• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

j-mac said:
Simply not true..in fact, reports are that premiums have gone up. People will see, despite liberal attempts to hide the sticker shock...
Click to expand...

Yeah, distorted reports. Have you gone and priced yours yet? Have you even confirmed that you are losing money, or are you just going to take their word on it? Their word is not reliable. See for yourself.
 
j-mac said:
Simply not true..in fact, reports are that premiums have gone up. People will see, despite liberal attempts to hide the sticker shock...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree the prices will go up because Obama's plan offers no protection from insurance companies playing the system. If we really want to contain costs, we should have at minimum had a public option available.
 
j-mac said:
Wow, that's great don!!! And tell me, what happens when that young family of 4 is told that a shinny new o plan will cost them 150% more, and a deductible 10 times what they had, how are they supposed to do that?
Click to expand...

That would be problematic, to say the least. I am not stating that there is no potential problem. My point is that we need to wait until there is sufficient data to draw hard conclusions.

Legitimate risks exist. However, the Florida Blue experience and that of other cases will all need to be looked at more closely before one can reach conclusions e.g., those concerning possible adverse selection, among other issues. The opportunity to enroll, cost of replacement plans, shift in enrollment patterns, and impact on currently covered and currently uninsured persons, are some examples of data that will need to be examined.

My early guess, based on CBO and other analyses, historic experience with sophisticated product/service introductions, etc., is that changes beyond a website fix will likely be needed. The magnitude of such changes (local? regional? national?) and nature of such changes are uncertain.
 
finebead said:
And you seem to buy into the myth of health ins. under the old system, that the cheap policy they could afford, which guaranteed would FAIL if they really needed it when they got a survivable cancer illness that required expensive long term care, that is an OK model. It is not; it is merely a myth that you have a good policy. You have a policy designed to GUARANTEE the heath ins. company a profit if nothing really bad happens to you, and FAILS for you if you get really sick and need a lot of care. That's simply a pathetic system. It's not a national healthcare system, its just a guaranteed profit system for the health ins. industry.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one buying into a myth. You seem to think that not being able to afford insurance is better than having insurance that might drop you. You are trying to counter boogiemen with a program that is currently doing exactly what you fear to millions of Americans.
 
Last edited:
tererun said:
That may or may not be the case. Due to subsidies and restrictions on how much they have to have paid out for medical costs or else they are legally forced to give you a refund it may be less. Why don't you look for yourself instead of bitchin about something you have not even tried. God, why do I feel like a parent trying to get some overly picky kids to eat some food they have never tried before but I know they would probably like if they had it?
Click to expand...

On the exchange, in Ohio, there are 32 plans available for me that range from $444.82/mo to $1,167.42/mo. My current plan is 320/mo and has a better copay, deductible, and out-of-pocket max than the $444 plan.

I'm eligible for $43 in subsidies.

When you make one-size-fits-all plans, with mandated coverage options, like maternity care even for single gay men, the cost will go up.

Also, that "legally forced to give you a refund" amount, if any, will be split between you and the government. Remember, they paid some of the premiums too.
 
finebead said:
All the people who were rejected by the health ins. company death panels due to their pre-existing conditions seem very happy, and they have signed up. That is success, not disaster.
Click to expand...

Why didn't they sign up before now? Each state set the wait periods that people with pre-existing conditions could meet then get health insurance. And don't even pretend that Obamadon'tcare doesn't have a similar type wait period with it's open enrollment periods. Miss that and you are stuck until the next year. And show us where you got your stats from that confirm that everybody with a pre-existing condition is now signed up with an insurance plan. And while you are at it, show us just how many people got their health insurance cancelled because they got sick.

Your political operative talking points have been way over stated to get suckers to buy into them.
 
Fenton said:
You're using a small minority of situations to justify a massive takeover that will result in millions losing their coverage and or being forced to shop off of the exchanges for policies they can't afford.
Click to expand...
That's true, but in those minority of situations, the result is that the uninsured who are seriously ill DIE, while the health ins. companies make essentially GUARANTEED PROFITS since they could drop anyone who cost them too much. Its immoral and unacceptable, unless you can explain how its moral. If you think the health ins. companies were not essentially guaranteed their profits, maybe you can point to a quarterly loss by an established company that was due to excessive illness claims, but I don't remember any in the last 20 years.

Fenton said:
The last time Govt stuck its nose into a large aspect of private enterprise it nearly cratered our economy.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the republican housing bubble and banking crisis of 2008, or the medicare part D legislation passed by the repub house, repub senate, and signed by Bush in 2005 with no tax to pay for it at all, that will cost us $70 billion on the deficit this year?

Fenton said:
Those "guarantees" you speak of under ACA are being financed by the middle class through higher premiums.

That's going to have drastic economic effects on the already sick economy.

The ACA was the worst possible option for "fixing" our health care industry, amd how anyone could have any faith in the competence of our current Presidential administration after the bungled release of the Obama Care website is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Well if you get more, I don't mind paying more. I pay a lot of taxes, always have. I pay for roads that others drive on and they don't pay as much tax as I do. I pay for schools and others attend them and pay little or nothing for the privilege. I pay for the military that defends us all, and it defends many people who don't pay for it. And yes, I am willing to pay more for healthcare for a moral system that doesn't allow the heath ins. companies to make nearly guaranteed profits while their death panels deny coverage to really sick people who need a lot of care. How do you justify that?
 
Samhain said:
On the exchange, in Ohio, there are 32 plans available for me that range from $444.82/mo to $1,167.42/mo. My current plan is 320/mo and has a better copay, deductible, and out-of-pocket max than the $444 plan.

I'm eligible for $43 in subsidies.

When you make one-size-fits-all plans, with mandated coverage options, like maternity care even for single gay men, the cost will go up.

Also, that "legally forced to give you a refund" amount, if any, will be split between you and the government. Remember, they paid some of the premiums too.
Click to expand...

So they are charging you more. Please do tell me how that effects me. It actually amuses me quite a bit, and you could have had univerrsal health care for all, but you wanted to elect the guys who keep the medical insurance people in business charging you to live. You get what you deserve. Maybe next time we can just get the government health plan that we can vote up or down. Obama was going to give us all free health care and your guys insisted the insurance companies get their cut of socialized medicine.
 
jmotivator said:
I'm not the one buying into a myth. You seem to think that not being able to afford insurance is better than having insurance that might drop you. You are trying to counter boogiemen with a program that is currently doing exactly what you fear to millions of Americans.
Click to expand...

You are asserting the boogieman argument with no data to support it, because there is no actual experience with how many people had ins. and can no longer afford it. I have heard some rumors to this affect, and I have heard the rumors countered because these people have not gone on the exchange and priced their option. They were quoting a new price from their EXISTING company, not an exchange price. What I have heard on TV is that others looked up the monthly rate on the exchange and it was lower than the people complaining reported they were originally paying.

This a the reality of the old system, and it is not a myth:
Researchers from Harvard Medical School say the lack of coverage can be tied to about 45,000 deaths a year in the United States -- a toll that is greater than the number of people who die each year from kidney disease.

The Harvard study found that people without health insurance had a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance -- as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The risk appears to have increased since 1993, when a similar study found the risk of death was 25 percent greater for the uninsured.
Click to expand...
Because Fox Asked, Here Are Examples Of People Who Were Denied Health Care | Research | Media Matters for America

I'll wait for your facts.
 
tererun said:
So they are charging you more. Please do tell me how that effects me. It actually amuses me quite a bit, and you could have had univerrsal health care for all, but you wanted to elect the guys who keep the medical insurance people in business charging you to live. You get what you deserve. Maybe next time we can just get the government health plan that we can vote up or down. Obama was going to give us all free health care and your guys insisted the insurance companies get their cut of socialized medicine.
Click to expand...

You can't possibly believe that.
 
finebead said:
Do you deny that the low rates for these seriously limited policies that failed when you needed them most, were subsidized by the death of sick people who were refused coverage by the health insurance company death panels that refused to cover them, and what justification do you offer to their families for this immoral treatment by the insurance company death panels?
Click to expand...

Instead they should have no insurance at all? That DOES sound better. Then maybe the government can fine them for not having health insurance. There are ****ty policies out there, and there are good ones.

If I offered a policy for $5/month but put in writing that I can and will deny all payouts of any kind, and they still take it, that's their decision. The government is only supposed to insure the fair arbitration of the market. At most I think the government should make a requirement that the health insurance contract be more legally clear so that people can make informed decisions.
 
Samhain said:
On the exchange, in Ohio, there are 32 plans available for me that range from $444.82/mo to $1,167.42/mo. My current plan is 320/mo and has a better copay, deductible, and out-of-pocket max than the $444 plan.

I'm eligible for $43 in subsidies.
Click to expand...

Does your employer pay for any portion of your health coverage? The figures the calculator (at least the NY State calculator: http://www.healthbenefitexchange.ny...es/Tax Credit and Premium Rate Estimator.xlsm) provides is based on one's paying the total cost of one's coverage.

If employers eliminated or reduced the share of coverage they finance, then out-of-pocket costs for insured persons could rise, even if the total net price (price after subsidy) of the given policy fell. It should be noted that the subsidy rapidly falls as one moves through the middle income range. How employers respond will be an important factor in determining the ACA's impact on overall coverage, individual costs to policyholders, etc.

For me--and maybe I'm too cautious to speculate--it's too soon to assess the full impact, for example, its impact on middle income earners whose employers currently fund most of their health coverage costs. In other words, even as the ACA should increase coverage for low-income persons courtesy of large subsidies (an appreciable share of whom don't have coverage), one does not know if this will lead to a significant trade-off in terms of out-of-pocket costs and/or reductions in coverage when it comes to middle- or even higher-income earner. The CBO expects about a 4% reduction in employer-based coverage than would otherwise have been the case within 10 years. Estimating the potential effects of the ACA is highly complex, so there is probably a larger degree of uncertainty than for most policy-related changes.
 
tererun said:
So they are charging you more. Please do tell me how that effects me. It actually amuses me quite a bit, and you could have had univerrsal health care for all, but you wanted to elect the guys who keep the medical insurance people in business charging you to live. You get what you deserve. Maybe next time we can just get the government health plan that we can vote up or down. Obama was going to give us all free health care and your guys insisted the insurance companies get their cut of socialized medicine.
Click to expand...

Wow, did you get suckered. None of what you just posted is true, in fact, just the opposite. It was Obama who bargained away single payer and any possible path to UHC as a return for insurance company support for Obamacare.
 
finebead said:
You are asserting the boogieman argument with no data to support it, because there is no actual experience with how many people had ins. and can no longer afford it. I have heard some rumors to this affect, and I have heard the rumors countered because these people have not gone on the exchange and priced their option. They were quoting a new price from their EXISTING company, not an exchange price. What I have heard on TV is that others looked up the monthly rate on the exchange and it was lower than the people complaining reported they were originally paying.

This a the reality of the old system, and it is not a myth:

Because Fox Asked, Here Are Examples Of People Who Were Denied Health Care | Research | Media Matters for America

I'll wait for your facts.
Click to expand...

It is very likely that most of the denials of coverage in a given year are by Medicare who denies the lions share of healthcare claims every year. Medicare denies more coverage than all major insurers combined, and at a higher percentage rate. In fact, of all denials studied, Medicare accounted for a whopping 74% of all coverage denials.

... but don't touch Medicare!

Your liberal source relies on anecdotes and leaves it to you to fill in the blanks as if this is a rampant problem, and people who read Media Matters have a lot of blanks...

So no, your biased source is biased. They refused to tell you that the source of most coverage denials is Medicare, not private sector, and they fool you with the anecdotes that mask the real truth of it.
 
Last edited:
finebead said:
Let's see, you had a policy that was cheap, well, because it was a cheap policy. If you got really sick, like cancer, you could be kicked off that cheap policy. If they didn't kick you off when you got cancer, then the lifetime max would kick in and you wouldn't have health ins. although you desperately needed it. Clearly, you had a cheap policy that did a reasonable job taking care of normal healthcare needs and it failed to take care of major needs. But, since most people are healthy most of the time, most people were dumb and happy about their situation, until they got really sick and they became very unhappy with their crappy situation after they were dropped and couldn't get health insurance anywhere because of the health insurance company death panels that evaluated their illness and denied them coverage due to their pre-existing condition.

Clearly that cheap old policy cannot provide the standard of benefits required by Obamacare (which people need whether their short sighted minds realize it now or not), so the policy must be changed to specify new terms that meet the standard, and at a new rate.

You are guaranteed coverage in the exchange, and that policy will not have a lifetime maximum, and you can't be dropped just because you have or get a serious illness. That's a much better policy.

How is that a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Many don't think it through very well. You, however, did a nice job here. :thumbs::thumbs:
 
Nothing gives me more pleasure than reading the thoughts of people, who don't know their butt from a hole in the ground, whine about Obamacare.

I bet the same type of "intellectuals," made similar comments when Social Security came out or Medicare. Go try to take their Social Security or Medicare away from them now and see what they say.

Carry on with the whining. I'm very pleased to see how discontent and disgruntled you have become. The ways of the world are going in the directions you regressive people hate. And there is NOTHING you can do about it. Payback's a bitch.
 
Captain America said:
Nothing gives me more pleasure than reading the thoughts of people, who don't know their butt from a hole in the ground, whine about Obamacare.

I bet the same type of "intellectuals," made similar comments when Social Security came out or Medicare. Go try to take their Social Security or Medicare away from them now and see what they say.

Carry on with the whining. I'm very pleased to see how discontent and disgruntled you have become. The ways of the world are going in the directions you regressive people hate. And there is NOTHING you can do about it. Payback's a bitch.
Click to expand...

Only thing worse are those who don't know their butt from a hole in the ground celebrating the royal screwing we are getting from Obamacare. Don't fret, you'll eventually have a good day, the mental clouds will clear and you'll have your, "Oh...wait..." moment. :mrgreen:
 
clownboy said:
Only thing worse are those who don't know their butt from a hole in the ground celebrating the royal screwing we are getting from Obamacare. Don't fret, you'll eventually have a good day, the mental clouds will clear and you'll have your, "Oh...wait..." moment. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

You obviously polish your crystal balls more than I do.
 
Erod said:
I'm convinced it's by design that this entire cluster**** happened. Ultimately, give the middle class no choice but to adopt a single payer government plan and put the insurance industry out of business.

But those folks in Congress will be exempt and get an aristocratic plan of their own.
Click to expand...

One would hope you're right. It's only a matter of time before the US comes to the realization that it has to join the rest of the first world with proper insurance coverage for all it's people. A little suffering will likely bring it on sooner. the insurance company death panels will ensure that!
 
clownboy said:
Only thing worse are those who don't know their butt from a hole in the ground celebrating the royal screwing we are getting from Obamacare. Don't fret, you'll eventually have a good day, the mental clouds will clear and you'll have your, "Oh...wait..." moment. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Cutting my premium by more than half? Now thats the kinda of but whipping I can take!

And it is with the same insurance company.
 
tererun said:
So they are charging you more. Please do tell me how that effects me. It actually amuses me quite a bit, and you could have had univerrsal health care for all, but you wanted to elect the guys who keep the medical insurance people in business charging you to live. You get what you deserve. Maybe next time we can just get the government health plan that we can vote up or down. Obama was going to give us all free health care and your guys insisted the insurance companies get their cut of socialized medicine.
Click to expand...

That is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. You must be joking, right? Please God, tell me you are joking.....
 
donsutherland1 said:
Does your employer pay for any portion of your health coverage? The figures the calculator (at least the NY State calculator: http://www.healthbenefitexchange.ny...es/Tax Credit and Premium Rate Estimator.xlsm) provides is based on one's paying the total cost of one's coverage.

If employers eliminated or reduced the share of coverage they finance, then out-of-pocket costs for insured persons could rise, even if the total net price (price after subsidy) of the given policy fell. It should be noted that the subsidy rapidly falls as one moves through the middle income range. How employers respond will be an important factor in determining the ACA's impact on overall coverage, individual costs to policyholders, etc.

For me--and maybe I'm too cautious to speculate--it's too soon to assess the full impact, for example, its impact on middle income earners whose employers currently fund most of their health coverage costs. In other words, even as the ACA should increase coverage for low-income persons courtesy of large subsidies (an appreciable share of whom don't have coverage), one does not know if this will lead to a significant trade-off in terms of out-of-pocket costs and/or reductions in coverage when it comes to middle- or even higher-income earner. The CBO expects about a 4% reduction in employer-based coverage than would otherwise have been the case within 10 years. Estimating the potential effects of the ACA is highly complex, so there is probably a larger degree of uncertainty than for most policy-related changes.
Click to expand...

Yes, they pick up a portion (hidden from me) of the cost, which HR has stated is a "low" %. Absolutely the premium cost would go up on employer based policies if the employer stopped paying a portion, or if that benefit was taxed as income. If it was taxed as income, it would be interesting to see if that would then be subject to payroll taxes as well.
 
tererun said:
So they are charging you more. Please do tell me how that effects me. It actually amuses me quite a bit, and you could have had univerrsal health care for all, but you wanted to elect the guys who keep the medical insurance people in business charging you to live. You get what you deserve. Maybe next time we can just get the government health plan that we can vote up or down. Obama was going to give us all free health care and your guys insisted the insurance companies get their cut of socialized medicine.
Click to expand...

the plain truth coming from an American? You nailed it but it's going to take a long time and it's going to hurt a lot of people first. That is the teabagger agenda. Negativism, tearing down everything they see, and racist hate. You need to hope the GOP house cleaning is soon enough to save what's left of your country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom