My health insurance just got cancelled

Matthew said:
The company that was closed, about 80k policies, was set up on the exchange. Did it exist in 2013?

It went under because they didn't get the bailout money the Feds said they'd get.

http://m.gazette.com/colorado-health-insurer-unsuccessfully-challenges-closure/article/1561562
Click to expand...

Running a health insurance co is not time for amateur hour, particularly the consumer market. The outfit I work for took 10 years before they went from offering group plans to dipping their toe into the individual market.
 
paflyer said:
In a free country, you can buy junk of you so choose.
Click to expand...


Not if the law says you can't.

And if your "junk" policies caused me to pay for what your policy didn't cover, then good riddance to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
denverpilot said:
Thank the bosses. There's absolutely no way they didn't eat the additional cost to make that happen.




It's perfectly rational. They want an utter failure so single payer looks better emotionally and nobody notices the huge price jump along the way.
Click to expand...



If you look at rate changes across the country, some states went up considerably, some barely moved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sundancer said:
Your (U.S. based) competitors do have to follow the same laws, etc. as you do. Read and learn some yourself, and you'd discover that you, in fact, do not have to pick up 100% of your employee's insurance cost. If you choose to do so, and it hurts you competively, that's on you. Lobby away, but until the rules change, you're griping about picking up a tab you asked for, then whining about the owner at the other widget company making a duffrent, and legitimate, business decision.
Click to expand...


No, some don't.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JoseCuervo said:
Not if the law says you can't.

And if your "junk" policies caused me to pay for what your policy didn't cover, then good riddance to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


What did anyone else's policy force you to pay for?

Only your policy and the terms you agreed to, for the price you agreed to, can do that.

It's a nice trick to claim policies people wanted were "junk", but there's zero basis in reality in that statement. And definitely no connection to what you negotiated for yourself.

Plus they were told they could keep their policy and Doctor, and they'd save thousands a year. Lies all.

Why can't you just say you wanted someone else to pay for stuff you want and they don't? That's all it really is.

We've already discussed that you use "the law" as a weapon, sociopathically.

That's all "the law" is accomplishing, forcing people to buy things they don't want or don't need for your personal gain.

Plus, why defend it? You didn't see it before the legislators voted on it, any more than they did. It was and still is, guaranteed to be poor legislation without any input from those represented, if it couldn't withstand even a modicum of real debate.

And if you're defending it out of pure partisanism, well, you got screwed by your own Party pretty hard, then... Since they had the votes to go all the way to single payer and balked.

What specifically was it about this legislation that you liked and had ample opportunity to review and provide feedback on through your representative before they voted on it? LOL... Right. Nothing. Nothing at all.

Smart people don't back such things, no matter which Party claims they're doing something so wonderful that rainbows will fly out of unicorn's butts.

Folks here are telling you the truth... It has failed them. And it will continue to fail them and get worse. Because that's exactly how it was designed.
 
denverpilot said:
What did anyone else's policy force you to pay for?

Only your policy and the terms you agreed to, for the price you agreed to, can do that.

It's a nice trick to claim policies people wanted were "junk", but there's zero basis in reality in that statement. And definitely no connection to what you negotiated for yourself.

Plus they were told they could keep their policy and Doctor, and they'd save thousands a year. Lies all.

Why can't you just say you wanted someone else to pay for stuff you want and they don't? That's all it really is.

We've already discussed that you use "the law" as a weapon, sociopathically.

That's all "the law" is accomplishing, forcing people to buy things they don't want or don't need for your personal gain.

Plus, why defend it? You didn't see it before the legislators voted on it, any more than they did. It was and still is, guaranteed to be poor legislation without any input from those represented, if it couldn't withstand even a modicum of real debate.

And if you're defending it out of pure partisanism, well, you got screwed by your own Party pretty hard, then... Since they had the votes to go all the way to single payer and balked.

What specifically was it about this legislation that you liked and had ample opportunity to review and provide feedback on through your representative before they voted on it? LOL... Right. Nothing. Nothing at all.

Smart people don't back such things, no matter which Party claims they're doing something so wonderful that rainbows will fly out of unicorn's butts.

Folks here are telling you the truth... It has failed them. And it will continue to fail them and get worse. Because that's exactly how it was designed.
Click to expand...


I had to pay, thru higher taxes, higher insurance rates, and higher medical charges for the " junk" policies coming up short when their holders stiffed the Drs and the hospitals.

I believe everyone should be personally responsible and not try and mooch off the system.

And yes, as a registered republican, my party has screwed up the health care system.


And nice with the false allegations.
 
Idiocracy prevails.
Hope! Change! Forward!
 
JoseCuervo said:
I had to pay, thru higher taxes, higher insurance rates, and higher medical charges for the " junk" policies coming up short when their holders stiffed the Drs and the hospitals.

I believe everyone should be personally responsible and not try and mooch off the system.

And yes, as a registered republican, my party has screwed up the health care system.
Click to expand...


Doubt it. The "stiffed" simply started charging $11 for a Tylenol and easily made up their " shortfalls". Never seen a hospital network get smaller, or announce national layoffs, unless they needed to buy out an exec retiring and let them pull too much capital out at once.

If you believe everyone should be personally responsible, then you have no leg to stand on about what they purchase. They chose. It's not your call.

That they'll likely just take a run through the the bankruptcy car wash, if the bill is too high, isn't really a healthcare problem, it was a mortgage crisis problem, an insurance bailout and banking bailout problem, etc. In other words, a moral problem.

If you truly want 100% personal responsibility, you'll have to lobby to ban bankruptcy and government debt. The country is way too amoral for that at this point.

Here's a hint on republicans or democrats. Neither has screwed up anything at all... For themselves. The longer you find either one relevant, the longer the problems they both create on purpose, will continue to grow.
 
I have the same plan I've had since 2007. A single plan with awesome coverage with United. My rates started at $99 a month and are now 395 and I received another letter from them saying my rates go up again in February to 440 or something.

The letter CLEARLY states it's due to ACA. I keep the coverage as I'm in my 40's even though I've only used it for dental visits...

I never once believed I'd save $2500 a year. I doubt any one of any intelligence ever once believed Obama. Just can't see any one with a lick of sense falling for it.. but who knows.
 
We're in open enrollment right now. Premiums went up. Deductibles went up. Copays went up for everything. Prescriptions went up. Same plan.

Explain how I am better off.
 
Lindberg said:
We're in open enrollment right now. Premiums went up. Deductibles went up. Copays went up for everything. Prescriptions went up. Same plan.

Explain how I am better off.
Click to expand...

Because other people can now buy insurance for pre-existing conditions.

Just think about how much higher your premiums would be without the wonderful ACA....
 
My premiums (for me and my daughter) went up 32%, prescription copays went up, deductibles went up. I already had the cheapest plan available. Yay, Affordable Care Act for saving me $2500.

Maybe that $2500 savings promise was really Washington-style savings? You know, "Without O'Care, your premiums would have increased $2500 on top of this! See? We really DID save you $2500!"
 
1RTK1 said:
Your rates went down because you went from a PPO to an HMO. With the PPO you have more options as to doctors and hospitals versus the HMO. The reimbursement contracts for HMO's are much different than those for the PPO's I have compared.
Click to expand...

No, I could have gone on a PPO plan with my company with significantly cheaper premiums than the HMO plan, but would have had a 1500 deductible and significantly higher out of pocket maximums.
 
The details that are often left out is the stuff like "my premiums went up *but my deductible and/or out-of-pocket max went down*.
From PaulS: This is a post from Bizzaro world, especially the first sentence. No, just no.
Click to expand...
:dunno:

How is this bizarre, when one poster on this thread already indicated that is exactly what happened to them?
 
Last edited:
Jeff Oslick said:
:dunno:

How is this bizarre, when one poster on this thread already indicated that is exactly what happened to them?
Click to expand...

One out of many others that have had the exact opposite happen. There is more to that poster's story than he is letting on.
 
1RTK1 said:
Your rates went down because you went from a PPO to an HMO. With the PPO you have more options as to doctors and hospitals versus the HMO. The reimbursement contracts for HMO's are much different than those for the PPO's I have compared.
Click to expand...

Very true. Side note: around here, the premiums are within about 10% between PPO and HMO. At one employer, the high-deductible policies are more expensive when normal medical expenses are taken into account. If you don't use healthcare at all, they're cheaper, but even minor health care expenses push them into the 'more expensive' column. My former employer had substantially lower rates on high deductible policies.

You also have to be very careful with the HMO policies - at least one around here provides ZERO out-of-network coverage. That's a complete non-starter for those of us who travel.

SCCutler said:
Envious!

Our initial quotes in this year's renewal dance are up substantially. It does seem as if, in general, you have to be a Very Large Business to be able to establish a rationally-priced insurance plan.

We have had some smoke-and-mirrors salespeople (they seem principally to employ strikingly-attractive women... odd), pushing plans which save money but have what I would politely call "questionable" coverage. Opportunistic crap, or so it seems to me.

My massive increases in health care insurance premiums are real; call them "anecdotal" if you like. The observations of each and every witness to history are mere anecdotes, as well.
Click to expand...

Although the design of the 'Cadillac Taxes' will eventually push large businesses to provide plans that match the minimums set by law, and perhaps raise rates on plans. The full impact of those taxes won't hit this year - but will after the election.....
 
wsuffa said:
......



Although the design of the 'Cadillac Taxes' will eventually push large businesses to provide plans that match the minimums set by law, and perhaps raise rates on plans. The full impact of those taxes won't hit this year - but will after the election.....
Click to expand...

Kinda like throwing a grenade over your shoulder as you leave the room...:mad2::mad:
 
Lindberg said:
It was brilliant of the administration to coin the term "Junk Policies." It implies that they are junk, i.e., there is something objectively bad about them. Like they were a scam or worthless. In fact, they are just policies that had higher deductibles or less coverage than our bettors think we should have. Some of the brightest, most self-sufficient folks I know had their "junk" policies canceled. These were not the great unwashed masses being exploited by greedy insurance companies, but rather the exact opposite. These were well off individuals who made a conscious choice to self-insure for all but the most catastrophic situations. As such, they couldn't be exploited by the insurance companies. It is you, not the insurance companies, who are now exploiting these individuals.
Click to expand...
Great post, but you didn't take into account the "stupidity" of American voters. :mad2:
 
Lindberg said:
We're in open enrollment right now. Premiums went up. Deductibles went up. Copays went up for everything. Prescriptions went up. Same plan.

Explain how I am better off.
Click to expand...

Cuervo is a shill.
 
paflyer said:
Cuervo is a shill.
Click to expand...



Let's see, if you remove the personal attacks, you add nothing to the discussion.

Why not try and have an intelligent conversation and leave your petty name calling outside?
 
JoseCuervo said:
I had to pay, thru higher taxes, higher insurance rates, and higher medical charges for the " junk" policies coming up short when their holders stiffed the Drs and the hospitals.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works. Thats not how any of this works.

If a patient doesn't pay, it's not like his charges are just added to someone elses bill. The provider or the hospital eats it. I could have 100% insured patients and I wouldn't charge any individual patient a penny less.

We didn't have maternity coverage when we had our first kid. After I got the bill, I wrote the hospital and the OB a check. How did that create any burden for you, through taxes, insurance premiums or anything else ?

I believe everyone should be personally responsible and not try and mooch off the system.
Click to expand...

O-care expanded medicaid, the welfare program for those who are not responsible for anything. How does that square with your professed love for personal responsibility.
 
Matthew said:
My premiums (for me and my daughter) went up 32%, prescription copays went up, deductibles went up. I already had the cheapest plan available. Yay, Affordable Care Act for saving me $2500.
Click to expand...

There is obviously more to the story, you are lying and it didn't happen ;)



And if it did happen, you are just an anecdote.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
No, I could have gone on a PPO plan with my company with significantly cheaper premiums than the HMO plan, but would have had a 1500 deductible and significantly higher out of pocket maximums.
Click to expand...

Wow, the "comparable" HMO's I looked at were less.
I choose a PPO due to the larger network of doctors hospitals etc. That way if I want to go to the mayo clinic, Stanford, UC, etc. I have that ability where as with the HMO it was out of network.
If the PPO had higher deductables and out of pocket I can see that would reduce the premiums.

I had a Cadillac plan which no longer can he had. It was far better and more affordable than what is available to me at this point, unfortunately something similar would be horrendously expensive so my employees will have to settle for a lesser plan:(.......................... I guess that is what the ACA wanted, everyone is on the same level of a poor playing field.............
 
Last edited:
1RTK1 said:
Wow, the "comparable" HMO's I looked at were less.
I choose a PPO due to the larger network of doctors hospitals etc.
Click to expand...

This is a somewhat unusual HMO Plan in that it covers a very wide range of providers. It is not a cheap plan (premium-wise) by any stretch. The same company has other HMO plans that are a subset of their "full list" of providers.

And, FWIW, the premium increase on this HMO plan (otherwise unchanged) from 2015 to 2016 was 6%.
 
1RTK1 said:
I had a Cadillac plan which no longer can he had. It was far better and more affordable than what is available to me at this point, unfortunately something similar would be horrendously expensive so my employees will have to settle for a lesser plan:(.......................... I guess that is what the ACA wanted, everyone is on the same level of a poor playing field.............
Click to expand...

Obviously, your cadillac plan is what drove up cost for everyone else so it had to be eliminated.







Funny, earlier we were told here that supposedly it was the people who didn't pay their bills who drive up the cost for everyone else. By that logic, your plan should have reduced the cost for everyone else, you know if a doctor gets his bill paid at the U&C level, he is going to give the next guy with a poorly paying HMO a discount. Something like that.
 
weilke said:
O-care expanded medicaid, the welfare program for those who are not responsible for anything. How does that square with your professed love for personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Above question directed at JoseCuervo, who claims on the regular board that he does not participate in Spin Zone.
 
weilke said:
That's not how it works. Thats not how any of this works.

If a patient doesn't pay, it's not like his charges are just added to someone elses bill. The provider or the hospital eats it. I could have 100% insured patients and I wouldn't charge any individual patient a penny less.

.
Click to expand...

If the person incurring the charges, the only other group to cover the expenses would be the other customers (thru higher charges to account for xx% bad debts a hospital/provider incurs) or, if a public hospital, the taxpayers. Their pricing models were sophisticated to account for expected bad debts. To think otherwise is folly.

Do you really think Dr's just went and sold their Jaguars every time somebody stiffed them on a bill? Do you think the hospital administrators sold their cabins on the lake?

There was a reason medical costs are so much when you had 17 million more people wandering in without insurance, and no ability to pay.
 
Becky said:
Above question directed at JoseCuervo, who claims on the regular board that he does not participate in Spin Zone.
Click to expand...


I am sure you have it all figured out, but this thread is in Hangar Talk.

To the best of my knowledge, I have never accessed the Spin Zone.

But, make up whatever fantasy you need to justify whatever point you are fabricating.
 
JoseCuervo said:
If the person incurring the charges, the only other group to cover the expenses would be the other customers (thru higher charges to account for xx% bad debts a hospital/provider incurs) or, if a public hospital, the taxpayers. Their pricing models were sophisticated to account for expected bad debts. To think otherwise is folly.

Do you really think Dr's just went and sold their Jaguars every time somebody stiffed them on a bill? Do you think the hospital administrators sold their cabins on the lake?

There was a reason medical costs are so much when you had 17 million more people wandering in without insurance, and no ability to pay.
Click to expand...

Another nonsensical post Jose. I can't figure out your point.

Medicine is expensive, so let's make it more expensive, that is the solution?
 
JoseCuervo said:
Do you really think Dr's just went and sold their Jaguars every time somebody stiffed them on a bill? Do you think the hospital administrators sold their cabins on the lake?
Click to expand...
You claim to be well off, successful, and paying a lot of taxes. I've met a successful business person who harbors this type of resentment for those with more success.
 
If anybody actually cares what "apples to apples" increases look like for 2016, instead of just relying on anecdotes of what somebody's uncle's sister's bosses's gardener's drycleaner's cashier's aunt's bartender heard.....


http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/analysis-of-2016-premium-changes-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces/

This breaks it down on an apple to apple basis.

Some highlights:

Among these major cities, the percent change from last year in the benchmark premium ranges from -10.6% in Seattle, Washington to 38.4% in Nashville, TN. The simple average of these rate changes is 10.1% before accounting for the premium tax credit.
Click to expand...


2016 benchmark silver rates for a 40 year old will range from $183 per month in Albuquerque, NM to $719 per month in Anchorage, Alaska before accounting for the tax credit. If this 40 year old makes $30,000 per year, the premium paid by the consumer after the tax credit would range from $163 per month in Anchorage, Alaska to $206 per month in most of the country.
Click to expand...

This is where the "other details" are important. What state was the anecdote in? What was the cost after the tax credit? etc....



And, it does depend on where you live. People in Portland, Oregon are upset, people up the coast in Seattle got a pleasant surprise.

8747-figure-1.png



And, like anything as a consumer, it pays to shop around:

This underscores the importance of enrollees actively shopping each open enrollment period. For example, in Seattle, Washington, Bridgespan offered the second-lowest-cost silver plan in 2015 at a premium of $254 per month for a single 40 year-old before taking a tax credit into account. Bridgespan is increasing this plan’s rate to $286 per month for 2016, but another insurer (Ambetter) is undercutting it and offering two lower-cost silver options for $225 and $228 per month. An unsubsidized person enrolled in the 2015 second-lowest silver plan offered by Bridgespan would see a 12.6% increase if she stayed in the same plan. Conversely, if she switched to the new second-lowest silver plan offered by Ambetter, her premium would drop -10.1% (before accounting for the relatively small effect aging up a year would have on her premiums).
Click to expand...
 
PaulS said:
Another nonsensical post Jose. I can't figure out your point.

Medicine is expensive, so let's make it more expensive, that is the solution?
Click to expand...


I will take it slower.


When somebody doesn't pay a bill to the hospital, for services rendered, what is the accounting treatment of the bad debt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top