2014

ins.dave

Guru
1000 Post Club
990
Huh?
This goes. It's done.
With their exchange, public option, credits, fines, and subsidies no private insurer would be able to offer affordable plans. Nation health by default. For the public only of course.
In separate bills they enact a doc. fix and medicare cuts ...?
Like we said before, you guys are "silly" to be concerned with what you will be compensated because, if allowed they will phase this industry out. Complete control to do whatever they want; that is the only constant in this. They are fencing the herd boys. Then comes the slaughter. Say goodbye to America.
P.S. Looks like Beyonce won a grammy.


2014
Health Insurance Reforms: Implements strong health insurance reforms that prohibit insurance companies from engaging in discriminatory practices that enable them to refuse to sell or renew policies due to an individual's health status. Insurers would no longer be able to exclude coverage for treatments based on pre-existing health conditions. It also limits the ability of insurance companies to charge higher rates due to heath status, gender, or other factors. Premiums can vary only on age (no more than 3:1), geography, and family size.

Health Insurance Exchange: Opens health insurance Exchanges in each state to the individual and small group markets. This new venue will enable people to comparison shop for standardized health packages. It facilitates enrollment and administers tax credits so that people of all incomes can obtain affordable coverage.

Public Health Insurance Option: Creates a new public health insurance plan that competes on a level playing field against private health plans. It includes a state opt-out which to allow states to decide whether or not to participate.
Individual Responsibility: Requires most individuals to obtain acceptable health insurance coverage or pay a penalty of $95 for 2014, $350 for 2015, $750 for 2016 and indexed thereafter. Penalties for families are capped. If affordable coverage is not available to an individual, they will not be penalized.
Employer Responsibility: Requires employers with 50 or more employees who do not offer coverage to their employees to pay $750 annually for each full-time employee as long as one of their employees receives a tax credit. Precludes waiting periods more than 90 days and requires employers to pay $400-600 annually for each full-time employee in a waiting period between 30-90 days. Requires employers who offer coverage but whose employees receive tax credits to pay for each worker receiving a tax credit up to a cap of $400 per full-time employee.
Small Business Tax Credit: Continues the second phase of the small business tax credit for qualified small employers.
 
Yeah, that's just the good news.

The bad news is, they start collecting taxes in 2010 . . .
 
My grammy just rolled over in her grave. Oma came from Germany in the 1920s to escape evil government. I'd trust Oma over Obama any day.
 
So in the exchange I assume standardized packages means that all insurance providers will have to structure their plans exactly the same. If that happens, I would bet that the worst providers would offer the lowest premiums, get the most business, not pay out on claims, get penalized, then take their money and run.
 
So in the exchange I assume standardized packages means that all insurance providers will have to structure their plans exactly the same. If that happens, I would bet that the worst providers would offer the lowest premiums, get the most business, not pay out on claims, get penalized, then take their money and run.

Oh. I don't know about all plans being exactly the same. I think that core elements will be required to qualify to be on the exchange or to get subsidy or credits. Also, over time, the government will regulate loss ratios, secondary guarantees, reserves whatever so I dont know about the not paying claims and running either.

Think in terms of medicare advantage as an analogy. The government regulates the core elements that must included so there is a core similarity between plans but they are able to compete around the edges to try to differentiate.

Most likely I am wrong.
 
I don't see standardized plans as a bad thing. You have a Standard Auto Policy and the HO-* policies for homeowners insurance. Standardizing P&C policies didn't ruin that part of the industry.

Health insurance policies are hard for the professionals to compare. (Maybe I should speak for myself, but after almost 25 years in the business, I find them hard and/or time consuming to compare.)

It should be easier to compare health insurance policies. The core benefits should have some standardization IMnsHO.
 
So does it look as though it is gonna go or what. How far along are they in the process. Seems like we keep jumping the gun here and getting it all wrong..........why am I even asking???/:goofy:
 
Dems dissed this report:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]New Actuarial Analysis Shows Senate Bill Would Significantly Raise Premiums[/FONT]

Recent CBO analysis understates key factors contributing to increases WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new actuarial analysis by Oliver Wyman, Inc. finds that average annual medical claims in the new individual market will be 54 percent higher than they are today five years after implementation of healthcare reform under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), excluding the impact of medical inflation. ... The significant increases in costs for individuals are in part attributed to the inclusion of new guarantee issue rules without the support of a strong mechanism to ensure that everyone obtains and maintains coverage. This means that many people are likely to wait to purchase coverage until they need it, raising premiums for everyone. Without a stronger coverage mechanism, and other changes to improve affordability, coverage levels are unlikely to reach more than 91 percent of the population.
...
INN: New Actuarial Analysis Shows Senate Bill Would Significantly Raise Premiums (12/03/2009)
 
Back
Top