WWTBAM Bored

I am caught square in the debacle that is the Obamacare driven collapse of Minnesota's individual health insurance market. Agent called me today-50% premium increase for a lesser product than I have this year. Hard to fit $18,000 health insurance premium into the budget.

Anyway-Background on the Minnesota story.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... es-by-half

Then this story in the Star Tribune caught my eye :
http://www.startribune.com/premium-hike ... 396060381/
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
From the Star Trib story
>>>In response to lawmaker questions, Commerce Commissioner Mike Rothman said the enrollment caps would create scenarios where consumers might not have the sort of access to health plans, doctors and hospitals that they might want. That’s why regulators are encouraging people to shop early once open enrollment begins Nov. 1.

“Consumers will have access to a plan, but I want to emphasize: It may not necessarily be with the specific insurer or provider network people would prefer,” Rothman said. “I urge Minnesotans to shop early.”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Note the answer of the regulators is to SHOP EARLY. That means you should shop early so you can get a policy and somebody else won't. This means that there is a shortage of health insurance to purchase. Socialism causes shortages every time it is tried.

Is "Shop Early" for an expensive sub-standard health insurance policy really any different than lining up early in Venezuela (or the old east block) hoping to get toilet paper (or any other consumer product) at any price?

Spock wrote:I am caught square in the debacle that is the Obamacare driven collapse of Minnesota's individual health insurance market. Agent called me today-50% premium increase for a lesser product than I have this year. Hard to fit $18,000 health insurance premium into the budget.

Anyway-Background on the Minnesota story.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... es-by-half

Then this story in the Star Tribune caught my eye :
http://www.startribune.com/premium-hike ... 396060381/
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
From the Star Trib story
>>>In response to lawmaker questions, Commerce Commissioner Mike Rothman said the enrollment caps would create scenarios where consumers might not have the sort of access to health plans, doctors and hospitals that they might want. That’s why regulators are encouraging people to shop early once open enrollment begins Nov. 1.

“Consumers will have access to a plan, but I want to emphasize: It may not necessarily be with the specific insurer or provider network people would prefer,” Rothman said. “I urge Minnesotans to shop early.”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Note the answer of the regulators is to SHOP EARLY. That means you should shop early so you can get a policy and somebody else won't. This means that there is a shortage of health insurance to purchase. Socialism causes shortages every time it is tried.

Is "Shop Early" for an expensive sub-standard health insurance policy really any different than lining up early in Venezuela (or the old east block) hoping to get toilet paper (or any other consumer product) at any price?

No question that this is a real problem, particularly the caps. But are you using MNcare to buy your insurance? If so, I imagine that you're eligible for subsidies. And I'll point out that one of the policies is not imposing a cap, so it's not correct to say that anyone will be shut out of the insurance market entirely.

I'll also add that $18k per year sounds like about what I was paying for COBRA coverage for me, my wife, and our son shortly before the Affordable Care Act took effect. --Bob

Spock wrote:Is "Shop Early" for an expensive sub-standard health insurance policy really any different than lining up early in Venezuela (or the old east block) hoping to get toilet paper (or any other consumer product) at any price?

In one way, it's worse. Supply problems don't affect the cost of making TP. But young healthy Minnesotans won't be buying these expensive policies. They'd rather pay the penalty, or try for an exemption, and take their chances. Sickly Minnesotans will shop early and pay the high premiums. Then insurance companies' payouts will increase even more.

But I thought of another similarity. Insurance companies will react, as they always do, by denying legitimate claims. For patients, it's the health care equivalent of coarse scratchy TP — a pain in the ass.

Anyone with a basic understanding of economics and human behavior saw this coming. Anyone with any knowledge of history saw this coming. Except for those folks with their eyes closed thinking unicorns are real and if we just wish hard enough it will be O.K.

It was a fool's plan to begin with. That's why his name is on it.

BackInTex wrote:Anyone with a basic understanding of economics and human behavior saw this coming. Anyone with any knowledge of history saw this coming. Except for those folks with their eyes closed thinking unicorns are real and if we just wish hard enough it will be O.K.

It was a fool's plan to begin with. That's why his name is on it.

Jonathan Gruber saw it coming. And he counted on the stupidity of Americans to get it passed. Judging by the two people that have been nominated by the American people for President, how can anyone disagree with him?

BackInTex wrote:Anyone with a basic understanding of economics and human behavior saw this coming. Anyone with any knowledge of history saw this coming. Except for those folks with their eyes closed thinking unicorns are real and if we just wish hard enough it will be O.K.

It was a fool's plan to begin with. That's why his name is on it.

But here's the thing. The Affordable Care Act doesn't limit premiums, other than by requiring rebates from any company with a medical loss ratio of less than 85%. So if price regulation is the problem, that's purely on the state.

And the Act is working quite well here in California. --Bob

It's a good thing that we'll have Hillary Clinton at work in three months to start fixing those problems.

silverscreenselect wrote:It's a good thing that we'll have Hillary Clinton at work in three months to start fixing those problems.

Is there a new federal prisoner work program I'm unaware of.

Bob #'s>>>And I'll point out that one of the policies is not imposing a cap, so it's not correct to say that anyone will be shut out of the insurance market entirely.<<<

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The relevant quote that Bob is talking about.

>>>Four of five health insurers in the market will stop offering coverage once they hit their enrollment cap, meaning consumers could find their only option is the health plan without a cap — the Blue Plus HMO from Eagan-based Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota.<<<

That would be more relevant , if they were offering that option outside of the 7-county (or maybe a few more counties) Twin Cities Metro area. It is not an option for the bulk of the land area of the state. Outstate Minnesota is getting the shaft.

Bob #'s>>>"And the Act is working quite well here in California.<<<<

Obviously, the act could be collapsing around your ears and you would be singing it praises. How is it working the individual buyer out there?

Given Bill Clinton's statement the other day-Minnesota is not the only state with similar problems.

>>>"The people that are getting killed in this deal are small business people and individuals who make just a little too much to get any of these subsidies," Bill Clinton said.<<<

>>>I'll also add that $18k per year sounds like about what I was paying for COBRA coverage for me, my wife, and our son shortly before the Affordable Care Act took effect. --Bob<<<

Obviously, I don't know the specifics of your plan, but from what I have seen of work plans-that you were continuing through Cobra-are pretty "Cadillac" plans-ie low deductibles and a lot of bells and whistles. My guess is that you were continuing a pretty low-deductible plan.

I have always bought relatively cheap, high deductible plans. Now, I have to buy expensive, high-deductible plans. I would have $13,000 deductible, in addition to the $18,000 premium.

$30,000 out of pocket before I see a dime.

Spock wrote:Bob #'s>>>"And the Act is working quite well here in California.<<<<

Obviously, the act could be collapsing around your ears and you would be singing it praises. How is it working the individual buyer out there?

Given Bill Clinton's statement the other day-Minnesota is not the only state with similar problems.

>>>"The people that are getting killed in this deal are small business people and individuals who make just a little too much to get any of these subsidies," Bill Clinton said.<<<

I know Jackie Fox is having problems with California's ACA Exchange. I haven't looked into the details.

Spock wrote:>>>I'll also add that $18k per year sounds like about what I was paying for COBRA coverage for me, my wife, and our son shortly before the Affordable Care Act took effect. --Bob<<<

Obviously, I don't know the specifics of your plan, but from what I have seen of work plans-that you were continuing through Cobra-are pretty "Cadillac" plans-ie low deductibles and a lot of bells and whistles. My guess is that you were continuing a pretty low-deductible plan.

I have always bought relatively cheap, high deductible plans. Now, I have to buy expensive, high-deductible plans. I would have $13,000 deductible, in addition to the $18,000 premium.

$30,000 out of pocket before I see a dime.

There's something wrong here. I think a plan with a $13,000 deductible is not ACA-compliant. But I haven't focused on the details so I may be wrong about that. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:>>>I'll also add that $18k per year sounds like about what I was paying for COBRA coverage for me, my wife, and our son shortly before the Affordable Care Act took effect. --Bob<<<

Obviously, I don't know the specifics of your plan, but from what I have seen of work plans-that you were continuing through Cobra-are pretty "Cadillac" plans-ie low deductibles and a lot of bells and whistles. My guess is that you were continuing a pretty low-deductible plan.

I have always bought relatively cheap, high deductible plans. Now, I have to buy expensive, high-deductible plans. I would have $13,000 deductible, in addition to the $18,000 premium.

$30,000 out of pocket before I see a dime.

There's something wrong here. I think a plan with a $13,000 deductible is not ACA-compliant. But I haven't focused on the details so I may be wrong about that. --Bob

For 2017, the OOP maximum is $7,150 for an individual and $14,300 for a family plan.

However, that doesn't mean that the OOP amount must all be in the form of a deductible. In most cases, the cheapest plans require you to meet the OOP as a deductible and then pay 100% of covered benefits after that. More expensive plans have smaller deductibles and then pay somewhere in the neighborhood of 70-90% of benefits after that until the OOP maximum is reached. Plus, under any plan, a number of preventive care services, including immunizations, flu shots, mammograms, and colonoscopies are covered.

Spock wrote:>>>I'll also add that $18k per year sounds like about what I was paying for COBRA coverage for me, my wife, and our son shortly before the Affordable Care Act took effect. --Bob<<<

Obviously, I don't know the specifics of your plan, but from what I have seen of work plans-that you were continuing through Cobra-are pretty "Cadillac" plans-ie low deductibles and a lot of bells and whistles. My guess is that you were continuing a pretty low-deductible plan.

I have always bought relatively cheap, high deductible plans. Now, I have to buy expensive, high-deductible plans. I would have $13,000 deductible, in addition to the $18,000 premium.

$30,000 out of pocket before I see a dime.

So are you saying that you're not entitled to any subsidy? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:>>>I'll also add that $18k per year sounds like about what I was paying for COBRA coverage for me, my wife, and our son shortly before the Affordable Care Act took effect. --Bob<<<

Obviously, I don't know the specifics of your plan, but from what I have seen of work plans-that you were continuing through Cobra-are pretty "Cadillac" plans-ie low deductibles and a lot of bells and whistles. My guess is that you were continuing a pretty low-deductible plan.

I have always bought relatively cheap, high deductible plans. Now, I have to buy expensive, high-deductible plans. I would have $13,000 deductible, in addition to the $18,000 premium.

$30,000 out of pocket before I see a dime.

There's something wrong here. I think a plan with a $13,000 deductible is not ACA-compliant. But I haven't focused on the details so I may be wrong about that. --Bob

I was keeping it simple. There are 4 of us in the plan-me and the 3 kids. Each of us have a $6,500 deductible-but the deductible for the other 2 goes away if 2 of us meet it. I get in a car accident and meet my $6,500-we would still be facing $6,500 deductibles on the other 3. If something happens to one of the others then the deductible goes away for the remaining 2.

So for simplicity, I call it a $13,000 deductible.

I just scared myself and just thought of a question to ask my agent and I am not sure how it works-but if all 4 of us -had $5,000 medical bills each-that could be $20,000 out of pocket plus the premium-not sure how that works-have to ask my agent on that.

Bob78164 wrote:I'll also add that $18k per year sounds like about what I was paying for COBRA coverage for me, my wife, and our son shortly before the Affordable Care Act took effect.

COBRA is notoriously expensive, as you are paying the employee portion AND the portion that formerly was being paid by your employer. I bet you were paying WAY less than $18k while you were still employed.

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I'll also add that $18k per year sounds like about what I was paying for COBRA coverage for me, my wife, and our son shortly before the Affordable Care Act took effect.

COBRA is notoriously expensive, as you are paying the employee portion AND the portion that formerly was being paid by your employer. I bet you were paying WAY less than $18k while you were still employed.

Sure. But whether I paid or the employer paid, that's still what the insurance company was charging. (Actually, I think COBRA allows the insurance company to charge me 2% more than the combined price to the both of us.) And since my employer had the ability to negotiate group rates, I'm guessing that the same coverage in the individual market would have cost me even more. --Bob

The Governor reacts to the crisis:

Gov. Dayton Declares Affordable Care Act ‘No Longer Affordable’

Sen. Klobuchar hasn't said anything about it. She's been concentrating on the high cost of EpiPen and drugs in general.

jarnon wrote:But young healthy Minnesotans won't be buying these expensive policies. They'd rather pay the penalty, or try for an exemption, and take their chances. Sickly Minnesotans will shop early and pay the high premiums. Then insurance companies' payouts will increase even more.

Princeton Prof. Reinhardt agrees, and says the problem is nationwide.

Why private health insurers are losing money on the Affordable Care Act

jarnon wrote:

jarnon wrote:But young healthy Minnesotans won't be buying these expensive policies. They'd rather pay the penalty, or try for an exemption, and take their chances. Sickly Minnesotans will shop early and pay the high premiums. Then insurance companies' payouts will increase even more.

Princeton Prof. Reinhardt agrees, and says the problem is nationwide.

Why private health insurers are losing money on the Affordable Care Act

I keep wondering how expensive those policies (particularly for young people) actually are after subsidies, and whether people choosing to pay the penalty have that information. --Bob

The Affordable Care Act is not socialism. Medicare for all would not be socialism either.

SportsFan68 wrote:The Affordable Care Act is not socialism. Medicare for all would not be socialism either.

These days, the word socialism gets tossed around so much, it's almost lost all meaning.