Obama Administration Confirms Double-Digit Premium Hikes

[SocialD]

If that's what the Administration confirmed, can you just IMAGINE the truth?

Ive been checking health insurance costs regularly for years.

I have health insurance through my work which is mediocre but I check healthcare.gov and the open market costs on ehealthinsurance.com every year.
Last year the bottom of the barrel ($6,650 deductible with $30 copay and 50% coninsurance on most things) bronze plan for me only on healthcare.gov would have been $295.00 per month. This year ( I just checked a few minutes ago ) it is 327.36/mo. so an 11% increase.
Sad thing is a plan like that in 2010 when the ACA was passed only cost about $46/mo for me. a 700% increase in health insurance premiums for me over 6 years.
Luckily, I suppose, I can get insurance through my work for about $120/mo

 

[Fletch]

Re: Obama Admin Confirms Double-Digit Premium Hikes

You guys are forgetting two things concerning both the ACA and these premium hikes:

1) The ACA was meant to be a "wholesale" enrollment program and, thus, mirror how employees in the private sector (corporate world) generally receive their health insurance. The more people enroll as part of a "package deal", the cheaper the overall cost because premium pricing is shared across the aggregate of consumers.

2) The premium hikes will only affect those who purchase mid-level (Silver) plans or higher. So, if you receive insurance coverage through your employer OR a basic (Bronze) plan from the government health insurance exchange, these rate hikes don't apply to you since your premiums are already "subsidized" in some way.

From the OP article:

So who are the people whose premiums are going up by an average of 25%?

 

[humbolt]

Re: Obama Admin Confirms Double-Digit Premium Hikes

So who are the people whose premiums are going up by an average of 25%?

They aren't in Arizona.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/health/2016/10/19/obamacare-arizona-two-remaining-health-insurers-hike-rates-by-half-and-three-fourth/92374528/

 

[danielpalos]

Re: Obama Admin Confirms Double-Digit Premium Hikes

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, means more market participants sharing costs.

 

[Napoleon]

3) The prices were kept artificially lower in the startup years by subsidizing the insurers losses.

4) The program insured that only the sickest and most expensive patients would buy into the system.


They've been touting the "savings" in Obamacare entirely on the huge sums of money being dumped into the system to cover the unsustainable losses by insurers.

Now the subsidies are gone and insurers have to charge directly for their costs... and TA DA! Huge price increases and death spiral.

What "unsustainable losses" by which insurers?

 

[azgreg]

Re: Obama Admin Confirms Double-Digit Premium Hikes

They aren't in Arizona.

'Obamacare' in Arizona: 2 remaining insurers hike rates by 50-75 percent

Well, if you're going to hike the rates don't screw around.

 

[The Mark]

Ive been checking health insurance costs regularly for years.

I have health insurance through my work which is mediocre but I check healthcare.gov and the open market costs on ehealthinsurance.com every year.
Last year the bottom of the barrel ($6,650 deductible with $30 copay and 50% coninsurance on most things) bronze plan for me only on healthcare.gov would have been $295.00 per month. This year ( I just checked a few minutes ago ) it is 327.36/mo. so an 11% increase.
Sad thing is a plan like that in 2010 when the ACA was passed only cost about $46/mo for me. a 700% increase in health insurance premiums for me over 6 years.
Luckily, I suppose, I can get insurance through my work for about $120/mo

I've checked the ACA prices recently myself - I am unable to afford them. Hopefully the fine for not getting health insurance doesn't rise too high.

 

[jpn]

Funny how the headlines in the "liberal media" wasn't: "Sharp Slowing of Insurance Costs Under Obamacare"

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.

About 5 percent of Americans are covered by exchanges, where this increase in premiums is taking place. The vast majority of us are covered by employers or gov't-provided insurance like Medicare. So for the great majority of Americans, the premium increases don't affect them at all. The restraint in health care costs overall, however, have helped us all.

As for the 5 percent covered by the Obamacare exchanges, the great majority get subsidies and their total cost is capped to a percent of their income.

Conservative crocodile tears notwithstanding, all that's happening is that after being under-priced for years, Obamacare premiums are finally catching up to the original estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

 

[jmotivator]

Because that's working well with the VA. Just ask the Vets who died while on a "waiting list".

Yeah, but you know they don't really care about that.

 

[jmotivator]

What "unsustainable losses" by which insurers?

Seriously?

 

[tres borrachos]

Re: Obama Admin Confirms Double-Digit Premium Hikes

It was NOT sold that way at all. The promises by Obama included an average savings of $2500. Now we are looking at an average increase next year of 25%. That is massive and in many cases, unaffordable. This was predicted and now you are blaming others for a crappy law. That sort of behavior from liberals was predicted as well.

This absolutely was predicted. The Republicans said this would happen, and it is.

They should have pitched the ACA as what it is - an entitlement program. It does almost nothing to contain costs for the rest of us. There are some good elements for some people, particularly the pre-existing conditions clause and the children on your policy until 26 thing. But other than that, it does nothing for most Americans.

The Republicans running for election need to exploit the hell out of this. If the GOP had a real nominee for POTUS instead of that phony Trump, this would be mentioned on the trail day in and day out, with impact. Instead Trump is babbling about suing his accusers.

 

[jmotivator]

Do you have a source for this graph that gives the actual data? Does it count the added cost of the subsidies funneled to the insurers to cover losses? The CBO didn't do an estimate of losses to the insurers or the money we taxpayers paid to bail them out.

 

[Napoleon]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. For all their crocodile tears, Aetna is a massively profitable company.

 

[jmotivator]

Yes, seriously. For all their crocodile tears, Aetna is a massively profitable company.

They are profitable company -- though they are a volume rather than a margin profit generator -- but they lose money in Obamacare plans, that is why they are pulling out. This is a reality playing out with numerous insurers and the end of Obamacare subsidies is finally exposing what the ACA defenders have refused to believe.

 

[Napoleon]

They are profitable company -- though they are a volume rather than a margin profit generator -- but they lose money in Obamacare plans, that is why they are pulling out. This is a reality playing out with numerous insurers and the end of Obamacare subsidies is finally exposing what the ACA defenders have refused to believe.

In no way can it be characterized as "unsustainable loss." They're losing money on some policies, but they take that risk whenever they onboard new policyholders. That's what insurance is. You aren't exposing anything. Nobody ever said that we were creating a risk-free environment for insurers and the reality is that Aetna has done extremely well overall. Obamacare blew open a large and previously untapped market with the mandate. Their profits and stock price reflect that.

 

[mike2810]

In no way can it be characterized as "unsustainable loss." They're losing money on some policies, but they take that risk whenever they onboard new policyholders. That's what insurance is. You aren't exposing anything. Nobody ever said that we were creating a risk-free environment for insurers and the reality is that Aetna has done extremely well overall. Obamacare blew open a large and previously untapped market with the mandate. Their profits and stock price reflect that.

If it is so profitable for the insurance companies, explain why so many are pulling out of the ACA exchanges.?

 

[Objective Voice]

Re: Obama Admin Confirms Double-Digit Premium Hikes

So who are the people whose premiums are going up by an average of 25%?

:doh Reading comprehension...

Once again, read subparagraph 2) and the accompanying caption from the OP article, towit:

You guys are forgetting two things concerning both the ACA and these premium hikes:

1) The ACA was meant to be a "wholesale" enrollment program and, thus, mirror how employees in the private sector (corporate world) generally receive their health insurance. The more people enroll as part of a "package deal", the cheaper the overall cost because premium pricing is shared across the aggregate of consumers.

2) The premium hikes will only affect those who purchase mid-level (Silver) plans or higher. So, if you receive insurance coverage through your employer OR a basic (Bronze) plan from the government health insurance exchange, these rate hikes don't apply to you since your premiums are already "subsidized" in some way.

From the OP article:

The vast majority of the more than 10 million customers who purchase through HealthCare.gov and its state-run counterparts do receive generous financial assistance. "Enrollment is concentrated among very low-income individuals who receive significant government subsidies to reduce premiums and cost-sharing," said Caroline Pearson of the consulting firm Avalere Health

But an estimated 5 million to 7 million people are either not eligible for the income-based assistance, or they buy individual policies outside of the health law's markets, where the subsidies are not available. The administration is urging the latter group to check out HealthCare.gov. The spike in premiums generally does not affect the employer-provided plans that cover most workers and their families.

Now, if your question was really about specific racial demographics, I would suspect that the overwhelming number of them would be upper middle-class whites as opposed to lower middle-class/low-income minorities and that's just me being true to the latest Census data that indicates that fewer minorities earn incomes above the median level ($52K/annually). If you want to go further and categorize the issue as working-class -vs- labor-class, well, the working-class would be more affected at the higher income brackets. However, in the aggregate few among the insured would be impacted by this premium hike.

 

[Napoleon]

If it is so profitable for the insurance companies, explain why so many are pulling out of the ACA exchanges.?

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.

 

[danielpalos]

We needed to privatize costs instead of socialize costs for any capital plan to work with the private sector.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; could help solve for that market based inefficiency.

 

[mike2810]

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.

Your premise is not holding up. You basically eluded to the fact that the ACA exchange was making them profits. Now you have waivered away from that. Seems reasonable for the company to withdraw if the ACA exchange is only break even or losing money for them.

So in the end the ACA is a not only costing insurance companies, it is costing taxpayers.

 

[SocialD]

Funny how the headlines in the "liberal media" wasn't: "Sharp Slowing of Insurance Costs Under Obamacare"

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.

About 5 percent of Americans are covered by exchanges, where this increase in premiums is taking place. The vast majority of us are covered by employers or gov't-provided insurance like Medicare. So for the great majority of Americans, the premium increases don't affect them at all. The restraint in health care costs overall, however, have helped us all.

As for the 5 percent covered by the Obamacare exchanges, the great majority get subsidies and their total cost is capped to a percent of their income.

Conservative crocodile tears notwithstanding, all that's happening is that after being under-priced for years, Obamacare premiums are finally catching up to the original estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

Two issues here. so the CBO predicts outrageous premium costs and the premium costs end up being not quite a outrageous as predicted.. at least at first. that does not mean they were good.
You also seem to be assuming that employers are not also increasing premiums. which they are. my employer plan was $78/mo in 2013 now its $120/mo.
Not as bad as the gov plans but the increase is far far outpacing CPI and inflationary indexes.

 

[Objective Voice]

Your premise is not holding up. You basically eluded to the fact that the ACA exchange was making them profits. Now you have waivered away from that. Seems reasonable for the company to withdraw if the ACA exchange is only break even or losing money for them.

So in the end the ACA is a not only costing insurance companies, it is costing taxpayers.

True, but I don't think insurance companies are losing money because of the waivers. The only entity losing revenue in this case is the U.S. Treasury.

If anything, insurance companies are losing money because:

1) Too many people who had pre-existing conditions are being covered at nearly bargain basement prices; and,

2) Not enough young people between the ages of 18-26 are signing up

Remember: Wholesale prices were suppose to be possible due to large groups buying into insurance. But once Republican states decided not to expand Medicaid or fully fund the ACA, the insurance industry as a whole ran into deep pocket problems.

 

[Objective Voice]

Two issues here. so the CBO predicts outrageous premium costs and the premium costs end up being not quite a outrageous as predicted.. at least at first. that does not mean they were good.
You also seem to be assuming that employers are not also increasing premiums. which they are. my employer plan was $78/mo in 2013 now its $120/mo.

Not as bad as the gov plans but the increase is far far outpacing CPI and inflationary indexes.

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.

 

[jpn]

Two issues here. so the CBO predicts outrageous premium costs and the premium costs end up being not quite a outrageous as predicted.. at least at first. that does not mean they were good.
You also seem to be assuming that employers are not also increasing premiums. which they are. my employer plan was $78/mo in 2013 now its $120/mo.

1) "Outrageous" premium costs? Where do you get "outrageous?" Is 6% "outrageous" in the context of health care for the under served population?

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."

 

[mike2810]

True, but I don't think insurance companies are losing money because of the waivers. The only entity losing revenue in this case is the U.S. Treasury.

If anything, insurance companies are losing money because:

1) Too many people who had pre-existing conditions are being covered at nearly bargain basement prices; and,

2) Not enough young people between the ages of 18-26 are signing up

Remember: Wholesale prices were suppose to be possible due to large groups buying into insurance. But once Republican states decided not to expand Medicaid or fully fund the ACA, the insurance industry as a whole ran into deep pocket problems.

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.