Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

"Insurers predict 100%-400% Obamacare rate explosion

Internal cost estimates from 17 of the nation's largest insurance companies indicate that health insurance premiums will grow an average of 100 percent under Obamacare, and that some will soar more than 400 percent, crushing the administration's goal of affordability.

New regulations, policies, taxes, fees and mandates are the reason for the unexpected "rate shock," according to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which released a report Monday based on internal documents provided by the insurance companies. The 17 companies include Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Kaiser Foundation.

The report found that individuals will face "premium increases of nearly 100 percent on average, with potential highs eclipsing 400 percent. Meanwhile, small businesses can expect average premium increases in the small group market of up to 50 percent, with potential highs over 100 percent."

One company said that new participants in the individual market could see a premium increase of 413 percent when new requirements on age rating and required benefits are taken into account, said the report. "The average yearly cost for a new customer in the individual market grows from $1,896 to $3,708 -- a $1,812 cost increase," it added.

The key reasons for the surge in premiums include providing wider services than people are now paying for and adding less healthy people to the roles of insured, said the report.

It concluded: "Despite promises that the law will lower costs, [Obamacare] will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially. The broken promises are numerous, and the empirical data reveal that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law's higher costs.""
http://washingtonexaminer.com/insurers- ... le/2529523" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For-profit insurance revenues need to go down by about 100%.

Problem solver..me!

kalm wrote:For-profit insurance revenues need to go down by about 100%.

Problem solver..me!

So do non-profit revenues. The CEO of Wellmark in Iowa (Blue Cross) got a nice bonus last year.

The CEO received $2,322,821 in December for short-term and long-term incentive pay, according to a footnote in a filing with the Iowa Insurance Division. That’s on top of the $2,623,075 in salary, bonuses and other pay he received in 2012 for leading Iowa’s largest health insurer, the filing said.

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/ ... es/article

Of course they did this while asking for a 12-13% rate increase.

HI54UNI wrote:

kalm wrote:For-profit insurance revenues need to go down by about 100%.

Problem solver..me!

So do non-profit revenues. The CEO of Wellmark in Iowa (Blue Cross) got a nice bonus last year.

The CEO received $2,322,821 in December for short-term and long-term incentive pay, according to a footnote in a filing with the Iowa Insurance Division. That’s on top of the $2,623,075 in salary, bonuses and other pay he received in 2012 for leading Iowa’s largest health insurer, the filing said.

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/ ... es/article

Of course they did this while asking for a 12-13% rate increase.

Agreed.

kalm wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
So do non-profit revenues. The CEO of Wellmark in Iowa (Blue Cross) got a nice bonus last year.

The CEO received $2,322,821 in December for short-term and long-term incentive pay, according to a footnote in a filing with the Iowa Insurance Division. That’s on top of the $2,623,075 in salary, bonuses and other pay he received in 2012 for leading Iowa’s largest health insurer, the filing said.

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/ ... es/article

Of course they did this while asking for a 12-13% rate increase.

Agreed.

How do you think they financed the incentive pay?

Doesn't seem to make sense as the amount of people itemizing the health care deduction on Schedule A would skyrocket with such increases. I already have to do this at today's rates.

Another year, more double digit rate increases...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us ... &referrer=

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Agreed.

How do you think they financed the incentive pay?

Same way they generate all their revenue - by denying claims.

BDKJMU wrote:"Insurers predict 100%-400% Obamacare rate explosion

Internal cost estimates from 17 of the nation's largest insurance companies indicate that health insurance premiums will grow an average of 100 percent under Obamacare, and that some will soar more than 400 percent, crushing the administration's goal of affordability.

New regulations, policies, taxes, fees and mandates are the reason for the unexpected "rate shock," according to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which released a report Monday based on internal documents provided by the insurance companies. The 17 companies include Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Kaiser Foundation.

The report found that individuals will face "premium increases of nearly 100 percent on average, with potential highs eclipsing 400 percent. Meanwhile, small businesses can expect average premium increases in the small group market of up to 50 percent, with potential highs over 100 percent."

One company said that new participants in the individual market could see a premium increase of 413 percent when new requirements on age rating and required benefits are taken into account, said the report. "The average yearly cost for a new customer in the individual market grows from $1,896 to $3,708 -- a $1,812 cost increase," it added.

The key reasons for the surge in premiums include providing wider services than people are now paying for and adding less healthy people to the roles of insured, said the report.

It concluded: "Despite promises that the law will lower costs, [Obamacare] will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially. The broken promises are numerous, and the empirical data reveal that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law's higher costs.""
http://washingtonexaminer.com/insurers- ... le/2529523" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Insurers predict higher rates? Stop the presses!

kalm wrote:For-profit insurance revenues need to go down by about 100%.

Problem solver..me!

Well it seems clear that we agree ACA is a bad law. Now, I am sure we don't agree on how to fix it.

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:For-profit insurance revenues need to go down by about 100%.

Problem solver..me!

Well it seems clear that we agree ACA is a bad law. Now, I am sure we don't agree on how to fix it.

wait

I heard the ACA was great

where do you get your info?

CID1990 wrote:

OL FU wrote:

Well it seems clear that we agree ACA is a bad law. Now, I am sure we don't agree on how to fix it.

wait

I heard the ACA was great

where do you get your info?

Heritage Foundation?

CID1990 wrote:

OL FU wrote:

Well it seems clear that we agree ACA is a bad law. Now, I am sure we don't agree on how to fix it.

wait

I heard the ACA was great

where do you get your info?

kalm

OL FU wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
wait

I heard the ACA was great

where do you get your info?

kalm

I used to like you!

I'm a fan of single payer, removing insurance profits from the situation. However, I do hope the ACA in the long haul is at least an improvement over what we had.

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:
kalm

I used to like you!

I'm a fan of single payer, removing insurance profits from the situation. However, I do hope the ACA in the long haul is at least an improvement over what we had.

If the goal is to insure everyone, then we should do single payer I don't know if I am a fan since my only experience was asking Canadians back in the 90s how they liked their healthcare system and all I asked (from middle to upper middle class incomes) said they didn't know because when they needed a doctor they went to the US But if that is the goal is to insure all, single payer is the answer.

If the goal was to provide help to those that couldn't afford insurance then I would imagine an expansion of Medicaid or some other similar thing would have served the purpose. In my opinion all this did was take a messed up situation and messed it up even more. But I hope it makes things better, and while there are some good things in it, what I understand about it from a policy, economic and regulatory standpoint gives me zero confidence that it will (for most Americans)

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:
kalm

I used to like you!

I'm a fan of single payer, removing insurance profits from the situation. However, I do hope the ACA in the long haul is at least an improvement over what we had.

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:
I used to like you!

I'm a fan of single payer, removing insurance profits from the situation. However, I do hope the ACA in the long haul is at least an improvement over what we had.

If the goal is to insure everyone, then we should do single payer I don't know if I am a fan since my only experience was asking Canadians back in the 90s how they liked their healthcare system and all I asked (from middle to upper middle class incomes) said they didn't know because when they needed a doctor they went to the US But if that is the goal is to insure all, single payer is the answer.

If the goal was to provide help to those that couldn't afford insurance then I would imagine an expansion of Medicaid or some other similar thing would have served the purpose. In my opinion all this did was take a messed up situation and messed it up even more. But I hope it makes things better, and while there are some good things in it, what I understand about it from a policy, economic and regulatory standpoint gives me zero confidence that it will (for most Americans)

Profits will increase. The rest is details.

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:
I used to like you!

I'm a fan of single payer, removing insurance profits from the situation. However, I do hope the ACA in the long haul is at least an improvement over what we had.

America hater!

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:
I used to like you!

I'm a fan of single payer, removing insurance profits from the situation. However, I do hope the ACA in the long haul is at least an improvement over what we had.

If the goal is to insure everyone, then we should do single payer I don't know if I am a fan since my only experience was asking Canadians back in the 90s how they liked their healthcare system and all I asked (from middle to upper middle class incomes) said they didn't know because when they needed a doctor they went to the US But if that is the goal is to insure all, single payer is the answer.

If the goal was to provide help to those that couldn't afford insurance then I would imagine an expansion of Medicaid or some other similar thing would have served the purpose. In my opinion all this did was take a messed up situation and messed it up even more. But I hope it makes things better, and while there are some good things in it, what I understand about it from a policy, economic and regulatory standpoint gives me zero confidence that it will (for most Americans)

California's Medi-Cal program...an extension of Medicaid. Handles the low-income.

And no, it has been around for decades. With the child healthcare programs, coverage for LEGAL California residents is pretty thorough.

Big push has been to provide state funded healthcare to illegal immigrants.