Anthem Blue Cross CHARGING me for health care reform bill!

[Nikki Stone1]

Backstory:

If you all remember, Anthem Blue Cross wanted a 39% rate hike for all Californians back in the spring. Also, if you remember, that request got them the attention of Kathleen Sibelius and HHS:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2010/February/08/sebelius-anthem-rate-hikes.aspx

Well, apparently the state of California has allowed a rise to go through. My next Blue Cross payment (heist) will be up by 25%

BTW, this is nothing about my own personal health situation, which hasn't changed any. Here are the actual reasons for the increase that Anthem Blue Cross stated in my notice:

--advances in medical technology
--price inflation for medical services exceeding regular inflation
--cost shifting of the uninsured and medicaid recipients to the private sector
--Compliance with the new health care reform bill (!)
--Lifestyles, such as the national increase in obesity

So, I am paying 25% extra to cover Anthem's costs to comply with Obama's bill, which basically gave away the store to the insurance companies, AND to cover the costs of the uninsured and Medicaid recipients, which Anthem claims are being shifted to them. (I am also paying, if you notice, for the crazy inflation of medical services that is due to the industry itself, and this will only get worse when they have complete control of a mandated customer base.)

None of this to do with me or my health. Everything to do with shifting their costs to the consumer so they can still collect obscene profits.

It's only going to get worse people.

[rug]

1. Which is why it's an insurance act, not a health care act.

[Nikki Stone1]

2. Exactly. It was misnamed from the beginning.

No wonder the insurance company stocks went up.

[sabrina 1]

54. Yes, but we knew that. Too bad we had no say in it at all.

And it may be happening again, regarding the deal being sealed before any public discussion, with Social Security.

[Dinger]

30. Yes

You are correct.

[dotymed]

73. I have BC/BS also.

They are making my claims almost impossible on my care providers, They (Dr.'s, etc...) must "code" the claims in a "special" way now. Any deviation results in a "non-payout."
Of course, this is eventually going to have the desired effect...I have heart failure and I (too often) have to get angioplasties, stents, etc, They say my P.A.D. is too advanced to risk open-heart surgery. (I say go for the open-heart.) Eventually, they will make it so hard for my care givers to get paid, that they will cut way down on treatment.
If, in my case, I could keep decent health care even if I went back to work (sedentary job), I would do so in a second. No matter what my Dr.'s say.
I am so sick of surviving-vs-living.
I am sure many people are in my shoes.
Universal health care is a human right, not a "live if you can afford to" proposition...well it should be.
In all other industrialized nations it is, not here, "there's gold in them there dying people...if not ...let 'em die."

[shireen]

107. hug to you ...

I'm so sorry to hear about your ordeal.
:hug:

[lovuian]

167. yep

Bingo

this is a bonus for insurance companies you can stay afloat till 2014

[Nikki Stone1]

3. kick

Whether you like it or not, it's the truth.

[EC]

4. They are using the bill as advertising

against the HCR - I wonder if this could be termed political advertising?

[NYC_SKP]

32. I think you're onto something EC. The saw an opportunity to shit on and blame HC Reform and Obama.

When all along they were going to raise it anyway, and probably even more.

:patriot:

[Nikki Stone1]

43. Then why hand over every American citizen to this lying industry?

That was my question way back. It still is.

[glinda]

96. Exactly. Wall street, HC Industry, Insurance Industries, Banks all ganging up on him.

[awoke_in_2003]

130. "all ganging up on him"

they aren't "ganging up" on Obama, they are ganging up on US.

[glinda]

143. Yes but the original reference on this part of the discussion was on "Obama".

[flamingdem]

133. Which points to the fact they wil be financially hurt by HCR not helped

especially when they have to put a larger percent towards health care vs. administration.. I think that was partly due to Al Franken, have to check.

[tomm2thumbs]

87. +1 trying to place blame for their profiteering on someone else

let's face it, this industry is drowning in profits from their rate hikes and uncontrolled cutting of coverages


but oh, how they love to point the finger elsewhere

[NorthCarolina]

90. I agree. eom

[HuckleB]

147. They're using the HCR bill as an excuse.

That's some sick nonsense.

[Mimosa]

205. BC/BS rep did go thru a spiel about Obama's HCR reform

Last time I called BC/BS the rep told me I couldn't make changes in my policy without getting pre-approved and they would do it and didn't have to because of HCR act of 2010.

[JoePhilly]

5. Sounds like you were about to get hit with a 39% incrrease, and ...

You were hit with a 25% increase.

If Obama did nothing, which would it have been?

39%, or 25%??

Both suck. But ... just perhaps, Obama helped you avoid an additional 15% increase.

After all ... if we did nothing, do you think the insurance companies would have reduced their rates?

[ipaint]

6. If obama had put single payer on the table we would have a public option

and people who's rates are being hiked could tell the insurance companies to fuck off. How about that?

The knots people tie themselves into to defend bad policy and law. Amazing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. No we wouldn't have.

If Obama had put single payer on the table, Congress would not have voted for it.

People will tie themselves in knots to refight failed arguments they already tried a year ago.

[BzaDem]

9. Sometimes posts are so obvious it is a wonder why they even need to be stated.

Yours is one of them. +1.

[tallahasseedem]

38. +1

I completely agree.

[Forkboy]

196. You got that right.

[ipaint]

14. Nobody tried anything a year ago

that's the problem. No one gave the people a chance, whether win or lose, people would have understood the importance of having a real public option leading directly to single payer and who the obstructionists were who voted against them and worked to take them out. We would have had a real enemy instead of a media created bunch of phony tea party fools to waste all our energy and time on.

Now we have cynical dissapointed former Obama supporters who understand they've been had by a award winning advertising campaign and not much else.

Thanks to the real doom and gloomers, the aim low crowd, the worst of this heist by the ins. companies is yet to come.

[awoke_in_2003]

132. award winning advertising campaign and not much else"

+1000. Of course, if you try to criticize dear leader, I mean our president, you secretly wanted McCain/Palin :crazy:

[bvar22]

17. I disagree.

Had Obama decided to USE his Popular Mandate during Teabagger Summer we could have had at LEAST a Public Option.
Obama had an ARMY (us) he could have called on to target Blue Dogs in their HOME districts.
Instead, he ceded the field to the opposition.

"Strong and successful presidents (meaning those who get what they want - whether that happens to be good for the country or not) do not accept "the best deal on the table". They take out their carpentry tools and the build the goddam piece of furniture themselves. Strong and successful presidents do not get dictated to by the political environment. They reshape the environment into one that is conducive to their political aspirations."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/17

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[Bryn]

20. A big thumb up!

:kick:

[Nikki Stone1]

28. You're assuming that the "opposition" was a real opposition to what he wanted

I wonder.

[awoke_in_2003]

134. +1000. nt

[dflprincess]

25. If Obama had put single payer on the table the bargaining could have started from there

We may not have gotten single payer but we might have wound up with a decent public option rather than a bill that does nothing but protect the insurance companies and leaves us with no guarantees that all the money we pay in premiums will give us access to care.

[mdmc]

68. At least we would know the score

It would be very easy to see who supports the workers and who supports the corporations if we tried to pass real health care..

[jgraz]

86. The reason Single Payer was off the table was not because it wouldn't pass

It was kept off the table because it might have passed. No one in our bought-and-paid-for government was going to take that chance.

[dionysus]

110. yes, the blue dogs that killed the PO would be just rearingto vote for single payer!!!

did you even *think* before you typed that?
:rofl:

[katandmoon]

115. That doesn't change the fact that OBAMA DIDN'T EVEN TRY. He sold us out from the get go.

[uponit7771]

122. Obama didn't try to jump to the moon either, you do notice your arguments are tired as hell no?

[katandmoon]

152. What's tired as hell is any pretense that Obama isn't a total corporate sellout.

[dionysus]

129. perhaps the president, unlike some here, understands simple arithmetic.

:shrug:

[katandmoon]

151. He certainly understands how to make Wall St. and big corporations richer.

[jgraz]

119. Yeah, the blue dogs made a deal with for-profit hospitals to kill it.

Oh wait... that was President Hope-And-Change.


(It must suck for you to have to interact with people who actually read)

[laughingliberal]

173. Yep...

<snip> Lobbyists for both the drug and hospital industries say that, as early as June, White House officials directed them to work out cost-saving deals with Mr. Baucus’s committee. <snip>

<snip> Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying Medicare rates — generally 80 percent of private sector rates — or controlled by the secretary of health and human services.

“We have an agreement with the White House that I’m very confident will be seen all the way through conference,” one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter.<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

[Mimosa]

207. ^ True ^

Jgraz, you've nailed it.

[Feron]

101. Your plan only works if you intend to lose.

You never compromise before the negotiations even begin if you want a favorable outcome for the side you represent. The whole point is to start from a position you don't think you'll likely get and progress to a middle ground in which you'll at least get something.

The Democrats dropped single payer before negotiations even began and that's why we now have a law literally written by a health insurance lobbyist. The only winners are the health insurance companies.

[shireen]

108. it would have helped as a starting point in negotiation.

Yes, it's unlikely that Congress would have voted for it. But starting at that point in the negotiation process could have resulted in a better bill for people (as opposed to the insurance companies). We all know how the Republicans work; they make the Dems strip all sorts of things out of the bill, and end up not voting for it.

[awoke_in_2003]

131. If I want to sell an item...

for $100, I do not start the haggling off at $100, I start at $200 or $150. Obama claimed to support a public option, and should have started the argument for single payer, then maybe we could have haggled public option. Instead, we get a law that mandates we buy insurance from an industry that is regulated in no way as to what they can charge us. Of course, during the campaign, he ridiculed similar proposal by Clinton and McCain. Good campaigner, shitty leader.

[grahamhgreen]

139. Wrong. We would have got medicare expansion or a public option if obama even raised a little

finger to push it over the ONE senator blocking it.

It was a pathetic attempt to pretend that he wanted anything other than a giant insurance bailout for people who profit from the suffering of others.

disgusting.

[kenfrequed]

142. Right

Much better to compromise on a compromised compromise than to actaully ask for something we want, or more than what we expect.

Usually in order to come to what is reasonable in a negotiation, you ask for more than what you are willing to settle for. Putting universal single payer on the table might not have gotten it passed, but we probably would have been able to put it in to reconciliation as a sturdy public option and ended up looking reasonable.

Oh wait, we put insurance reform in reconciliation anyhow so it really didn't matter that the republicans voted it down.

[HughMoran]

76. Not even close to accurate

Wouldn't have kicked in for years and would only have been targeted at a small percentage of the population.

[Recursion]

79. And how much would the public option cost per month?

How much would it cost to join a public option structured like Medicare?

[daleanime]

95. A hell of a lot less....

then what this insurance scam is costing the nation. :think:

[dionysus]

109. it's funny to see people in utter denial that single payer never had the votes to get

out of committee.

[SammyWinstonJack]

128. +1

[Nikki Stone1]

23. Others may still have gotten the 39%. That was the "up to"

And Obama has given these guys free reign.

In four years, when you see the real cost of the bill, come back and talk to me.

[Skittles]

52. please......stop

just fucking STOP

[DeadEyeDyck]

61. where are you finding those numbers?

[AC_Mem]

74. Less of an increase

It's still financial assault whether it is 39% or 25%, but JoePhilly has a point, the hit is less than it could be.

This happened when the credit card industry began having to stop its reign of terror. Before they came into full compliance they jacked interest rates a "mob interest rate". Now we are seeing the credit card companies change their practices, slowly but surely. And the banks, they are no longer able to "pay and charge" bank transactions when you are overdrawn if you do not opt in to overdraft protection. When they knew it was coming down the pike, people were being hit with hundreds of compounded charges (my daughter's famous "$84.00 Starbucks Coffee" comes to mind).

The insurance companies should not be able to do this and I agree that the content of that notice is a slap at the government. These letters should be copied and sent to your congressman and I would wonder if this is a legal matter, or the basis for a class action lawsuit against Blue Cross.

If enough people say ENOUGH, we can make change. We can make it through these changes and will end up better off, I truly believe that.

Good luck to you, AC

[Tuesday Afternoon]

80. Nothing would have been better than this for a lot of us.

[EXneoCON]

88. My dog hates elephants....

he's done an excellent job of keeping all elephants out of my backyard. Imagine how many elephants would be munching on my petunias if it weren't for my dog......good dog.

[nashville_brook]

118. +1

[uponit7771]

123. +1!!!!

[Mimosa]

208. LMAO @ exneocon

Glad you saw the light. And welcome to D.U.

[keepCAblue]

97. Obama had NOTHING to do with cutting the increase from 39% to 25%...

Puhleeze. Anthem/BC announced the intent to raise premiums by up to 39% AFTER the so-called HCR bill passed, not before. It was the insurance industry's knee-jerk reaction to the bill's passing -- an in-your-face "we'll show you" response. It wasn't just Anthem/BC...it was every major health insurance provider in the industry that raised their rates -- they all all reacted similarly, though none so disgustingly as Anthem.

The ONLY reason Anthem dropped their rate hike from the proposes 39% to 25% was because California's Department of Insurance refused to approve such an outrageous hike -- though they ultimately approved lesser hikes:

The California Department of Insurance said Wednesday it approved a rate increase averaging about 14 percent for Anthem Blue Cross customers. The department also approved a nearly 19-percent increase for Blue Shield of California.

Anthem, a subsidiary of Indianapolis-based Wellpoint Inc. and California's largest for-profit insurer, had previously requested a boost that would have raised rates as much as 39 percent for some customers, with average increases of about 25 percent.

So Anthem/BC of California was approved for an AVERAGE 14% increase as opposed to the AVERAGE 25% they had originally proposed (and up to 39% for SOME individuals -- individuals, I presume, who have had higher claims than the average Anthem/BC subscriber). Yet the OP, who has had no change in her health profile-and, presumably, no increase in her claims--is getting hit with a 25% increase. Shouldn't the OP have seen an increase of 14% or LOWER, since she is not a high claims customer and there has been no change in her medical condition? It appears that Anthem is still applying the AVERAGE of 25% increase instead of the new, mandated 14% increase. The OP, and any others who have received higher than the "average 14% increase" should contact Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner of the Department of Insurance and start lodging complaints -- demand another audit of Anthem's rate increases. I'm fairly certain the DofI will find that the "average" increase will be far higher than 14%. I think they'll find that Anthem got exactly what they set out to get in the beginning: An average increase of 25%. (Caveat: Steve Poizner is a Republican who caters to corporate dollars...so wouldn't put too much faith in him doing anything that would reveal the corruption of Anthem/BC.)

[pnwmom]

137. Actually, Sebilius's decision helped avoid more than an additional 50%.

They ended up with a 25% increase. Another 50% on top of 25 would be (25 + 12.5 = 37.5%)

[Hell Hath No Fury]

150. The State of California is what stopped --

the higher increase -- not Obama. They had to go to the California State agency for clearance of their rate hike and got the lower rate instead of the mega hike they wanted.

O had nothing to do with that.

[BzaDem]

8. Perhaps your mistaken assumption is the idea that this bill somehow "gave away the store" to

insurance companies. (As if a bill increasing food stamps could be considered "giving away the store" to food companies by any serious people.)

Of course, if you were to step into reality for a minute, you would realize that the bill is the largest increase in regulations on insurance companies in US history. Correcting for your incorrect assumption, you would realize of course health insurance companies would try to blame cost increases on bills that increase regulations of themselves. Companies do this all the time.

[ipaint]

15. Yes, that's why their stock never took a major hit.

I bet we scared them. :crazy:

[BzaDem]

165. Their stock went WAY UP when Scott Brown won, which everyone at the time thought killed HCR. n/t

[Jim Sagle]

16. This bill DID give away the store to insurance companies, and everybody goddamn well knows it.

[Nikki Stone1]

26. Except for BzaDem.

Just sad.

[Jim Sagle]

40. I bet he's doin' OK.

;)

[BzaDem]

160. Just like every increase in food stamps gives away the store to food corporations

because the money is going to (gasp) corporations!

"Every goddamn well knows it."

Maybe everyone you know thinks that. But that just makes everyone you know wrong about this issue -- it doesn't change reality.

[Jim Sagle]

174. You and reality have never met, have you? BzaDem, meet reality. Reality, meet BzaDem.

[BzaDem]

177. Your inability to respond to actual substance is all anyone needs to know.

[Jim Sagle]

180. Ain't none of yer posts ever HAD any substance to respond TO.

[BzaDem]

188. Each of my posts in this thread pointed out facts that were in tension with your narrative.

But then again, to a propagandist like you, facts that are in tension with your narrative don't exist (by definition). So I'm not really surprised.

[Jim Sagle]

191. Each of my posts in this thread pointed out facts that were in tension with your narrative.

But then again, to a propagandist like you, facts that are in tension with your narrative don't exist (by definition). So I'm not really surprised.

Strange...when I post it, it comes out TRUE, when you post it, it comes out FALSE. Funny how that works.

[BzaDem]

193. Except... not. Every one of your posts in this thread is an ad hominem against me

which is the exact opposite of substance. Each similar ad-hominem post that you make is MORE evidence that you are full of it. None of your posts even pretend to have any facts. Sure, you can play copycat like a 5th grader, but each additional post you make that acts like a 5th grader underscores the point that ALL opposition to HCR here (in contrast with the 80-85% of the Democratic party that supports it) is just pure, uneducated propaganda that would make tea partiers proud and should not be taken seriously.

(Luckily, the vast majority of the Democratic party doesn't take it seriously.)

[Jim Sagle]

194. Cut the hyperbole. The vast majority of the Democratic majority doesn't know either one of us

exists.

[BzaDem]

195. The vast majority of the Democratic party approves of HCR.

I've seen it as low as 75% in one poll, but it's usually in the 80-90% range.

[Jim Sagle]

197. Wait until the tax kicks in.

[BzaDem]

201. Oh, you mean the tax on health plans more than 27,500/year/family that takes effect in 2018?

Or the medicare payroll tax on income above 250k/year?

:rofl:

[Jim Sagle]

202. I'll take Door #! as a prime example of union-busting.

[Nikki Stone1]

27. Unlike most people, I actually read the bill. You can search my posts.

And yes, they did give away the store.

[JTFrog]

59. Here or under the shade?

I wouldn't want to wade through that crap again.

:shrug:

[dionysus]

111. !!!

:rofl:

[BzaDem]

161. So? The fact that you read the bill doesn't make your incorrect statements somehow correct.

If I were to proclaim the sky is green, that doesn't make the sky green just because I read the bill.

[tomp]

64. with food stamps you could buy vegetables or pork rinds...

...with obama's health care "reform", pork rinds is all that's available.

and the insurance companies are not just blaming, they are passing on the costs to everyone.

obama stated publicly on national television that the american people were already paying for a level of health care they weren't receiving. why should there be any increase to anyone?

and the suggestion that you've got the monopoly on reality is insulting

[BzaDem]

164. I never claimed that I had a monopoly on reality. I'm just exposing false claims for what they are.

Increases to food stamps provides more people with more food. HCR provides guaranteed-benefit insurance to more people. Both allow you to make choices as to what type of food or what type of insurance to buy.

The only way to coherently argue that HCR "gives away the store" to corporations is to say that ANY bill that results in more money into private corporations' hands (food stamps, etc) "gives away the store" to those corporations. If you want to make that argument, go ahead and make a fool of yourself.

Would a public option have been beneficial? Sure it would have, for a large number of reasons. But the lack of a public option doesn't turn a bill that helps tens of millions of people into a bill that "gives away the store," any more than a food stamp program without a public option there "gives away the store."

[Feron]

104. The bill was written by a health insurance lobbyist.

For every regulation, there is a loophole to get around it. So it has the appearance of being tough without doing much in practice.

[BzaDem]

166. If you are talking about Fowler

she spent most of her life working for the Congress/government before she spent a few years at Wellpoint. She then left Wellpoint and back into government for various reasons, including being angry that Wellpoint was against the kind of reforms that were ultimately enacted.

But I guess corporate Manchurian candidate conspiracy garbage fits your narritive better.

[diveguy]

10. As with any business

Costs are transfered to the customer. Without real regulation, the gov is just fueling the fire while we foot the bill.

[Gin]

11. wonder how much medicare premiums will go up

[TheMuse]

12. Watch their profits skyrocket.

They are going to get new premiums from people that couldn't afford insurance before (via government subsidies), yet they will claim that in order to cover the costs of the new insured that premiums have to go up.

This bill was awful from the beginning. It is my biggest disappointment with President Obama. He took the public option off the table from the very beginning. Having that option would have forced the insurance companies to compete. Instead it was just a massive giveaway. Yes, more will be covered, and I am all for that, but we could do so much better.

It seems as though our politicians are completely happy with half measures, and using chewing gum to plug holes in the dam. Even those on our side (except for a select few....Mr. Grayson please stand up), don't seem to want to fight for us.

[saracat]

13. +1000

[onethatcares]

18. my homeowners insurance went up 25% this year

the letter that accompanied the rate increase stated that the company is not making as much as they would have liked to, so even though they have been through quite a few years of not having to pay catastrophic claims, they want more money.

Insurance is a scam, perpetuated on all of us by the banksters and insurance agencies. Flo is not going to give you a good time, no matter how much you pay.

[dflprincess]

31. I'm actually with a pretty good company

Several years ago my renters insurance nearly doubled (still not a lot on on annual basis - it is renters) and the reason I was given was that there had been so many severe storms in the area. That I knew was true, I had several friends who had had damage to their homes. The next year it dropped a bit and the year after it went back down to what it had been the year before it had jumped. So at least they're fair about bringing rates back down when the payouts haven't been so high.

Same with the auto policy I have through them. I've always kept full coverage on my cars and even when I bought a new one last year my rates only went up by around $50/annually (I traded in a 12 year old car, so there was big jump in vehicle value). My total annual premium is about $700 (and if I ever take the 55+ driving class I can get $70 knocked off that).

I have been with them about 30 years and only had 2 autos claims. Both fairly small, but both were my fault. But they didn't raise my rates either time and with the 2nd accident they waived the deductible - maybe because I hit a pole, not another vehicle.

[Nikki Stone1]

36. What "official" reasons did they give for the increase?

Was it really that they didn't make as much money as they would have liked? (They know they have us by the balls.)

[onethatcares]

63. basically, yes

n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

153. Lordy.

,

[onethatcares]

189. here's the part I left out.

we were with citizens(insurer of last resort for one year), out premium was 2200.00 a year, with the max deductibles etc. This year it jumped to $2865.00 with the same deductibles.
We wanted to insure only for mortgage value but they say that is not allowed, so we tried to insure for mortgage value plus 110K. which would have allowed us to pay off the mortgage and bulldoze whatever was left of the place if something happened. This is a 1926 model Frame home with a new roof and it's in real nice shape. Well, they said we had to insure it for replacement value, even if we didn't want to replace it. WTF is wrong with that picture?

Now I have to come up with about $250.00 a month for homeowners insurance, this does not include the $120.00 a month for autos (2 old ones), health insurance, property taxes and freaking groceries. All on about %55K a year.

I'm wearing out fast and I never thought it would be like this.


Peace

[Dr.Phool]

116. You're lucky. Last year State Farm jacked mine up 43%!!!!

And I got a letter last week telling me that as of Feb. 20th I'm canceled! And, I'm only about 30 miles north of you.

[onethatcares]

145. welcome to the citizens band wagon,

for some reason we get thrown on it and never get to get off of it.

if your house is newer than a 1958 model, there are other places to go. If it's older than that you'll be in the same boat as me.

Good luck.

[Blue_In_AK]

19. K&R, Nikki. This is obscene.

[Yo_Mama]

21. Right

It is only going to get worse.

And the insurance companies aren't collecting obscene profits, either, although I think quite a few of the top executives are overpaid substantially. Anthem CA's reported profit margins do seem high, but they might not be when you take into account the necessary reserves and rate of increase. There is something about the whole CA system that seems off to me, but maybe it's just my ignorance. They say they are going to lose 100 million this year in CA on their individual insurance business. They are making a profit on some of their group plans.

The cost-shifting of Medicaid, Medicare and uninsured to the private sector is real and is only going to get worse under the health care reform bill. This does happen, btw. What hospitals and other providers aren't paid (underpayments and no payments) to provide care winds up in the bills of the patients who can pay. And premiums have to rise to cover expected costs plus required reserves.

Another thing about the legislation is that it removed some features such as caps. Well, that means the insurance companies will be paying out more for some of their insured. They are going to get it back.

Since the population is aging and many medical costs are strongly related to age, utilization has to go up too.

I don't think the public option would change this, though. At a lot of CA hospitals, an X-ray will cost you over 1K, sometimes over 2K. You can get an X-ray at a cash clinic (plus interpretation) for $200-$300. That's how much the underpayments in Medicare, Medicaid and the free care costs you. The hospital is obligated to provide necessary care for anyone who walks in. The cash clinic only takes those who can pay.

The health care reform bill is deeply flawed because it doesn't address the real causes of PREVENTABLE medical cost inflation. The fact that we are aging just has to be dealt with. The fact that we have shifted so much cost to the private sector could be addressed, but it wasn't.

[sendero]

22. Don't worry..

... all the bullshit provisions of this "reform" kick in soon, but most of the actual benefits kick in in 2014. See how that works?

And the usual contingent of cheerleaders who fool no one have arrived to tell us we cannot count.

[Nikki Stone1]

24. The "actual benefits" include no limits on insurance company rises like this one

:(

[depakid]

55. You can bank on double digit increases in 2011 & 2012 as well

which Republicans and the corporate right allies will hang like an albatross on Obama and the Democrats' necks- even those who actually fought for bona fide reforms.

[dotymed]

78. The rethugs

got Exactly what they wanted.
A watered down, convoluted, high priced,incomprehensible bill that is also a give-a-way to the insurance companies.
With the passage of this bill, they can and are, shouting about the idiocy of "Obamacare." Sadly, they are right, and that is what they wanted and needed.
Instead of straight-forward legislation that benefits people,it is unfathomable and benefits the insurance companies at the expense of the people.
This gave them a powerful weapon to use against Obama. One that we cannot defend.
We can say "we had to take this route in order to get any health care changes passed by the rethugs..."
While this is somewhat true, it was (and is) a Democratic bill and legislation.
This (rethug approved) legislation is the weapon they wanted to beat on the Democrats with at election time.
It is working. We can't defend this legislation except to say (meekly) that it was all the rethugs would let us pass...
"If only...." Democrats would have put the public option "on the table", let the CBO report the real savings to Americans, financially and humanely, then fought, it may have been different.
I really would have preferred that, even if the legislation was not passed. At least we could have been proud and "beat them" over their heads with the facts at election time.
Rahm didn't agree....pony anyone?

[waiting for hope]

29. Our BCBS plan here in NC went up 33% ..

Of course they were going pass it on to the consumer, with no loophole to keep them from doing that, not one provision in the bill to cap costs, I guess all those White House visits paid off ...

~Snip

In recent weeks, the White House has announced agreements under which hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry promised cost savings in return for an expanded base of insured patients. The deals were struck in private meetings, drawing comparisons to then-Vice President Dick Cheney's secret talks with the energy industry in 2001 as he helped President George W. Bush draft a national energy policy. Cheney's meetings drew criticism from Democrats throughout the Bush years.

~Snip~
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/23/nation/na-healthcare-talks23

[Nikki Stone1]

35. Doesn't it always get passed on to us.

That's why we needed single payer.

[Luminous Animal]

33. K&R

[OnyxCollie]

34. K&R. nt

[laughingliberal]

37. K & R nt

[subterranean]

39. Did Anthem refer to it as the health care reform "bill" in their notice?

Because it hasn't been a bill since it became a law in March, as anyone who watched Schoolhouse Rock knows.

I'm also curious as to what they mean by cost-shifting of the uninsured. Who in the private sector is picking up those costs?

Anyway, this just sounds like business as usual for the insurance companies.

[Nikki Stone1]

42. No. Here is their wording: "Compliance with government regulations, including the recently enacted

health care reform legislation."

[noamnety]

41. k&r (nt)

[pinniped]

44. They wasted no time sending me the letter.

Just days ago I read that the new increases were approved, and here it is.

Mine's going up by 20%, which I suppose is a lot better than the 30% they wanted a few months ago.

They routinely raised premiums over the past few years, but nothing approaching these levels.

[Nikki Stone1]

46. They got a huge increase by threatening an even huger one.

They are viscous bastards, and now we are legally beholden to the insurance industry for life, from cradle to grave, thanks to the new law. Faulty product, no cost controls. The law should have been unconstitutional on its face.

[area51]

89. +1

Each day, 273 people die due to lack of health care in the U.S.; that's 100,000 deaths per year.

We need single-payer health care, not a welfare bailout for the serial-killer insurance agencies.

We don't need the GingrichCare of mandated, unregulated, for-profit insurance that is still too expensive, only pays parts of medical bills, denies claims, and bankrupts people. Republinazi '93 plan:

"Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005."

"We will never have real reform until people's health stops being treated as a financial opportunity for corporations."

[keepCAblue]

99. Your 20% hike is much higher than the "average 14%" which was approved.

Complain to the Dept of Insurance and demand another audit of Anthem/BC's increases. From all I've heard, I've not encountered anyone whose rates were increased by only 14% or less. They are giving the Dept of Insurance the bird and screwing their customers by hiking up rates far higher than the 14% average they were approved for.

[slipslidingaway]

45. knr - what a mess ...

but people were warned about this very item.

:(

"cost shifting of the uninsured and medicaid recipients to the private sector"

[Hannah Bell]

47. how can they claim they're increasing your charges to pay for medicaid patients, when

medicaid patients are ALREADY being paid for with state & federal funding? since when was medicaid devolved to private insurers?

and i'd like to see the cost breakdown on that "obesity" item too.

someone should sue those sobs.

[Nikki Stone1]

48. Actually that is an excellent question.

And they should be sued. None of these reasons really makes any sense.

[Hannah Bell]

49. yeah, now that i think about it, the "uninsured" doesn't make sense either, since some

portion of the uninsured will be paying their own way & those that don't supposedly will receive government subsidies.

the bastards are working it.

[Nikki Stone1]

50. The excuses are complete bullshit. They wanted an increase because they wanted profit

Period.

[Skittles]

51. I couldn't have seen this coming

:rofl:

admit it everyone, it's a fucking SCAM

[Nikki Stone1]

121. Yes it is.

.

[RandomThoughts]

53. And who gets the blame.

The health care legislation, Obama Care, or those that did not want things like a public option, or single payer system.


Democrats should get infront of it, and remind people how those that blocked the progressive legislation is allowing companies to raise prices so much. Reminding people about how it is in other countries, and remind them how they were planning on continuing to tweek the legislation after it passed.

[upi402]

56. Dems took single payer off the table

the second the predictable Republican whining occurred.


Shame, it's already starting.

[tomp]

65. they're all to blame. the politicians play games with our lives.

the business of government is about handing over money to private interests. period.

everything else is window dressing, bones, or crumbs.

[bigwillq]

77. Good post.

:thumbsup:

[liberation]

114. Exactly...

... no if it is going to turn out the real "victims" of all this are the poor widdle politicians. Yeah, people sure die from lack of healthcare, or go into bankruptcy to afford real treatment when they need it. But those are "minor" hardships compared with the real pain politicians must suffer when their great names are soiled when they have to bear responsibility for their actions. The horror!

[Lagomorph]

57. How do you think they got the uninsured 15% covered without...

raising taxes?

Insurance companies are required by law to keep large cash reserves. The more people they cover, the larger the reserves. With them required to take on the most expensive patients, and being part of the infrastructure, they gotta do something to remain solvent.

Letting the tax cuts expire and even substantially raising the rates on incomes over $250K, the revenues won't begin to cover the deficits we're running.

With the middle class families working two jobs (until the economy tanked) just to make ends meet, there wasn't much room to go there, tax wise.

With the economy in the tank and tax revenues down nearly 20%, it wasn't hard to figure out where the money was going to come from.

It was all laid out in the legislation they wouldn't let us read until after they passed it.

[Hannah Bell]

58. insuring 15% = 25% hike in rates? with some of that 15% paying their own way plus government

subsidies for some of the rest?

i don't think so.

this is one insurer trying to extract super-profits. because they *can*.

[tomp]

66. obama stated publicly that the american people were already paying....

...enough to cover everyone. the money was there already. there was never a need to increase taxes.

[Lagomorph]

171. They didn't raise taxes...

They raised the premiums. They also had to get the government's approval to do it.

[tomp]

200. of course they didn't raise taxes.

but that was the excuse for eliminating the public option or better programs for people who can't afford insurance, i.e., we can never get congress to agree to a tax increase to pay for it.

but there was never any need to pay more. the money was there, is there. why are premiums going up for people who've had no increase in benefits? obviously to pay for people who could be covered with existing funds if we had a system that was not designed to funnel money to insurance companies.

[Lagomorph]

203. That's based on the...

...huge cost savings showing up. At this point, they haven't shown up yet.

If they show up, there will be downward pressure on premiums, or the government could collect the money and divert it for other purposes.

[tomp]

204. sorry, don't know what you're talking about. nt

[KT2000]

60. Obama better figure out

that when he plays ball with the powerful elites - they will stab him in the back.
So far the health insurance companies and Wall Street have stuck it to him.

[rpannier]

62. Contact Feinstein's Office

She's been at odds with Blue Cross
It's one corporation she really doesn't like

Also, contact Boxer's office
She's up for re-election

[Vinca]

67. They need to go back to the drawing table on this ASAP.

The health insurance company welfare act is making things worse by the day. You can't trust these thieves. It is absolutely necessary that this country make an AFFORDABLE public option available . . . at the very least.

[xchrom]

69. recommend

[Dappleganger]

70. K&R

[freedom fighter jh]

71. It Makes Sense.

HCR did some good things, but the elephant that it left in the living room was the private companies' right to control cost. The improvements, like no right to throw kids off or to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, cost money, and, at least as far as I know, the only cost control that HCR creates is some formula for how much profit is allowed. Of course insurance companies are going to want to raise prices, but they have to justify that action, and their costs will be going up now that they have less latitude to dump people, so they will harge for that.

The basic problem remains: The insurance companies' motive is profit, so they will want to deliver the least possible care at the highest possible cost.

[midnight]

72. K&R

[HughMoran]

75. All of the increase was attributed to the Bill?

No. Unrec.

[KoKo]

81. NC Blue Cross did the same thing State Wide!..I posted about it on 8/21

Blue Cross raising price of NC individual policies! Is this Health Care Reform?

Edited on Sat Aug-21-10 11:04 PM by KoKo
Modified Thu, Aug 19, 2010 07:18 PM
Blue Cross raising price of NC individual policies

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. North Carolina's largest health insurer plans to raise prices next year on individuals paying for their own coverage by an average of about 7 percent, the smallest increase since 2007, the company said Thursday.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina is asking state insurance regulators for permission to raise rates on about 300,000 of its 3.7 million customers who buy their own health insurance. This year, rates for individual coverage rose an average of 12 percent.

Blue Cross is the dominant company providing health insurance to individuals, with more than 90 percent of the market.

The company said while some individuals will see double-digit premium increases, about 70 percent will see costs rise by less than 10 percent. Almost 28,000 customers would see rate decreases.

Customers of its Blue Advantage and Blue Options HSA plans will be notified by letter in October what their specific rate increases will be in 2011, the company said.

The latest rate hike request comes almost a month after Consumers Union criticized the Chapel Hill insurer and nine other Blue Cross health plans across the country for raising rates while sitting on big cash reserves. The company responded that it was meeting a state requirement that health insurers keep up to six months' worth of costs in reserve.

Blue Cross CEO Brad Wilson said last month Wilson said he expects to cut about $200 million from the company's $1 billion annual budget by eliminating open positions, cutting jobs through attrition and early retirements, outsourcing and other streamlining efforts. The company employs about 4,400 workers.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/08/19/636467/blue-cros...

And More:

Aug. 20--The state's largest health insurer plans to hit some members with sharp rate increases again next year, blaming changes from the health overhaul and rising medical costs.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina asked state regulators Thursday for permission to increase rates an average of 6.97 percent for its 300,000 individual members in the state. That's the lowest proposed annual increase since 2007. About 28,000 people would see their rates decrease, including women in their early 20s.

But rates for some children, men and older members will increase 30 percent or more.

Assuming the new premiums are approved by the N.C. Department of Insurance this fall, Blue Cross officials plan to reach out to members facing the biggest increases to discuss options such as cheaper plans with higher deductibles. Insurers set rates by using a variety of factors, including age, medical history and where you live.

The latest rate increases are significant because Blue Cross controls most of the state's market for individual health coverage. It is also the dominant provider of employer-based coverage, with 3.7 million members statewide.

"If you have health care, you're going to pay more," said John McDonnell, a principal with Progressive Benefit Solutions in Raleigh, which helps employers buy insurance.

Health law is changing

Some of his clients are facing rate increases of more than 20 percent. And not just from Blue Cross, but from other big providers, including Cigna, Aetna and United Healthcare./

It's partly because of increasing medical costs and more people using expensive services, but also because the new federal health law is forcing changes such as eliminating annual or lifetime limits on coverage, expanding dependent care for children until age 26 and more, McDonnell said.

"With everything that's been added, you can't really expect costs to go down," he said.

The situation isn't likely to improve any time soon. As more provisions of the health overhaul law take affect in 2014, Blue Cross officials said they expect rates to rise further.

"We do expect significant premium volatility in 2014 as the industry moves to an entirely new rating structure," said Patrick Getzen, Blue Cross' chief actuary.

The rising rates will likely force more people in North Carolina to cut back on coverage or go without, said Adam Linker, a policy analyst with the N.C. Justice Center's Health Access Coalition. And some of the additional "safety net" measures of the federal law won't start until 2014, he added.
"I'd like to see insurers take a small hit now and then figure out what adjustments they need to make in 2014," when federal subsidies will help the uninsured afford coverage, Linker said. At that point, health insurers also will get a boost in business from new members.

http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=219415

[NNN0LHI]

82. Ever notice no one ever trusts insurance companies ... unless they are bashing Obama?

When they do that what they say is taken as gospel.

Strange world we live in isn't it?

Don

[newtothegame]

83. Ah I love the smell of fresh change in the morning. nt

[dsharp88]

84. Were you expecting otherwise? n/t

[urgk]

85. UnitedHealth charged me triple for moving to a lower cost state.

But, what are you gonna do? Switch companies?

[Jamastiene]

91. Bullshit.

That's what we get every time a corporation gets to write legislation that only works for them. We've been getting nothing but bullshit forever now. It keeps getting worse and worse. When are the Americas people going to wake up and do something about our bought and paid for corporate welfare controlled government? They are sucking us dry.

[mlevans]

92. If you haven't done so already you should send this to Mr. Obama.

Probably won't accomplish anything, I know, but he ought to be made aware in no uncertain terms the sorts of things the legislation has set in motion.

[bvar22]

148. He knows.

He also knew what was coming when he signed this "historic" reform bill.
He doesn't care.
It was a big WIN for him and the DLC crowd.
"Historic" amounts of Public Money flowing to Private Pockets.
:party:

[amborin]

93. this was all predicted, by those who read the fine print, or related legal cases

[xxqqqzme]

94. It is like the credit card 'reform'

Congress does the targeted industry the favor of giving corporate parasites a deadline. Then the parasites know exactly how much time they have to suck all the life out of the host, with no consequences. Then when the date arrives, the host is dumped, limp and weakened, and the parasite moves offshore to live off its largess tax free.

[femrap]

98. I have BC/BS

as well. My premiums went up 27% this past year.

I had to get an x-ray of my hip...I'm out of pocket $240 for less than 60 seconds. And the accounting department quoted me the wrong price.

I'm just unplugging my phone at home...I'm tired of their calls. I'll pay it when they return my original call about the wrong price quoted. The supervisor is never there to answer my question, so I'm not here to answer theirs.

I had the x-ray on 7/14 and I've already had three phone calls to pay it.

Greedy little fucks. This is Ohio Health...a monopoly in Columbus. No competitive pricing.

I think everyone should just stop paying their medical bills.

Years ago I had to have knee surgery and my insurance company paid 80%. The surgery wasn't successful....so he wanted to do more. I told the surgeon that if he made a stink about it, I'd sue his ass and cost him 100 times the 20% he wanted. He left me alone. I think they price their services knowing they won't get the 20%.

But this was years ago...before the True State of Greed had set in.

[MrBlueSky]

100. Not surprising...

Nikki... this is the result of ObamaCare. I recognized that this would be the result from the beginning.

This wouldn't be happening if we had Single Payer healthcare, like I've advocated from the start.

[demi moore]

102. lets hope people dump that company

like the free market says they should.

is there no such thing as an insurance company that is motivated by giving people a better deal.
if there is not, maybe its time to make one

[liberation]

112. "Free" Market principles do not apply to indispensable things...

Your health is not "optional" you can't live without your... life, which depends on your health. So these healthcare insurers act as a natural monopoly of sorts. Pretending free market will solve the problem is naive to the extreme, unless I missed the sarcasm.

This is why no other industrialized nation has a system even remotely similar to our clusterfuck of an approach to deliver healthcare.

What applies to VCRs, Cars, and other inanimate consumerist objects does not necessarily apply to living breathing human beings, I swear sometimes it feels as if a significant chunk of the American people never truly got past the slave owning stage.

[deaniac21]

103. I have Blue Cross Anthem (based in LA) here in Arkansas...

same story.

[beforeyoureyes]

105. The American Citizen's Health Insurance Enslavement Act

Penalized for coverage that you can't afford or afford to use because of co-pays.

Genius.

[shireen]

106. forwarded to PNHP

they've been at the forefront of single payer advocacy for a long time. Good group!

Physicians for a National Health Program.
http://www.pnhp.org/

[katandmoon]

113. K&R.

[mzmolly]

117. If Obama's bill "gave away the store" why does BC have to increase rates to cover

so called costs? Seems a bit contrary, no?

[uponit7771]

124. FUCK LOGIC!!!! /sarcasm

[mzmolly]

146. That does seem to be the prevailling

mindset these days. ;) The "Green Tea Party" will not be satisfied!

[Nikki Stone1]

155. Alerted.

Group attack.

[mzmolly]

158. Is there actually a green tea party?

:hi:

[Nikki Stone1]

163. Now now, Mz Molly...your nose is growing.

:D

[mzmolly]

169. I just want credit for coining

the phrase "green tea party" is all. ;) I plan to use it again, ya know? :hi:

[EXneoCON]

175. LOL! I LOVE IT!

Green Tea Party! I know you meant that as a pejorative against those of us who hold more "social" views, but ooh, the Tea Baggers would be sooooo PO'd!!! BTW, most really good labels have started out as pejoratives, i.e. "Impressionist", "Wobblie", "Hippie", etc. I'd gladly wave the "Green Tea Party" flag if it amounted to a real social change for the Common Man. I'll still give you coinage cred though! ;)

[mzmolly]

182. There is a Coffee Party

movement. I think they should have grabbed green tea early on though. ;)

[EXneoCON]

179. Just a little late I'm afraid...

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-green-tea-party/

http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/09/green-tea-party-protest.html

Oh, well....:eyes: B-)

[mzmolly]

181. Appears to be a different context?

:hi:

[Nikki Stone1]

187. Thanks for bumping my thread, even if you are completely unoriginal!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x25090

[mzmolly]

190. I was joking of course.

Though I haven't seen proof of my being unoriginal? ;)

[Nikki Stone1]

154. Tell that to Blue Cross, hon. They got the store and they're still raping the consumer.

The insurers can charge whatever they want (no cost controls in the bill--READ IT). Obama gave them US, cradle to grave. By law, we have to buy what they sell no matter what the price and no matter how bad the service.

[mzmolly]

159. There are cost controls in the bill. To say there are not is a myth.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/five_cost_controls_in_the_sena.html

[Nikki Stone1]

162. There are no real cost controls if you read the actual bill

Read the bill. Then get back to me.

[mzmolly]

168. I've read portions of the bill

that you have not apparently. There are more cost controls than the article mentions. Like capping profit margins, for example.

[laughingliberal]

172. The 85% MLR is the level the industry pushed for. Their analysts have already reassured investors...

they will have no problem reclassifying items as medical expenses. CA has had an MLR regulation for years and has found it impossible to enforce. Couple that with Wendall Potter's statement that there is no one he knows of in the federal government who has the expertise to open up those books and tease out the fraud and it is, at best, a very weak attempt at cost controls.

We deserve better than what these insurance companies are doing to us.

[BzaDem]

176. That is absolute BS.

The 85% level was added by Senator Jay Rockefeller at the end of the process after Lieberman killed the PO. The insurance companies did not want the 85% MLR, and they almost won.

The myths about HCR here and elsewhere are truly astounding. It's almost like anti-HCR "progressives" live in a bubble where false information is praised and reinforced so much that people start to actually believe it.

[mzmolly]

183. Hear hear!

:toast:

[laughingliberal]

198. From an interview with Wendall Potter:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7302927&mesg_id=7304281


Tue Dec-22-09 10:51 PM From Hissyspit
Response to Original message
11. PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT:
I tried to post the video in the Political Videos forum, but it's not working for me anymore. I keep getting a "YouTube says Video Not Found" message.


MSNBC Countdown w/ LAWRENCE O'DONNELL - 22 December 2009: In an interview with CIGNA whistleblower Wendell Potter, O'Donnell discusses the medical loss ratio - the "amount of money insurance companies must spend on actual health care" - included in the Senate bill and in the overall health care reform.

O'DONNELL: "It's called medical loss ratio, the amount of money insurers must spend on actual health care... It is in the Senate bill and insurance companies are already trying to manipulate it. The bill will impose a medical loss ration of 80-85%. Sen. Jay Rockefeller had pushed for a 90 percent ration, and he tells Time Magazine that customers have a right to know how much of their premiums are spent on administrative costs and advertising. But, as Smart Money reports, the insurance companies already see a silver lining in the new MLR regulations.

Karl McDonald, a health care analyst for the investment bank Oppenheimer & Co. wrote in a memo to clients that:


"the number was 'workable' for insurers, especially if they can label certain items that count as corporate expenses for accounting purposes as health care for purposes of meeting the spending minimum."

Earlier this year, the Senate Commerce Committee investigated medical loss ratios, resulting in Aetna admitting that it had misreported its revenues that overstated its MLR in the small group market. Aetna then amended its filings to reflect the actual numbers.

- snip -

O'DONNELL: "Now, what are the insurance companies thinking about how they're going to approach this new regulation on medical loss ratios?"

WENDELL POTTER: "Well, just like they did two years ago in California when that state tried to reform its health care system, there was general agreement among the insurance companies that they could live with an 85 percent medical loss ration because they knew they could manipulate the numbers and they could define the terms, in other words, they could make them work for them by being able to categorize expenses in certain areas."

O'DONNELL: "This is first of all designed to cut into their profit margins. Will it do that?"

POTTER: "It can if there is significant regulation and we have enough transparency..."

- snip -

O'DONNELL: "Is there anyone currently employed in the U.S. government - at the IRS, or in the HHS - who knows how to enforce this; how to go into an insurance company and figure out what their real medical loss ratio is?"

POTTER: "No, I don't think so. At least I haven't come across them. One of the things I have learned over the last six months is that there is very, very little understanding in Washington about how commercial health insurance companies work, including on Capitol Hill. The exceptions are Sen. Rockefeller and his team..."

Also:

A recent report from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation also noted that health care industry analysts predict “companies will review their current spending and attempt to shift as many expenses as possible from administrative to medical,” concluding that “a key to the insurance industry’s profitability over the next several years will be ‘how much MLR recharacterizaiton the HHS Secretary allows.’” Consumer advocates believe that the NAIC’s central role in defining MLR categories and insurers’ ability to reclassify costs as “activities that improve health care quality” category will keep ensure the “industry’s profitability.”

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/04/28/naic-mlr/


And:

“WellPoint’s (WLP) medical cost ratio should rise and its overhead-expense ratio decline this year as the insurer reclassifies various types of costs. Disease management, medical management and a nurse hotline, for example, ‘are being reclassified because they represent additional benefits provided to our members,’ representative says. They’ll now be part of the medical cost ratio, the percentage of premium revenue used to pay members’ health-care costs. These are claims-related costs incurred to improve member health and medical outcomes, WLP says. Accounting rules allow the changes, which better align MCR with anticipated health reform guidelines, Stifel Nicolaus says.”

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/31/wellpoint-mlr/

[mzmolly]

184. Absolute bull. Though how do you reconcile the notion of a huge ins co. giveaway and

the assertion that rates must be increased to cover the loss of income due to new regulation?

[laughingliberal]

199. I reconcile it by recognizing it is propaganda they are using to increase their rates just as they..

intended whether the HCR bill passed or not.

[lynne]

120. This comes as a surprise? -

- It was discussed in the media prior to the health care bill so we can't say we weren't warned. Every company in the land passes on increases in the cost of doing business to the consumer. Grocery stores, clothing manufacturers, food growers, Mom & Pop operations, gas stations, etc. When their price goes up - our price goes up. Did you really think that the increases in costs for the insurance companies wouldn't be passed onto the consumers?

[uponit7771]

125. I'm going to send you a letter claiming you owe me 24 dollars, will you belive that too? TIA

[Nikki Stone1]

157. If you're my insurer and you send an invoice. :)

If not, good luck. :D

[Lucian]

126. I like how they're charging you for the national increase in obesity.

I don't know if you are or not (none of my business), but, to me, it seems as though they're assuming you're obese and are going to charge you for it.

If I would've read that, I would've gotten pissed, and at everything else you mentioned.

[Frisbee]

127. This has the added benefit (for them)...

of making people blame HCR, so they will be more likely to get a repeal and/or no new HC legislation (such as a real health care bill). And they get to increase their profits in doing so. Gotta give them credit, the sure know how to make money (just not ethically).

[DesertFlower]

135. we have united health care from

hubby's employer. it will be interesting to see how much it goes up. it's been going up every year with higher deductible.

[pnwmom]

136. If you'd looked at letters from years past from your insurance company, you'd know

that they've ALWAYS been blaming their increases on, among other factors, "cost shifting of the uninsured and medicaid recipients to the private sector." That's nothing new.

And you have no way to know what part of the 25% increase is due to Obama's bill. Your insurance premiums have been increasing all along without any help from healthcare reform. They would have increased some amount WITHOUT Obama's bill. For all we know, the increases caused by healthcare reform amounted to a negligible part of the whole -- but the insurance companies want to blame anyone but themselves.

Healthcare costs have ALWAYS been rising, people. There is no evidence that it will be worse under Obama.

[JoePhilly]

186. Bingo.

The insurance companies raise rates, and blame some one else every time.

This time, they blame Obama.

And oddly, people who hate the insurance companies TRUST them as to WHY they are raising rates.

They are raising rates in the hopes that people we support doing nothing. With that done, they will simply blame any increase on something else.

[grahamhgreen]

138. What do those that promised the bill would be 'fixed' have to say?

What's happening with 'fixing' the bill that gives trillions to big insurance?

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bvar22]

149. No.

Eliminating the For Profit Insurance Corporations,
or simply offering a Publicly Owned/Government Administered Option available to EVERYONE
WILL save 25 - 30% right off the top.

It would also give the government a very STRONG bargaining position to demand lower costs from the providers.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[humbled_opinion]

144. This would never had happened if our Leaders

would have rallied around the Public Option... costs could have been means tested but now we are all screwed and I will tell you this much I gurantee Repuke campaign commercials that exploit Obama's promise that "Your health care costs will not go up one dime because of the reform" followed with people showing their bills just like the OP states.

[Nikki Stone1]

156. The public option was the only hope of controlling costs.

Now we're all screwed.

[Better Believe It]

170. It wasn't call the Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act for nothing!

[gulliver]

178. You trust them? Where are the numbers? I think you are being played.

I notice they don't list what proportion of the cost comes from each item on your list. I'll bet HCR "added" practically nothing to your cost but Anthem decided you might be a sucker.

[pnwmom]

192. Exactly. And the cost-shifting excuse is one they've been making forever.

Has nothing to do with Obama's health plan.

[LatteLibertine]

185. Folks need to protest

and loudly. Don't take it quietly!

[Swamp Rat]

206. yep

:hug:

[Mimosa]

209. K&R n/t