Posted on 05/23/2016 7:19:40 AM PDT by rustyweiss74
Insurers on the New York health exchange are requesting rate hikes averaging in excess of 17%, with UnitedHealthcare going as high as a whopping 45.6%.
UnitedHealthcare has already announced that they would exit most of the Affordable Care Act state exchanges in which they operate in 2017, New York being one of the few exceptions.
The biggest health insurer in the country announced that it lost $475 million on the ACA exchanges last year and could lose another $500 million this year.
They explained that states in which they would continue to serve – like New York – would be done so on an “effective and sustained basis.”
‘Effective and sustained’ appears to require a nearly 50% hike in your health insurance premiums.
(Excerpt) Read more at menrec.com ...
Sounds like it’s all going according to plan.
It is kinda fun to watch states that vote for socialists get socialism good and hard...
NY is a leftist/progressive one-party state, kept alive, ironically, by Wall Street.
I thought the agreement was the taxpayers would compensate the insurers if obamacare proved to be a losing proposition.
You mean Lucy picked up the football before the insurance companies could kick that field goal, and landed flat on their back? Who’da thunk obama would do that to them?
I get to NYC pretty regularly and see United Health Care ads everywhere..on the subway,on street billboards,etc.Would I be wrong to suspect they’re one of the biggest carriers in the region?
Wall Street should move to Texas or maybe Idaho.
It would be if they had to live with it and we didn't (AND they weren't allowed to escape the paradises they voted for and contaminate the voter poll in the free states)
By almost free, I mean most people on the Obama exchanges are being subsidized heavily...
One of the biggest in the country.
Socialism wipes out small and mid sized companies just like it wipes out the middle class. Leaves the top dogs and everybody else stuck down below, unless you have the right friends.
Yes,I've certainly seen their ads many times on national TV networks.However,you don't hear much about them in my neck of the woods (Eastern Massachusetts) whereas,it would seem from *my* experience,they're pretty big (and perhaps *very* big) in and around NYC.
If,by chance,my hunch about their footprint in that region is correct then a request for a 40% rate increase is a big,big deal,as I'm sure you can imagine
I’m still waiting for my $2,500. Perhaps it will arrive in the mail today.
Here’s what happened:
The biggest complaint seems to be that those mean Republicans forced these co-ops out of business because of a provision they included in the last budget. That provision capped what could be spent on the Obamacare risk corridor reinsurance provision for health plans losing money at the level of what was paid into the program by health plans making money. In other words, the Congress reminded the co-ops and the administration of something that was assumed all along–that the risk corridor provision had to be revenue neutral.
The specific complaint is that because of this Republican budget cap health plans got only 12.6% of what they asked for and expected to get under the risk corridor reinsurance program.
One more good link (can’t stand Rubio because of Gang of 8, but this is the ONE good thing he has done):
Did Rubio deal a mortal blow to ObamaCare?
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/25/did-rubio-deal-a-mortal-blow-to-obamacare/
Two years ago, Marco Rubio won a fight during the budget battles to include a requirement for HHS to maintain budget neutrality in its risk-corridor programs. Rubio had pushed back against this program for months, claiming — as it happens, accurately — that it was a back-door bailout of the insurance companies that had cooperated in the effort to pass ObamaCare. Instead of allowing HHS to dip into general funds for risk-corridor payments, Rubio’s rider restricted those payouts to funds collected from taxes on insurers.
The move forced HHS to cut expected risk corridor payments to pennies on the dollar, and prompted the closure of more than half of the co-ops launched by HHS to provide supposedly low-cost coverage. Now that United Healthcare has signaled that it may cut its losses and get out of the ObamaCare market, The Hill credits Rubio with starting the death spiral many predicted when Democrats first passed ObamaCare in March 2010:
The risk corridors program was designed to be a temporary stopgap against high insurance claims during the first three years of the new federal program.
If an insurer had more expenses than it planned, the federal government would cover the remaining balance using cash collected from companies that paid out fewer claims than expected.
The program was almost certain to need extra money in the first few years, when there were fewer healthier customers signing up. But Rubio’s provision in 2014 severely limited any new spending by requiring the program to become budget neutral.
The damaging effects of the budget-neutral requirement became clear in October.
The Obama administration disclosed it could only afford to pay 13 cents of every dollar owed to the insurance companies — after insurers had already locked in their rates for the upcoming year. …
Within weeks, about a dozen start-up insurers known as CO-OPs announced they’d be shutting their doors, in most cases because they lacked the cash flow to stay solvent. And at least two other insurers — WinHealth Partners in Wyoming and Moda Health in Washington — pulled out of the exchanges.
Well, thank you for that.
And major kudos to Mr. Rubio. That couldn’t have been an easy fight, and he probably paid some sort of price for it - political, business, or both.
So he is a fighter. Or at least he can be a fighter if he believes in the cause.
I will keep this in the ‘Rubio’ file for future reference.
You can keep you Affordable Care Act policy and pay the higher cost or the tax for no health care coverage, frankly we don’t give a damn which you pay..........
Just make sure you keep this in your ‘Rubio’ file for future reference as well .....
Rubio Record (immigration)
http://www.eagleforum.org/immigration/rubio-record.html
Excerpt from link “CONCLUSION”:
There is no single major distinguishing policy difference between Marco Rubio, John McCain or Lindsey Graham. They have the same trade policy, immigration policy and foreign policy. But on immigration most especially — the issue in which all four have invested the most — there is no daylight separating them.
The difference, then, is one of persona, not policy. And in the arena of immigration, this translates into a vital difference. The biggest change from McCain-Kennedy, which could not get out of the Senate, and the Gang of Eight — which was nursed along by conservative pundits despite being to the left of Kennedy’s bill — was the presence of Rubio. Rubio created the conditions necessary to produce a considerably more open borders bill: conservatives who were invested in the Rubio Brand provided no early pushback but accepted Kennedy’s old talking points, and Rubio gave red state Democrats the political space necessary to support it. This is how it got 68 votes in the Senate.
The stakes of course are raised considerably if Rubio is President or Vice President. Rubio would have a much, much better chance than Obama of getting an open borders bill through Congress — while Boehner could refuse to bring up Obama’s mass immigration/amnesty bill for vote in 2014, Ryan would never refuse Rubio’s bill. Rubio’s presence, as it did with the Gang of Eight, would create the cover for both certain Republicans and all Democrats to get behind a far more open borders plan. Given that nearly every House Democrat sponsored the Gang of Eight House version (including Pelosi and Gutierrez), Ryan would not need to gather that many additional votes (House GOP leaders might have refused Obama’s 2014 request for a vote but they would not refuse President Rubio’s).
All of which adds up to: there is likely no person in the United States of America in a better position to enact mass immigration legislation than a President Rubio — no one who could deliver more votes in both parties for open borders immigration. Senator Rubio is not Main Street’s Obama, he is Wall Street’s Obama: President Obama was a hardcore leftist running as centrist; Senator Rubio is a Wall Street globalist running as a tea party conservative.
Unlike other legislation, the effects of bad immigration policy cannot be repealed. They are forever. The Republican party would never nominate a pro-Obamacare candidate, and it must be an even stronger maxim that it should not nominate any candidate who is committed to a policy of mass immigration. Rubio wrote the Obamacare of immigration policies: a bill that would have eviscerated the middle class, plunged millions into poverty, legalized the most dangerous aliens on the planet, overwhelmed our schools and safety nets, and done irreversible violence to the idea of America as a nation-state. Rubio is the candidate of open borders, Obamatrade and mass immigration, making one last attempt to pull off one big con.
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.