"""Obama-Care"""

[1stRambo]

Yo, all the bragging this Socialist State did about Obama-Care, is coming back to bite them on their ASS!!! Note: This won`t affect illegals, they still will get insurance from taxpayers!!!

Covered California: Rates will rise 13.2% next year
POSTED AT 5:21 PM ON JULY 19, 2016 BY JOHN SEXTON

Covered California announced its rate increases for next year during a conference call Tuesday. The LA Times reports consumers can expect a double-digit increase in premiums next year, though of course customers receiving subsidies will be shielded from most of that:

Premiums for Californians’ Obamacare health coverage will rise by an average of 13.2% next year — more than three times the increase of the last two years and a jump that is bound to raise debate in an election year.

The big hikes come after two years in which California officials had bragged that the program had helped insure hundreds of thousands people in the state while keeping costs moderately in check.

Premiums in the insurance program called Covered California rose just 4% in 2016, after rising 4.2% in 2015 – the first year that exchange officials negotiated with insurers.

Covered California: Rates will rise 13.2% next year - Hot Air

"GTP"
Champion Of Lies For The Last 8 Years:

 

[Vandalshandle]

My career was in health insurance, and I was factoring in an inflation rate for medical rates of 22% and 24% for RX rates back in 1980. I guess that I can't get too excited about 13%.

 

[1stRambo]

My career was in health insurance, and I was factoring in an inflation rate for medical rates of 22% and 24% for RX rates back in 1980. I guess that I can't get too excited about 13%.

Yo, Good Luck!

"GTP"

 

[Arianrhod]

Perhaps "Rambo" can provide us with figures about prices in any sector that have gone down in the past eight years.

Not that I'll be holding my breath.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

My career was in health insurance, and I was factoring in an inflation rate for medical rates of 22% and 24% for RX rates back in 1980. I guess that I can't get too excited about 13%.

Mortgage rates at 4%.

Gasoline costs no more today than what it did (at times) 30 years ago. It certainly has come down from a couple of years ago.

But 13% is O.K.

I am sure the person depending on Obamacare shares your lack of concern.

Not that I think Obummercare is causing this.

This is the market.

We spend 8,500 per person per year. That's not changed. When it does, you'll see prices go one way or the other.

 

[Arianrhod]

Gasoline costs no more today than what it did (at times) 30 years ago. It certainly has come down from a couple of years ago.

 

[Vandalshandle]

My career was in health insurance, and I was factoring in an inflation rate for medical rates of 22% and 24% for RX rates back in 1980. I guess that I can't get too excited about 13%.

Mortgage rates at 4%.

Gasoline costs no more today than what it did (at times) 30 years ago. It certainly has come down from a couple of years ago.

But 13% is O.K.

I am sure the person depending on Obamacare shares your lack of concern.

Not that I think Obummercare is causing this.

This is the market.

We spend 8,500 per person per year. That's not changed. When it does, you'll see prices go one way or the other.

My career in health insurance began in 1966, one month before Medicare went in to effect. I rated group health insurance policies. A typical group plan had $20 per day Hospital Room and Board, $250 surgical benefit, $4 per doctor's visit, and a $5,000 lifetime major medical benefit. My rates for that came out to about $27.50 per single employee per month. So, no, I don't get too excited about 13% medical inflation rates. I don't like it, but there is nothing I can do about it, and at my age, I have learned not to get too upset about things that I can not do anything about. And, you are right. 13% inflation has nothing to do with ACA. The fact is that if the insurance model had not been replaced by HMO delivery models in the 1980's, all medical care would be more than double what it costs today.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

My career was in health insurance, and I was factoring in an inflation rate for medical rates of 22% and 24% for RX rates back in 1980. I guess that I can't get too excited about 13%.

Mortgage rates at 4%.

Gasoline costs no more today than what it did (at times) 30 years ago. It certainly has come down from a couple of years ago.

But 13% is O.K.

I am sure the person depending on Obamacare shares your lack of concern.

Not that I think Obummercare is causing this.

This is the market.

We spend 8,500 per person per year. That's not changed. When it does, you'll see prices go one way or the other.

My career in health insurance began in 1966, one month before Medicare went in to effect. I rated group health insurance policies. A typical group plan had $20 per day Hospital Room and Board, $250 surgical benefit, $4 per doctor's visit, and a $5,000 lifetime major medical benefit. My rates for that came out to about $27.50 per single employee per month. So, no, I don't get too excited about 13% medical inflation rates. I don't like it, but there is nothing I can do about it, and at my age, I have learned not to get too upset about things that I can not do anything about. And, you are right. 13% inflation has nothing to do with ACA. The fact is that if the insurance model had not been replaced by HMO delivery models in the 1980's, all medical care would be more than double what it costs today.

You'd have to put that in the context of what people make today vs. then.

In my profession, things have kept up. In others...they have not. Certainly, blue collar work has not done well.

Now, the ACA was supposed to stop all this inflation. In fact, there was a claim that we were going to "save" 2,500 per year. That certainly has not happened.

The whole cost curve bending b.s. is not resonating with anyone.

People still see the ACA as a bust.

 

[Vandalshandle]

My career was in health insurance, and I was factoring in an inflation rate for medical rates of 22% and 24% for RX rates back in 1980. I guess that I can't get too excited about 13%.

Mortgage rates at 4%.

Gasoline costs no more today than what it did (at times) 30 years ago. It certainly has come down from a couple of years ago.

But 13% is O.K.

I am sure the person depending on Obamacare shares your lack of concern.

Not that I think Obummercare is causing this.

This is the market.

We spend 8,500 per person per year. That's not changed. When it does, you'll see prices go one way or the other.

My career in health insurance began in 1966, one month before Medicare went in to effect. I rated group health insurance policies. A typical group plan had $20 per day Hospital Room and Board, $250 surgical benefit, $4 per doctor's visit, and a $5,000 lifetime major medical benefit. My rates for that came out to about $27.50 per single employee per month. So, no, I don't get too excited about 13% medical inflation rates. I don't like it, but there is nothing I can do about it, and at my age, I have learned not to get too upset about things that I can not do anything about. And, you are right. 13% inflation has nothing to do with ACA. The fact is that if the insurance model had not been replaced by HMO delivery models in the 1980's, all medical care would be more than double what it costs today.

You'd have to put that in the context of what people make today vs. then.

In my profession, things have kept up. In others...they have not. Certainly, blue collar work has not done well.

Now, the ACA was supposed to stop all this inflation. In fact, there was a claim that we were going to "save" 2,500 per year. That certainly has not happened.

The whole cost curve bending b.s. is not resonating with anyone.

People still see the ACA as a bust.

I have no idea what was said about "saving money" with ACA. I supported it because it did away with "pre-existing condition" exclusions. It was my job to screen people for eligibility for group health insurance. Before ACA, I excluded between 17% to 22% of individuals who were late applicants due to health conditions. As an underwriter, I did that for 50 years. People died for lack of insurance. It was unconscionable.Ending that made ACA a success.

Trying to roll back ACA is an exercise in futility. It is not going to happen. I saw all the same arguments when Medicare went in to effect in 1966. Get over it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

My career was in health insurance, and I was factoring in an inflation rate for medical rates of 22% and 24% for RX rates back in 1980. I guess that I can't get too excited about 13%.

Mortgage rates at 4%.

Gasoline costs no more today than what it did (at times) 30 years ago. It certainly has come down from a couple of years ago.

But 13% is O.K.

I am sure the person depending on Obamacare shares your lack of concern.

Not that I think Obummercare is causing this.

This is the market.

We spend 8,500 per person per year. That's not changed. When it does, you'll see prices go one way or the other.

My career in health insurance began in 1966, one month before Medicare went in to effect. I rated group health insurance policies. A typical group plan had $20 per day Hospital Room and Board, $250 surgical benefit, $4 per doctor's visit, and a $5,000 lifetime major medical benefit. My rates for that came out to about $27.50 per single employee per month. So, no, I don't get too excited about 13% medical inflation rates. I don't like it, but there is nothing I can do about it, and at my age, I have learned not to get too upset about things that I can not do anything about. And, you are right. 13% inflation has nothing to do with ACA. The fact is that if the insurance model had not been replaced by HMO delivery models in the 1980's, all medical care would be more than double what it costs today.

You'd have to put that in the context of what people make today vs. then.

In my profession, things have kept up. In others...they have not. Certainly, blue collar work has not done well.

Now, the ACA was supposed to stop all this inflation. In fact, there was a claim that we were going to "save" 2,500 per year. That certainly has not happened.

The whole cost curve bending b.s. is not resonating with anyone.

People still see the ACA as a bust.

I have no idea what was said about "saving money" with ACA. I supported it because it did away with "pre-existing condition" exclusions. It was my job to screen people for eligibility for group health insurance. Before ACA, I excluded between 17% to 22% of individuals who were late applicants due to health conditions. As an underwriter, I did that for 50 years. People died for lack of insurance. It was unconscionable.Ending that made ACA a success.

Trying to roll back ACA is an exercise in futility. It is not going to happen. I saw all the same arguments when Medicare went in to effect in 1966. Get over it.

You can stick your head in the sand with regards to all the lies that were used to sell the idea.

You'll not find anyone who is more adamant about the issues we have with health insurance than I was and am. I have seen the lack of health insurance screw up people's lives. It is still doing it. The ACA has not helped that at all.

You'll find article after article I've posted that shows people forgoing care because of the high costs associated with it. The ACA didn't cause that (except in some cases people don't even have catastrophic anymore because it is too expensive). Our costs were there before ACA and they are still there.

"Ending that" as you say, replaced one set of problems with another set.

We could have done much better.

Crow all you want about futility, it is our moron in chief's administration that has purposely rolled this out in controlled fashion to avoid the backlash they know will come. When it finally hits employee related insurance like it will.....then we'll talk about futility.

We could do better. Much better. But we have to hold people accountable and we need to stop spending 8,500 per person per year.

Don't stop that...I don't care what you call it. We are all screwed.

 

[Vandalshandle]

My career was in health insurance, and I was factoring in an inflation rate for medical rates of 22% and 24% for RX rates back in 1980. I guess that I can't get too excited about 13%.

Mortgage rates at 4%.

Gasoline costs no more today than what it did (at times) 30 years ago. It certainly has come down from a couple of years ago.

But 13% is O.K.

I am sure the person depending on Obamacare shares your lack of concern.

Not that I think Obummercare is causing this.

This is the market.

We spend 8,500 per person per year. That's not changed. When it does, you'll see prices go one way or the other.

My career in health insurance began in 1966, one month before Medicare went in to effect. I rated group health insurance policies. A typical group plan had $20 per day Hospital Room and Board, $250 surgical benefit, $4 per doctor's visit, and a $5,000 lifetime major medical benefit. My rates for that came out to about $27.50 per single employee per month. So, no, I don't get too excited about 13% medical inflation rates. I don't like it, but there is nothing I can do about it, and at my age, I have learned not to get too upset about things that I can not do anything about. And, you are right. 13% inflation has nothing to do with ACA. The fact is that if the insurance model had not been replaced by HMO delivery models in the 1980's, all medical care would be more than double what it costs today.

You'd have to put that in the context of what people make today vs. then.

In my profession, things have kept up. In others...they have not. Certainly, blue collar work has not done well.

Now, the ACA was supposed to stop all this inflation. In fact, there was a claim that we were going to "save" 2,500 per year. That certainly has not happened.

The whole cost curve bending b.s. is not resonating with anyone.

People still see the ACA as a bust.

I have no idea what was said about "saving money" with ACA. I supported it because it did away with "pre-existing condition" exclusions. It was my job to screen people for eligibility for group health insurance. Before ACA, I excluded between 17% to 22% of individuals who were late applicants due to health conditions. As an underwriter, I did that for 50 years. People died for lack of insurance. It was unconscionable.Ending that made ACA a success.

Trying to roll back ACA is an exercise in futility. It is not going to happen. I saw all the same arguments when Medicare went in to effect in 1966. Get over it.

You can stick your head in the sand with regards to all the lies that were used to sell the idea.

You'll not find anyone who is more adamant about the issues we have with health insurance than I was and am. I have seen the lack of health insurance screw up people's lives. It is still doing it. The ACA has not helped that at all.

You'll find article after article I've posted that shows people forgoing care because of the high costs associated with it. The ACA didn't cause that (except in some cases people don't even have catastrophic anymore because it is too expensive). Our costs were there before ACA and they are still there.

"Ending that" as you say, replaced one set of problems with another set.

We could have done much better.

Crow all you want about futility, it is our moron in chief's administration that has purposely rolled this out in controlled fashion to avoid the backlash they know will come. When it finally hits employee related insurance like it will.....then we'll talk about futility.

We could do better. Much better. But we have to hold people accountable and we need to stop spending 8,500 per person per year.

Don't stop that...I don't care what you call it. We are all screwed.

Let's boil this down to the basics.

Before ACA, underwriters like me made it impossible for someone with a pre-existing condition to buy insurance.

After ADA, anyone with the money can buy insurance.

I call that a significant improvement.

But, yes, if we had simply expanded Medicare to cover everyone, like pretty much every other industrialized nation in the world (who have universal health care), it would have been much better.

I did not get my information about ACA from anybody. What I know about health insurance comes from a 50 year career in the field, the last 2/3rds of which was in senior management. In fact, I knew that single payer would never get by the republicans, so I loaded up on private sector health insurance mutual funds when it became clear that Obama was going to be elected. My return so far is 212% increase since 2008.

If you can't beat 'em, join em.

 

[dblack]

Let's boil this down to the basics.

Before ACA, underwriters like me made it impossible for someone with a pre-existing condition to buy insurance.

After ADA, anyone with the money can buy insurance.

I call that a significant improvement.

I don't. It's the old appeal to trade liberty for security. Over time the security erodes, but we don't the liberty back.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Let's boil this down to the basics.

Before ACA, underwriters like me made it impossible for someone with a pre-existing condition to buy insurance.

After ADA, anyone with the money can buy insurance.

I call that a significant improvement.

I don't. It's the old appeal to trade liberty for security. Over time the security erodes, but we don't the liberty back.

Liberty to watch your newborn baby die for lack of the money to repair a hole in the heart birth defect? I saw that time and time again over my 50 years. That is a strange sort of liberty that you revere.

 

[dblack]

Let's boil this down to the basics.

Before ACA, underwriters like me made it impossible for someone with a pre-existing condition to buy insurance.

After ADA, anyone with the money can buy insurance.

I call that a significant improvement.

I don't. It's the old appeal to trade liberty for security. Over time the security erodes, but we don't the liberty back.

Liberty to watch your newborn baby die for lack of the money to repair a hole in the heart birth defect?

Yep. But I've found that people who don't understand why this is so, don't really understand, or want, liberty in the first place.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Let's boil this down to the basics.

Before ACA, underwriters like me made it impossible for someone with a pre-existing condition to buy insurance.

After ADA, anyone with the money can buy insurance.

I call that a significant improvement.

I don't. It's the old appeal to trade liberty for security. Over time the security erodes, but we don't the liberty back.

Liberty to watch your newborn baby die for lack of the money to repair a hole in the heart birth defect? I saw that time and time again over my 50 years. That is a strange sort of liberty that you revere.

Whose fault is that ?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Let's boil this down to the basics.

Before ACA, underwriters like me made it impossible for someone with a pre-existing condition to buy insurance.

After ADA, anyone with the money can buy insurance.

I call that a significant improvement.

I don't. It's the old appeal to trade liberty for security. Over time the security erodes, but we don't the liberty back.

Liberty to watch your newborn baby die for lack of the money to repair a hole in the heart birth defect? I saw that time and time again over my 50 years. That is a strange sort of liberty that you revere.

Whose fault is that ?

Nobody. Because of ADA, everyone has an opportunity to buy insurance. If they do not have enough money, that is a separate problem.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Let's boil this down to the basics.

Before ACA, underwriters like me made it impossible for someone with a pre-existing condition to buy insurance.

After ADA, anyone with the money can buy insurance.

I call that a significant improvement.

I don't. It's the old appeal to trade liberty for security. Over time the security erodes, but we don't the liberty back.

Liberty to watch your newborn baby die for lack of the money to repair a hole in the heart birth defect? I saw that time and time again over my 50 years. That is a strange sort of liberty that you revere.

Whose fault is that ?

Nobody. Because of ADA, everyone has an opportunity to buy insurance. If they do not have enough money, that is a separate problem.

And you are saying that wasn't the issue before ? With "enough" money, you could buy insurance even for a pre-existing condition. However, it probably made more sense just to save your money and use it on medical costs.

Don't get me wrong, the idea that insurance companies could somehow cancel a 20 year customer after taking their premiums offended me (it never happened to me or anyone I know. It was just spoken of as being a fact. If that didn't happen...I retract the comment). But the ACA didn't need to happen to fix that.

It was our government that let it happen (insurance has been regulated for a long time). Why could it not just stop it ?

 

[Kristian]

Obama is a negro with no respect to all white people. Or he dislikes american white boys. He are Anti Trump. He are Anti Christian to even senate do nothing.

 

[Kristian]

Obama are like my old thug friend how dislikes white America. How he can those. Are he typical negro from Africa from start he old genre. How Obama get elected to White House.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Let's boil this down to the basics.

Before ACA, underwriters like me made it impossible for someone with a pre-existing condition to buy insurance.

After ADA, anyone with the money can buy insurance.

I call that a significant improvement.

I don't. It's the old appeal to trade liberty for security. Over time the security erodes, but we don't the liberty back.

Liberty to watch your newborn baby die for lack of the money to repair a hole in the heart birth defect? I saw that time and time again over my 50 years. That is a strange sort of liberty that you revere.

Whose fault is that ?

Nobody. Because of ADA, everyone has an opportunity to buy insurance. If they do not have enough money, that is a separate problem.

And you are saying that wasn't the issue before ? With "enough" money, you could buy insurance even for a pre-existing condition. However, it probably made more sense just to save your money and use it on medical costs.

Don't get me wrong, the idea that insurance companies could somehow cancel a 20 year customer after taking their premiums offended me (it never happened to me or anyone I know. It was just spoken of as being a fact. If that didn't happen...I retract the comment). But the ACA didn't need to happen to fix that.

It was our government that let it happen (insurance has been regulated for a long time). Why could it not just stop it ?

No. You could not buy insurance with "enough money", before ACA. I was paid well as the VP of Underwriting And Compliance to make sure that did not happen.
And the reason that "our government let that happen", was because the Supreme Court had held that the feds did not regulate insurance. Only the States had the regulatory authority over insurance. Consequently, I had to comply with the laws of 50 states. One state, New York, was so regulatory happy, that health insurance companies set up separate companies to do business there, if at all. Since all insurance companies paid "premium taxes" to each state for all premiums collected in that state, we pretty much told them what laws to write that we would allow ourselves to live with. In fact, we worked jointly with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and drafted the laws for them. I, personally have attended their annual meetings.

ACA changed all that, and put in a layer of regulatory authority above the state level. However, don't think for a second that health insurance companies did not have a heavy hand in drafting the ACA law. We did, and made damn sure that the government did not become our competitor, like they did with Medicare.