• 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!

Obama Administration Confirms Double-Digit Premium Hikes

The exchanges are only part of the story. They're making oodles from people who purchased policies outside of the exchange because of the mandate. Far in excess of what they're losing on policies through the exchange. Greed and lack of foresight is why they're pulling out.

It's not just the off-exchange individual market business, it's the ACA's Medicaid expansion as well:

Obamacare Woes Aside, Aetna Profits Rise From Other Government Business
Revenue jumped 6% to $15.8 billion thanks to plans it sells via contracts with state Medicaid insurance programs and the federal Medicare insurance for the elderly.
Aetna said enrollment in Medicaid plans jumped 9% to 2.4 million in the third quarter compared to 2.2 million in the third quarter of 2015. Aetna, like other insurers including UnitedHealth Group UNH -0.20%, Humana HUM -0.26% and Centene CNC -2.03%, are seeing growth after more states in the last two years opted to expand Medicaid under the ACA.

Companies like Aetna have done fine under the ACA, even if they haven't quite figured how to compete for commercial insurance customers in the open market yet.

my employer plan was $78/mo in 2013 now its $120/mo.

I hate to be the bearer of obvious news, but your employer plan didn't cost $78/mo in 2013 nor does it cost $120/mo now. That's your contribution which is very much detached from the actual cost of your coverage. In reality, cost growth in employer-based coverage over the past few years has been at historic lows.
 
1) "Outrageous" premium costs? Where do you get "outrageous?" Is 6% "outrageous" in the context of health care for the under served population?
blog_premium_increase_2013_2017.jpg


2) Oh, so you're disappointed that Obamacare, which covers about 5 percent of the population, didn't end all price rises everywhere in medical care forevermore? Gee, sorry to disappoint. However, the top graph in the post you responded to above shows that the price increase slowed substantially after passage of the ACA. As I wrote above, "In the years from 1999 to 2010, health care costs per insured person rose at an average annual rate of 5.7 percent. In the years from 2010 to 2015 costs per insured person rose at an average rate of just 2.3 percent."

Apparently you didn't see my initial post about how an open market plan premium for me has went up 700% since the ACA passed.
 
But those premium increases on employer-based insurance coverage have nothing to do with what's happening with premiums on insurance plans purchased via the federal exchange. Nonetheless, both have the same problem with cost containment: not enough clients enrolled across the board. Thus, aggregate cost-sharing has to be adjusted accordingly.

Surely you know that meeting one is going to affect the other.
 
It's not just the off-exchange individual market business, it's the ACA's Medicaid expansion as well:

Obamacare Woes Aside, Aetna Profits Rise From Other Government Business



Companies like Aetna have done fine under the ACA, even if they haven't quite figured how to compete for commercial insurance customers in the open market yet.



I hate to be the bearer of obvious news, but your employer plan didn't cost $78/mo in 2013 nor does it cost $120/mo now. That's your contribution which is very much detached from the actual cost of your coverage. In reality, cost growth in employer-based coverage over the past few years has been at historic lows.

Yes my contribution to the plan correct.
 
Re: Obama Admin Confirms Double-Digit Premium Hikes

Didn't Harry Reid say so himself?

He didn't know what was in it till he passed it.
 
Apparently you didn't see my initial post about how an open market plan premium for me has went up 700% since the ACA passed.

Unsubstantiated anecdotes are difficult to discuss, and almost entirely useless as a means for evaluating national policy. If I were you I'd switch plans. Thanks to the ACA you can, even with what I assume is a pre-existing condition that makes you a bad risk for our dear insurance companies. Maybe some day we'll have universal insurance and you won't have to deal with outrages like what you report.
 
Re: Obama Admin Confirms Double-Digit Premium Hikes

Surely you know that meeting one is going to affect the other.

Well, sure. That's what the ACA was trying to address, but once children of the insured were allowed to remain on their parent's policy until age 26 instead of being migrated over into provisions under the CLASS Act over time and the Supreme Court over-ruled the mandate that states accept Medicaid block grants, the only way the ACA remained viable was to insure as many people as possible at the lower-rungs and hope that enough upper middle-class individuals would buy insurance through the federal exchange. Congress (the GOP) didn't help matters by defunding the law, nor did the POTUS help by pushing the corporate liability back a year (not to mention granting so many exemptions).

While I agree that cost containment wasn't addressed properly or at all (nor could it be without disrupting the insurance/prescription drug marketplace(s) terribly), the law did go in some very interested and much needed directions. However, I think the mechanics of the law hurt its chances to survive on its owe and Republicans at both the federal and state levels didn't help despite knowing how important health care and its coverage is important and necessary for many of this nation's citizens.
 
I agree, the Administration has admitted not enough healthy young people signed up. Obama set the ACA up to fail on that one when he set it up to allow parents to cover their kids through 26 on their plans.

I agree things did not go according to projections for the ACA. I don't blame the insurance companies from quitting the exchanges, when they are loosing money.

Actually, the CLASS Act which was part of the ACA was suppose to allow people ages 18-26 to enroll in a separate insurance program similar to Medicare but would allow participants to use health care benefits beginning 5-years after enrollment. Unfortunately, not enough young people signed up for the exact reason you've specified - they knew they could stay on their parent's insurance plan until age 26. So, why go out and buy a plan for yourself if mommy and daddy can flip the bill for you?

Frankly, I can't say I blame them.

What the ACA should have done was migrate individuals between the ages of 18-26 who were working and paying into Social Security/Medicare from that social insurance program into the CLASS Act beginning in a specific year but allow them to remain on their parent's insurance for a until age 26 or up to five years from the desired effective date. This way the ACA meets the objectives set for itself, as well as, kicking the CLASS Act off on a more positive footing. By giving this age group the choice of staying on their parent's insurance versus signing up for their own coverage, the law effectively killed what could have been a good program for the Millennial generation.
 
Yes my contribution to the plan correct.

Yes, and your contribution is only a piece of the plan's actual cost. The average employee with single coverage this year contributed $94/month. But the average total cost of their plan was $536/month.

So when HHS says the average benchmark premium in exchanges is jumping up to ~$370/month next year for a middle aged person, that's well below what most employer-based coverage costs.
 
Yes, and your contribution is only a piece of the plan's actual cost. The average employee with single coverage this year contributed $94/month. But the average total cost of their plan was $536/month.

So when HHS says the average benchmark premium in exchanges is jumping up to ~$370/month next year for a middle aged person, that's well below what most employer-based coverage costs.

That is also like saying that a Kia costs less than a BMW - while they are both cars they are not the same car. The good news is that the cost increase of a subsidized exchange plan is unlikely to matter to most since the premium portion which they pay (capped at fixed percentage of their income) does not change. The point that SocialD is making is that the employee portion of his employer subsidized plan is subject to change - the employer, unlike the taxpayer for those subsidized on the exchange, is not bound by law to eat all premium increases.
 
That is also like saying that a Kia costs less than a BMW - while they are both cars they are not the same car.

And that's why the plans offered in the HIE are at different levels - Bronze, Silver and Gold.

The good news is that the cost increase of a subsidized exchange plan is unlikely to matter to most since the premium portion which they pay (capped at fixed percentage of their income) does not change.

True. Which is why I'm baffled as to why this scare tactic continues to be thrown out there every time a premium increase is announced. Most of the people who have their insurance through the HIE receive subsidies. Therefore, unless the co-pays increase it's very unlikely their pocket books will be affected.

[/quote]The point that SocialD is making is that the employee portion of his employer subsidized plan is subject to change - the employer, unlike the taxpayer for those subsidized on the exchange, is not bound by law to eat all premium increases.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily true. The only way that happens is if the employer purchased a group plan from an insurance company through the HIE. If they purchased group insurance on the open market, their price is negotiated on a wholesale basis at the time the coverage is renewed.
 
Back
Top Bottom