Posted on 02/05/2016 2:30:52 PM PST by HarleyLady27
Health insurers are proposing to raise Obamacare rates more than in the past - some by more than 70 percent - now that they are finally equipped with all the information they need to price those plans.
Plans wanting to raise rates by at least 10 percent next year posted the proposed increase online Monday, as required by the 2010 healthcare law. Insurers are allowed to raise rates each year, but they must publish significant increases ahead of time.
Insurers have sold plans in the law's new insurance marketplaces for two years in a row. But the difference in 2016 is that for the first time, they have a full year of claims data from enrollees that tells them how high or low to set the price tag.
'This is the first time that insurers have access to a full year of claims under the (Affordable Care Act) in order to project premiums,' Kaiser Family Foundation analysts Larry Levitt, Gary Claxton and Cynthia Cox wrote in a blog post Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
And with year two of Obamacare enrollment concluded, there are more older enrollees than younger ones. Almost half were older than age 44, according to final enrollment data from the Obama administration.
Experts are predicting rates will escalate faster next year than in the two years prior, as insurers take a close look at who is enrolling in Obamacare plans to get a good sense of the overall picture.
While plans and rates vary by state, a look at rate increases published Monday on healthcare.gov shows many hovering around 10 to 30 percent in many states.
But there's also a sprinkling of even bigger hikes. Blue Cross wants to raise its most expensive 'platinum' plan in Alabama by 71 percent next year. Aetna wants to charge 59 percent more for one of its small group plans in Virginia. Time Insurance Co. is proposing a 64 percent hike for an individual plan in Georgia.
Some states are seeing more plans significantly raise rates than others. In Oregon, 23 plans published rates, indicating they want to bump up the price next year by 10 percent or more. North Dakota, on the other hand, has just three plans that want to raise rates more than 10 percent.
The increases could fuel political controversy over the healthcare law, as Republicans charge that it accelerated growth in healthcare costs instead of reining it in. Later this month, the Supreme Court could aggravate the problem of healthcare costs by blocking insurance subsidies in a majority of the states.
The Obamacare plans are intended primarily for Americans who don't have access to employer-sponsored health coverage and aren't eligible for Medicaid, the federal healthcare program for the poor.
The national group representing insurers quickly jumped to their defense Monday when asked about the big increases. Clare Krusing, a spokeswoman for American's Health Insurance Plans, said there are many reasons for the increases - including taxes and fees and the fact that more insurers are phasing out plans that do not comply with Obamacare's rules.
'Premiums cannot be viewed in isolation,' Krusing said. 'It's critical to look at the individual market dynamics that impact how much consumers pay for their health care coverage and the factors, like provider consolidation and exploding prescription drug prices, that drive up premiums across the country.'
PING...
This game of monopoly has been won by ____________ (insert insurance company name here)
Our rates went from $1,100 to $1,450 last month. (In 2010 it was $340 - with a lower deductible.)
I used to joke that “Well hey - at least birth control is free now!” (we’re in our 50’s)
I can’t even joke about that now. My wife was prescribed a birth control pill to help with menopause symptoms. “Oh - we’re sorry, but it is being used to treat a medical issue - not birth prevention, so it isn’t covered.” They wanted $200 a month for it! My wife is living with the symptoms.
There's got to be something cheaper she can take.
I knew someone who had a $400/month prescription, who told the doctor it wasn't covered by insurance, and the doctor said, "You can take Dramamine instead."
And it worked fine.
We need something better than this!!!
How is it a win when they are losing money?
I’m broke, my cardiologist wanted me on 5 different meds. I can’t afford any of them; right now I can’t afford food.
Oddly- I’ve never felt better in recent months.
I don’t doubt it.
I’m skeptical about doctors.
Hey Obama!! Where’s my $2500 savings you lying pos?
If this keeps up, I see no way to stop the single payer ball once it gets rolling. The only hope would be to get the feds to drop obamacare standards and allow major medical policies again, or at least more choice in what one signs up for.
The ‘old way’ going to the insurance that was cheaper, might not have been all that good, but surely is a lot better than this disgusting mess obuma put us in...
I can still hear Miss. Nancy’s remark: “You’ll have to vote on it before you know what is in it” uggghhhh
I’m serious, Obamacare is the worst experience of dealing with the government our family has ever dealt with in 26 years. They still won’t process my 2014 taxes because of it and they owe me money. It is 100% pure shit on every level.
I’m not surprised
So by my not signing up under this lawless regulation I’ve save my fellow Texas who were cool with tyranny a tiny bit of money.
Cool.
“Texans” ... I hate typos....
The greater lawlessness was always the goal of these scumbags.
As mentioned in related threads, regardess what lawless Obamas state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutionality of Obamacare, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes.
Consider the Obamacare insurance mandate for example. Note the fourth entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia. In that case state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that regulating insurance is not within the scope of Congresss Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance policy are domiciled in different states.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” -Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
” 4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphasis added] of indemnity against loss.” - Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
”Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” - Linder v. United States, 1925.
Remember in November !
When patriots elect Trump, Cruz, or whatever conservative they elect, they need to also elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support the president, but also protect the states from unconstitutional federal government overreach.
Also, consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
You’re a vet. You can get meds from the VA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.