this.
 
2012-09-17 09:41:02 AM
The grammatically incorrect headlines on fark that make subby look stupid. The mods actually can do something about that. They should review it
 
2012-09-17 09:41:20 AM
But I've been told this was a government takeover of the industry. Weird.
 
2012-09-17 09:42:40 AM
FTFA: [HHS] says that if carriers implement increases that fly in the face of the department's or a state's findings, they must publicly disclose their reasoning for raising the rates, which should help consumers make more informed choices when selecting health plans. "By shining a spotlight on unreasonable rate increases, the Affordable Care Act will bring unprecedented transparency to the insurance marketplace," the HHS said in a statement.


So the fully informed consumer makes the rational decision to pay more for the provider of his or her choice. Isn't that how the free market is supposed to work?
 
2012-09-17 09:46:18 AM

Wheyfaring Stranger: FTFA: [HHS] says that if carriers implement increases that fly in the face of the department's or a state's findings, they must publicly disclose their reasoning for raising the rates, which should help consumers make more informed choices when selecting health plans. "By shining a spotlight on unreasonable rate increases, the Affordable Care Act will bring unprecedented transparency to the insurance marketplace," the HHS said in a statement.


So the fully informed consumer makes the rational decision to pay more for the provider of his or her choice. Isn't that how the free market is supposed to work?


No, no. A free market means you have a monopoly that sells you whatever they want at whatever price they want, and you have no choice but to purchase it. Any intervention in this system is Socialism
 
2012-09-17 09:46:20 AM

Wheyfaring Stranger: FTFA: [HHS] says that if carriers implement increases that fly in the face of the department's or a state's findings, they must publicly disclose their reasoning for raising the rates, which should help consumers make more informed choices when selecting health plans. "By shining a spotlight on unreasonable rate increases, the Affordable Care Act will bring unprecedented transparency to the insurance marketplace," the HHS said in a statement.


So the fully informed consumer makes the rational decision to pay more for the provider of his or her choice. Isn't that how the free market is supposed to work?


QUIET YOU EVIL COMMUNIST.
 
2012-09-17 09:46:48 AM

Cozret: They are collecting information, but aren't empowered to take unilateral action. . .I'm ok with this.


That. Since there's an organization for each state, each state can probably empower the organization to make rules.
 
2012-09-17 09:47:09 AM
Um, there are plenty of existing avenues for the states to take, but they have to be taken following a review. If a company can dodge getting reviewed they can't, for instance, be prosecuted for price fixing. This cuts off one of the companies' thickest layers of armor against legal action by making not gettign reviewed illegal in itself.
 
2012-09-17 09:47:31 AM
As long as there is a big bureaucracy in place to perform tedious tasks with no end game it is a success.
 
2012-09-17 09:47:39 AM
However, if the company doesn't have at least 80% of its revenue paid out as benefits, the company will be forced to refund the amount below 80% to the customer.

So, if the insurance company raises the rate 10% just to give itself 10% extra profit, and not because they need the money to pay benefits, they will have to refund every nickle.

So, subby, you are and idiot.
 
2012-09-17 09:49:32 AM
Welcome to 0bama's America!
 
2012-09-17 09:50:32 AM
9.9% increases every year then.
 
2012-09-17 09:50:57 AM

Lost Thought 00: No, no. A free market means you have a monopoly that sells you whatever they want at whatever price they want, and you have no choice but to purchase it. Any intervention in this system is Socialism


Like if you had some sort of mandate to purchase it?
 
2012-09-17 09:51:08 AM

maddogdelta: However, if the company doesn't have at least 80% of its revenue paid out as benefits, the company will be forced to refund the amount below 80% to the customer.

So, if the insurance company raises the rate 10% just to give itself 10% extra profit, and not because they need the money to pay benefits, they will have to refund every nickle.

So, subby, you are and idiot.


Idiot doesn't even begin to describe consumerist readers.
 
2012-09-17 09:51:39 AM
I can't wait for this to be in full effect.

This is the first time in my life that I have seen the American government make progress on anything.
 
2012-09-17 09:56:23 AM
Stop electing Republicans. Problem(s) solved.
 
2012-09-17 09:57:10 AM
Reviews are a good thing, they provide transparency.
 
2012-09-17 09:57:55 AM
I don't know about health insurance, but in Louisiana, home insurance premium rate increases have to be approved by the Commissioner of Insurance. It's been that way for a long time. I'll have to look up whether or not that applies to health insurance.
 
2012-09-17 09:58:36 AM

Biff_Steel: Welcome to 0bama's America!


In his defense, in Romney's America you would die and your body used as stable cleaner for Mitt's Dancing Horse to pay off your medical expenses. Which would be enormous, of course.
 
2012-09-17 09:59:51 AM

Nabb1: I don't know about health insurance, but in Louisiana, home insurance premium rate increases have to be approved by the Commissioner of Insurance. It's been that way for a long time. I'll have to look up whether or not that applies to health insurance.


Apparently only as to Medicare supplemental coverage.
 
2012-09-17 10:00:45 AM

Wheyfaring Stranger: So the fully informed consumer makes the rational decision to pay more for the provider of his or her choice. Isn't that how the free market is supposed to work?


Sort of. It's VERY difficult to be fully informed about health insurance though.

Aetna, for all their myriad faults, was actually pretty good about putting their "clinical policy bulletins" online. They informed me about lots of the gory details of what they didn't cover under which circumstances, and laid out some of the hoops I'd have to jump through.

Most insurers treat that information like nuclear launch codes.
 
2012-09-17 10:11:24 AM
And in 2013 a new form of government was born. The corporatocracy stepped out from the shadows and officially claimed control of all branches of government.
 
2012-09-17 10:13:34 AM
As opposed to what, deciding on a path or assigning powers first, THEN gathering the information?
 
2012-09-17 10:22:42 AM

maddogdelta: However, if the company doesn't have at least 80% of its revenue paid out as benefits, the company will be forced to refund the amount below 80% to the customer.

So, if the insurance company raises the rate 10% just to give itself 10% extra profit, and not because they need the money to pay benefits, they will have to refund every nickle.

So, subby, you are and idiot.


Whatever MLR any given health insurance company reports, it's irrelevant given that they reclassify administrative expenses as medical expenses. [1] [2]
 
2012-09-17 10:26:37 AM

serial_crusher: Lost Thought 00: No, no. A free market means you have a monopoly that sells you whatever they want at whatever price they want, and you have no choice but to purchase it. Any intervention in this system is Socialism

Like if you had some sort of mandate to purchase it?


Like if you had an unregulated industry selling the very substance of life
 
2012-09-17 10:31:13 AM

Arkanaut: 9.9% increases every year then.


That won't work, either. A minimum of 80% of the costs have to be used for medical care. Profits, bonuses, marketing, and overhead do not count into that 80%. If the 9.9% is just for profit, the insurance companies have to return the money as a rebate.

Obamacare thwarts your dastardly plan.
 
2012-09-17 10:31:38 AM
Review boards with no authority to regulate.

Mandate enforcement turned over to the IRS who does not have the authority to collect if you don't pay your healthcare tax. .

I sense a trend here...
 
2012-09-17 10:40:41 AM

DeaH: Arkanaut: 9.9% increases every year then.

That won't work, either. A minimum of 80% of the costs have to be used for medical care. Profits, bonuses, marketing, and overhead do not count into that 80%. If the 9.9% is just for profit, the insurance companies have to return the money as a rebate.

Obamacare thwarts your dastardly plan.


Curse you Obamacare! I was going to create so many jobs!

/at the country club, but still.
 
2012-09-17 10:48:04 AM
Last I heard, premium increases this year are, on average, around half of what they were in the last five years.

That's actual progress. It really is a big farking deal.
 
2012-09-17 10:48:41 AM
You're right, we should have Single Payer. I agree.
 
2012-09-17 10:51:38 AM

LazarusLong42: Last I heard, premium increases this year are, on average, around half of what they were in the last five years.

That's actual progress. It really is a big farking deal.


You need to hear more. Depending on the size of the business and structure of the health plan, many are looking at 15 to 25 percent increases in premiums. That is not good by any measure.
 
2012-09-17 10:53:31 AM

LazarusLong42: Last I heard, premium increases this year are, on average, around half of what they were in the last five years.

That's actual progress. It really is a big farking deal.


Remember when Obama got made fun of over the phrase "bending the cost curve"? We'll be laughing about that as we (consumers) pay down our other debts.
 
2012-09-17 11:01:20 AM

Cletus C.: LazarusLong42: Last I heard, premium increases this year are, on average, around half of what they were in the last five years.

That's actual progress. It really is a big farking deal.

You need to hear more. Depending on the size of the business and structure of the health plan, many are looking at 15 to 25 percent increases in premiums. That is not good by any measure.


Even if that measure is "half of the year before"? That seems arbitrarily obtuse.
 
2012-09-17 11:04:41 AM

LasersHurt: Cletus C.: LazarusLong42: Last I heard, premium increases this year are, on average, around half of what they were in the last five years.

That's actual progress. It really is a big farking deal.

You need to hear more. Depending on the size of the business and structure of the health plan, many are looking at 15 to 25 percent increases in premiums. That is not good by any measure.

Even if that measure is "half of the year before"? That seems arbitrarily obtuse.


Again, it depends on the size of the company and structure of the plan. The numbers for many, if not most, are not better and even worse in some cases.
 
2012-09-17 11:07:51 AM

Cletus C.: LazarusLong42: Last I heard, premium increases this year are, on average, around half of what they were in the last five years.

That's actual progress. It really is a big farking deal.

You need to hear more. Depending on the size of the business and structure of the health plan, many are looking at 15 to 25 percent increases in premiums. That is not good by any measure.


Define many, please. I want percentage of total.
If the increases for many are so huge, the decreases for the rest must also be huge to reduce the overall by half.
 
2012-09-17 11:08:37 AM

Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: LazarusLong42: Last I heard, premium increases this year are, on average, around half of what they were in the last five years.

That's actual progress. It really is a big farking deal.

You need to hear more. Depending on the size of the business and structure of the health plan, many are looking at 15 to 25 percent increases in premiums. That is not good by any measure.

Even if that measure is "half of the year before"? That seems arbitrarily obtuse.

Again, it depends on the size of the company and structure of the plan. The numbers for many, if not most, are not better and even worse in some cases.


Is the point you're trying to make that many businesses had their health plans structured in ways that were not congruous with the ACA requirements and, therefore, have to pay significantly more in premiums to be in compliance? If so, you're not at all disputing the previous point, just making one about a different facet of the ACA consequences.
 
2012-09-17 11:22:09 AM

urbangirl: Cletus C.: LazarusLong42: Last I heard, premium increases this year are, on average, around half of what they were in the last five years.

That's actual progress. It really is a big farking deal.

You need to hear more. Depending on the size of the business and structure of the health plan, many are looking at 15 to 25 percent increases in premiums. That is not good by any measure.

Define many, please. I want percentage of total.
If the increases for many are so huge, the decreases for the rest must also be huge to reduce the overall by half.


2013 Health coverage for businesses is still being negotiated in most cases. The numbers are not looking good at all for many. The overall reduction number is speculation or based an a small sampling.
 
2012-09-17 11:22:27 AM

uksocal: Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: LazarusLong42: Last I heard, premium increases this year are, on average, around half of what they were in the last five years.

That's actual progress. It really is a big farking deal.

You need to hear more. Depending on the size of the business and structure of the health plan, many are looking at 15 to 25 percent increases in premiums. That is not good by any measure.

Even if that measure is "half of the year before"? That seems arbitrarily obtuse.

Again, it depends on the size of the company and structure of the plan. The numbers for many, if not most, are not better and even worse in some cases.

Is the point you're trying to make that many businesses had their health plans structured in ways that were not congruous with the ACA requirements and, therefore, have to pay significantly more in premiums to be in compliance? If so, you're not at all disputing the previous point, just making one about a different facet of the ACA consequences.


So, some people will have to pay 15% more in order to not get denied coverage when they get cancer?

I'm ok with this.
 
2012-09-17 11:23:01 AM

Arkanaut: 9.9% increases every year then.


This is not a joke; this is a real thing that insurers are doing. I have done this for an insurer in a Midwestern state.
 
2012-09-17 11:23:40 AM

uksocal: Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: LazarusLong42: Last I heard, premium increases this year are, on average, around half of what they were in the last five years.

That's actual progress. It really is a big farking deal.

You need to hear more. Depending on the size of the business and structure of the health plan, many are looking at 15 to 25 percent increases in premiums. That is not good by any measure.

Even if that measure is "half of the year before"? That seems arbitrarily obtuse.

Again, it depends on the size of the company and structure of the plan. The numbers for many, if not most, are not better and even worse in some cases.

Is the point you're trying to make that many businesses had their health plans structured in ways that were not congruous with the ACA requirements and, therefore, have to pay significantly more in premiums to be in compliance? If so, you're not at all disputing the previous point, just making one about a different facet of the ACA consequences.


I'm saying the ACA is making little or no difference in what many, if not most, companies need to pay for coverage in 2013. Maybe that changes in future years but it isn't happening yet.
 
2012-09-17 11:26:25 AM

Cletus C.: LazarusLong42: Last I heard, premium increases this year are, on average, around half of what they were in the last five years.

That's actual progress. It really is a big farking deal.

You need to hear more. Depending on the size of the business and structure of the health plan, many are looking at 15 to 25 percent increases in premiums. That is not good by any measure.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/business/health-care-premiums-rise- m odestly-report-says.html

http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2012/8345.pdf

Numbers from the actual report:

Average increase from last year to this year: 4.5%.
Average increase the previous year: 9.5%.
Ten-year average (2001-2011): 7.9% per year.
Five-year average (2001-2006, pre-recession): 10.2% per year.
Five-year average (2006-2011, most in recession): 5.6% per year.
Only change lower than 4% in the last ten years: 3.0% from 2009-2010, after the worst year of the recession.

I would love to know who's getting an increase of 15-25%. It can't be that many people if the average is 4.5%.,
You'll note that this year
 
2012-09-17 11:27:07 AM
No clue what I did at the end there. The numbers are the important part.
 
2012-09-17 11:27:27 AM

DeaH: Arkanaut: 9.9% increases every year then.

That won't work, either. A minimum of 80% of the costs have to be used for medical care. Profits, bonuses, marketing, and overhead do not count into that 80%. If the 9.9% is just for profit, the insurance companies have to return the money as a rebate.


And again, the insurers are one step ahead of us. Because rebates are paid based on the MLR for contracts with locus in a given state and insurance market, it's not hard at all to carve up the products in such a way that the unprofitable ones get a 30% increase, the profitable ones get zero increases, and the whole thing averages up to 9.9. And if they have to pay a rebate, they have had analysts working for 2+ years to figure out how to minimize them.
 
2012-09-17 11:29:36 AM

Cletus C.: uksocal: Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: LazarusLong42: Last I heard, premium increases this year are, on average, around half of what they were in the last five years.

That's actual progress. It really is a big farking deal.

You need to hear more. Depending on the size of the business and structure of the health plan, many are looking at 15 to 25 percent increases in premiums. That is not good by any measure.

Even if that measure is "half of the year before"? That seems arbitrarily obtuse.

Again, it depends on the size of the company and structure of the plan. The numbers for many, if not most, are not better and even worse in some cases.

Is the point you're trying to make that many businesses had their health plans structured in ways that were not congruous with the ACA requirements and, therefore, have to pay significantly more in premiums to be in compliance? If so, you're not at all disputing the previous point, just making one about a different facet of the ACA consequences.

I'm saying the ACA is making little or no difference in what many, if not most, companies need to pay for coverage in 2013. Maybe that changes in future years but it isn't happening yet.


Would you have expected it to have been a smaller increase this year? To get additional employees signed up, and up the level of coverage, which presumably needs to occur at many companies to be in compliance, the overall cost would increase, rather substantially. But, looking at premiums on policies that are staying the same from the previous year, it appears that the rate of increase has decreased, perhaps even halved as the previous poster mentioned.
 
2012-09-17 11:34:50 AM

devek: I can't wait for this to be in full effect.

This is the first time in my life that I have seen the American government make progress on anything.


There's e-file, and selling channels for cell service, improved disaster prediction/monitoring, and, uh...

Geez. I can't think of anything else the Feds have done that's improved my life directly since 1982.
 
2012-09-17 11:38:19 AM
Keep it up you greedy asshats, you're making single payer look better and better everyday.
 
2012-09-17 11:41:41 AM
GOP STRATEGERY:

(1) refuse to vote for fiscally conservative, single-payer plan
(2) complain about effects of choosing to follow (1)
(3) repeat
 
2012-09-17 05:22:46 PM

gameshowhost: GOP STRATEGERY:

(1) refuse to vote for fiscally conservative, single-payer plan
(2) complain about effects of choosing to follow (1)
(2a) hate themselves SO MUCH for lusting after those stupid sexy gays
(3) repeat


I assume it's a part of their every thought process.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report