Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You gotta be fucking kidding us. They are forced to insure 26 year old basement dwellers. They are forced to insure people with pre existing conditions, ie. if you have a bad heart and you know it they are forced to insure your ass the night before open heart surgery,, you are so fucking stupid.
So wait, you want women who were domestic abuse victims and or pregnant to not have the ability to get health insurance?
You seem to not get the fact that the whole reason why government needed to get rid of pre-existing conditions in the first place is because companies would keep people insured until something happens to them (not pre-existing by the way) and then drop them like a sack of potatoes. It was both morally and ethically reprehensible.
that's exactrly how it will work, and all the rates will skyrocket. Someone has to pay for the 30 million who don't pay. Who do you think that's going to be? Sebellius? Think again. asswipe
You're making piss poor assumptions which quickly become piss poor conclusions. You're automatically assuming that all 30 million people aren't going to be paying a dime or don't want to. In fact, the opposite is true in many if not most cases. Once again, people who were unable to get health insurance previously due to pre-existing conditions will now be able to. People who were kicked off their parents plans but still in college can now once again get insurance and pay their premiums.
If the law makes such statements criminally actionable, then no free speech issue exists.
Jake, I know from another thread you don't understand the Constitution very well, so I'm not going to waste too much time, but this is just patently false.
The government can't circumvent the First Amendment just by criminalizing something. In fact, criminal convictions have been overturned on First Amendment grounds.
This should be obvious on its face. If what you said were true, the government could eliminate any speech it wanted to simply by criminalizing it by statute. Makes no sense whatsoever.
So, as you can see...health premiums have been rising well before "obamacare".
correct me if I m wrong but the WHOLE idea and the primogeniture (if I can fit that in), was Obama-care would to bend the cost curve........so....?
I think the healthcare bill fell FAR short in the controlling costs aspect. I just don't see how costs will be curtailed under the current plan....I believe rates will continue to rise as long as insurance companies basically have a monopoly on the system.
With that said, there is a lot of good in this healthcare bill that will help Americans, outside the realm of cost control, which will still need to be addressed.
I'd have more faith in that last sentence of yours being true IF they weren't (and we) constantly surprised by the effects that become apparent as time goes on and we march towards the mandate and full implementation.
They already watered down the mandate penalty just to get votes for the bill, to the point were it may be a non starter, that is the cost for not getting a plan wil not force people to GET a plan, and then remember, IF the mandate is a no go, this whole thing was absolutely for naught.
I think its safe to say that at the end of the day, this whole exercise wasn't so much to do what needed to be done, it was just about getting a "win" and as it comes to all such legislation that is reduced to bribery, back room cajoling, threats and a one sided non partisan action, we, are the losers.
True, and I'm not saying I agree with the trying to stop the insurance companies from saying these things, but I think they are fed up with the lies and outright misinformation that has been spread about the healthcare bill. They want people to understand what is actually going to happen and the insurance companies using the health care bill as a scapegoat for their increasing rates, is not helping the situation.
Like they were fed up with the lies the corporations told about how their costs were going up because of Obamacare?
What?
How about the way the administration is framing the debate? By telling insurance companies that they will be barred from participating in the new markets that the law is setting up if they "lie" about their rates going up as a result of Obamacare they are attempting to muzzle anyone that disagrees with the official statements of the government.
Sebelius may be the one bearing the message today but that isn't the administration talking, that's federal law. State insurance commissioners are directed by law to determine whether unjustified premium increases are taking place and, if so, to recommend exclusion from the exchange for that insurer.
`(b) Continuing Premium Review Process-`(1) INFORMING SECRETARY OF PREMIUM INCREASE PATTERNS- As a condition of receiving a grant under subsection (c)(1), a State, through its Commissioner of Insurance, shall--`(A) provide the Secretary with information about trends in premium increases in health insurance coverage in premium rating areas in the State; and
`(B) make recommendations, as appropriate, to the State Exchange about whether particular health insurance issuers should be excluded from participation in the Exchange based on a pattern or practice of excessive or unjustified premium increases.
I don't think they can. There is nothing in the law itself, as far as I know, that allows the government to prohibit any company from participating in the exchanges.
The state exchanges themselves (with the advice of the state/state insurance commissioner) are empowered to do exactly that.
If the law makes such statements criminally actionable, then no free speech issue exists.
Jake, I know from another thread you don't understand the Constitution very well, so I'm not going to waste too much time, but this is just patently false.
The government can't circumvent the First Amendment just by criminalizing something. In fact, criminal convictions have been overturned on First Amendment grounds.
This should be obvious on its face. If what you said were true, the government could eliminate any speech it wanted to simply by criminalizing it by statute. Makes no sense whatsoever.
This entire subject has gone waaaaaaaaaay over the top. First people argue some obscure "free speech" right simply because an insurance company will be told it won't have dibs on contracts for insurance pool contracts if they raise premiums in the meantime using some lame excuse, and now the subject has evolved to potential criminal activity being alleged against said insurers? Puleeze, people...this thing has barely gotten off the ground, and the insurance pools and exchanges won't begin until 2014 (with the exception of high risk pools available now).
Of course it does. Hence why I don't think the govt should try to use legal force to stop the insurance companies, but they can certainly make a stink about it through PR efforts.
And for your information, health insurance rates have been climbing for years, so to say that the increases this year, next year or beyond is solely due to the health reform bill is in fact, a lie.
How did you dumbasses think 30 million more covered were gonna get covered without rate increases? You izz dumber n we thought.
Insurance POOLS, which many like companies already use to reduce premium costs, dumbass. The more people covered, the less the premium. It's just like buying your tunafish in bulk at Costco. More will cost less.
So, as you can see...health premiums have been rising well before "obamacare".
Interesting.
What I do not get is the relevance of your charts. No one here has claimed that prices have not been rising all this time. Nor are they claiming that they would not have gone up anyway. The companies are claiming that they are having to raise prices because, in part, Obamacare is requiring them to offer more coverage.
The administration has its panties in a wad because this is happening right before an election, and the insurers are laying the blame on the administrations policies that front load benefits before the corresponding cuts in costs kick in. Their numbers claim this will not happen, if those other things happen, which they will, in a few years.
How did you dumbasses think 30 million more covered were gonna get covered without rate increases? You izz dumber n we thought.
Insurance POOLS, which many like companies already use to reduce premium costs, dumbass. The more people covered, the less the premium. It's just like buying your tunafish in bulk at Costco. More will cost less.
God you are a moron. Health care is not tuna fish. The government is mandating an expanded definition of one size fits all health care, including coverage for things many people would opt out of because they don't need them.
Costco doesn't force everyone who walks into the store to by a giant 10 gallon drum of tuna.
They can just exclude companies by saying so? Or do they actually have to prove that these companies have a history of "a pattern of excessive or unjustified premium increases?" Because, to date, no one has shown a single company that falls into this definition, and I am pretty sure the courts would require evidence of it before they would allow this law to stand. Otherwise it would be vague, and thus unconstitutional.
Interesting point. Thanks for confirming that I was right, and that the federal government does not have the right to exclude anyone from the exchanges.
I can't wait for the administration to prove that they aren't in any way responsible for increased health costs.
Threats ? Really ??
They can just exclude companies by saying so? Or do they actually have to prove that these companies have a history of "a pattern of excessive or unjustified premium increases?" Because, to date, no one has shown a single company that falls into this definition, and I am pretty sure the courts would require evidence of it before they would allow this law to stand. Otherwise it would be vague, and thus unconstitutional.
Factors state regulators will include when considering whether rate increases are unjustified will be identified through the administrative rulemaking process.
Interesting point. Thanks for confirming that I was right, and that the federal government does not have the right to exclude anyone from the exchanges.
Sebelius never claimed that. Her letter was very clear that states will be doing the heavy-lifting, using federal grants awarded a few weeks ago and in accordance with the federal rules being developed:Given the importance of the new protections and the facts about their impact on costs, I ask for your help in stopping misinformation and scare tactics about the Affordable Care Act. Moreover, I want AHIPs members to be put on notice: the Administration, in partnership with states, will not tolerate unjustified rate hikes in the name of consumer protections.
Already, my Department has provided 46 states with resources to strengthen the review and transparency of proposed premiums. Later this fall, we will issue a regulation that will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers, with the justification for increases posted publicly for consumers and employers. We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014. Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections.
All plans must comply with provisions such as no lifetime limits, no rescissions except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact, and coverage of most adult children up to age 26. New plans must comply with additional provisions, such as coverage of preventive services with no cost sharing, access to OB / GYNs without referrals, restrictions on annual limits on coverage, a prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions of children (which applies to all group health plans), access to out-of-network emergency room services, and a strengthened appeals process. And health plans that cover early retirees could qualify for reinsurance to sustain that coverage for businesses, workers, and retirees alike.According to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact from the new consumer protections and increased quality provisions under the Affordable Care Act will be minimal. We estimate that that the effect will be no more than one to two percent. This is consistent with estimates from the Urban Institute (1 to 2 percent) and Mercer consultants (2.3 percent) as well as some insurers estimates. Pennsylvanias Highmark, for example, estimates the effect of the legislation on premiums from 1.14 to 2 percent. Moreover, the trends in health costs, independent of the legislation, have slowed. Employers premiums for family coverage increased by only 3 percent in 2010 a significant drop from previous years.
Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections.
Does this mean that, if individual insurers find that their numbers disagree with these estimates, they are guilty of misrepresentation, and will be excluded from the exchanges?
