- 9,744
Sounds like The Pajama Man's deal...
Fear The Health Insurance Exchange
- Thread starter InsureGuy5
- Start date
-
- Tags
- health insurance
Sounds like The Pajama Man's deal...
- 990
Pffffffffffffffff.
Nice one.
Our boy Moondog is back with a vengeance.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wow. You got two good posts today.
Again, I'm with ya, but the big concern, at least to my way of thinking, is how "manipulated" would "exchange approved" plans be? I mean its not like they want to set it up where you can by the exact same plan from the same ins. company for the same price in or out of said exchange?
If they subsidize these exchange plans then they could phase out the carriers and eventually get what they want which is total control and some kind of a national healthcare program. Does anybody doubt that at this point?
Everything you said made sense and I'd liken it in some ways to the Ehealth situation. Would you not agree? Sure, they do a lot of business, they have huge visability (online presence) but I would love to see the figures on the ages of the applicant's along with their retention level, etc. Maybe the average applicant's I.Q. thrown in for good measure.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jiminy crickets ... winta fresh ... ya kill'n me ...
After I ranted in response to "Ron Paul's" post I read yours.
This is the whole freak'n issue to what's left of my mind ...
Why do you think, and I sure as Christmas hope you're right, that there will be no price disparity between exchange and nonexchange plans?
Last edited:
- 2,908
There are actually at least two different scenarios embedded in your question so there is not just one answer. In addition, no one knows the answer because I have not seen the bill on C-Span and it is going to be modified ten times over between now and 2013 or whenever.
But for discussion:
One scenario is where the same plan is offered both through the exchange and off the exchange. I assume the rates will be the same because it is the same plan and the purpose of the exchange is to increase ease of enrollment, not to shut down other avenues of enrollment. And, I am not convinced that the proposed bills limit sales to the exchange and if they do I am not convinced that provision will stand over time. We dont' know. I just dont see it yet. That is all.
And then there is the other scenario where there are plans that are on the exchange because they qualify to be on the exchange and those that are off the exchange because it is a different type of plan and does not qualify as a "creditable government plan which makes the enrollee eligible for credits and subsidies. Could be a high deductible, low benefit , el cheapo plan, or it could be a cadillac plan, or could be some specialized plan that includes abortion for example. Don't know. Obviously the premiums for those plans would be whatever they are without regard to what is going on on the exchange. Whether it is cost effective to the client is where they have to do the math because they might have lower premiums (or higher but need the cadillac benefits) but no credit/subsidy and then there is the issue of potential fines for not having creditable coverage which would not apply to the cadillac plan (but taxes would) but would for the el cheapo barebones plan.
Of course the government is going to make some of this up as they go along too. They might come up with the brain cramp idea to limit it to the exchange but then find that their goal of increased coverage is not being met. Then some genius says "hey why dont we let independent agents sell it too to see if that increases enrollment." Great idea Ollie!
Some of this becomes a bit like the securities world where you have to figure out what "on the exchange" means. Sometimes it means the physical or electronic marketplace. Other times it means "exchange listed" but the trade may occur elsewhere, although technically there. I am guessing that you will be able to enroll in an exchange-eligible plan outside the government exchange offices/online as well. Otherwise, what the frig were they referring to when they said that brokers and agents would not be precluded?
And then if the government concludes that it cannot afford to subsidize as planned and premiums go up then coverage will go down and the whole frigging thing will collapse. That is why I say (and this is not intended to be fece-ish ) that this whole gig is more risky than we think. We could could get into a system that is half baked and will tank and leave us worse off but it too late to turn back without even more costs. Keep in mind, that the Canadians have a halfway decent healthcare system that is working on some level. It is not as good a system as we have but it is better than where we are headed if there is no means of holding the premiums down. That is what the whole goal was for God's sake. This is a very risky venture. We are not even out of the starting get and we are telling people that premium are going to be highte and we may be going broke. Good God!
Pivens-Cleavage. A classic case.
Last edited:
- 3,863
You can't be serious...
- 2,455
Why not make it so you have to have years of college education and no worries financially. Make the comps 2 or 3 %
95% percent of us could hang it up and Al would get rich!
95% percent of us could hang it up and Al would get rich!
- 990
Caveat emptor.
How about being responsible? How about doing research?
How about not buying a plan just because it comes through your nephew or cousin? Some people are stupid. They will find a way to shoot themselves in the foot one way or another with or without our help.
Like "educated" people can't we weasels ...?
Just like the sub prime mortgage "nonsense."
"Hey BillyBob, how could you even consider taking out a mortgage without knowing what your payment would be in 3 years?"
"Gosh dang it ... it seemed like a good idea at the time ..."
Last edited:
jsd1239
Expert
That's exactly what the Travel agents did when the airlines cut out their commissions.
Similar threads
