Here It is Drudge Report Headline

[ksigmtsu]

It wasn't cherry picking because Covered CA only released rates for a 25yr old and a 40yr old. We have no idea yet what the exact rate will be for a family of 4, a family of 3, a 57 yr old, etc. The author just researched the rates today for those two examples. I will say for a healthy person the gap will be huge. For someone with health conditions, it will not be as wide as they are rated up today.

Mike

Mike

I didn't say they were cherry picking the rates on the exchange.

It appears they cherry picked the ehealth policies they used to compare with, just by looking at the "average" premium they came up with.

 

[Ann H]

If you go to ehealth and run a quote for a 40 year old male in Contra Costa (94505) and compare plans for Health Net (one of the players in their exchange) you will find that a plan that is currently available today will run about $131; if you compare that to Health Net's Silver Plan, it will run you $362. Similar deductibles, similar coinsurance, more than double the price tag. The increases are accurate.

Now, that's a fair comparison, Timsip.

So far, most announcements have unfairly compared, even Forbes. Peter Lee from Covered California unfairly did a double manipulation. The first is that the benefits of the Silver plan are less than most IFP plans today, and the second is that he compared the IFP (Individual/Family Plan) rates to Group rates.

To make matters worse, his answer to people who challenged him had two more manipulations in comparison. He claimed he had to use group rates because IFP rates were going up in 2014 to that level. All that statement did was prove that IFP rates would spike in 2014. The next manipulation was to point to subsidies to prove a lower net cost for some people. That point is only fair for those people who get subsidies. For people who do not get subsidies, they still see their premiums spike. And as taxpayers, they are footing the bill for high premiums for people who get subsidies. Any way you look at it, it's more money.

Forbes corrected some of that inaccurate comparison by comparing IFP rates to IFP rates, but in doing so, they used the lowest cost plans in the market today, which is not what most people buy.

Timsip, in his post above compared responsibly. He compared apples-to-apples benefits, and apples-to-apples market (IFP). And he proved that the rate spike is high.

That is applicable to all those people who currently have an IFP plan. It will also be applicable to people on group plans when they see their rates spike. It just won't be applicable to the uninsured who decide to buy now, particularly when they get a subsidy. However, the subsidy for high premiums is still applicable to all taxpayers. Bottom line ---- prices spiked big time.

 

[CABenefits]

I didn't say they were cherry picking the rates on the exchange.

It appears they cherry picked the ehealth policies they used to compare with, just by looking at the "average" premium they came up with.

Here's a comparison of plans today and the Bronze plan for a 25 yr old making $48,000 a year. No subsidy...The HSA 4500 is a much better plan and we're close to 100% more.

 

[houcoogster]

Get ready California....SNAP!

 

[Dan3211980]

Why would you hope it is sarcasm?

It's clear that all our problems stem from George Bush. Including the downfall of the Lakers.

Rick

Thanks for the laugh, now I've heard it all!!! You know, I really do a great job at accepting everyone for the most part. But God, I hate Obama supporters and liberals... They can take their socialism, taxes, and 'Unaffordable Care Act' and bury it with Jimmy Hoffa

 

[houcoogster]

Thanks for the laugh, now I've heard it all!!! You know, I really do a great job at accepting everyone for the most part. But God, I hate Obama supporters and liberals... They can take their socialism, taxes, and 'Unaffordable Care Act' and bury it with Jimmy Hoffa

Just imagine all the 20 and 30 year olds trying to survive and pay $300 to $500 student loans per month now they have to pay $250+ for Obamacare....

 

[Dan3211980]

Oh I can imagine. There's honestly nothing good about any of the new health care law. Just encourages more people to work the system so that more of myself and everyone else's honest, hard earned money can pay for them. Everyone should have health insurance, just not at my expense.

 

[Yagents]

I can see the TV commercials now:

"Get your $50/mo health insurance today, call now and we'll teach you how to manipulate your income, just enough to stay off of medicaid, and not enough to bust your wallet." Call 1-800-Don't-Report-Income

 

[timsip]

I'm not defending the way they're going about this, I don't agree with it. I'm a big fan of HSA policies.

My only thought was that the article was intentionally exaggerating the figures by cherry picking, and I was trying to point it out. The figures still don't look good the way I'm seeing them.

How is it cherry picking when they report an entire range?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That's actually over a 250% increase on the single policy you're looking at, which would also show their figures to be incorrect.

I would assume it's an outlier for those that understand statistics.

Interesting. My math says 176% increase. What math are you using? (percent increase is found by taking the amount of the increase divided by the original amount--362-131=231; 231/131=1.76(100); 176%

Since it is impossible to find identical plans, I would say that by getting as close as possible and comparing them is much more honest than comparing one insurance type to another.

The article that this thread is about took the median and compared it to the median. Statistically speaking, that is the only way you can compare and the results are the results whether you like it or not.

 

[supersupps]

I sure hope I get a big commission.. that is very important to me..anyone know when we will know? phil said a few days , a few days ago.