CA approves rate hikes of 14 to 29% for health insurance premiums

[golfguru]

This does not surprise me one bit. The HCR bill contains ZERO
restrictions on how high the private-for-profit insurers can jack up rates.
With no competition from public option, expect rates to explode upwards.

So now we are all insured, except few can afford the insurance. Many will end up
paying the fines to IRS instead of buying health insurance.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure-rates-20100826,0,7225011.story

[Skittles]

1. the scam is working exactly as intended

[golfguru]

2. SCAM is the right word for it, sadly. n/t

[Skittles]

8. the SS scam will work exactly as intended, too

[PA Democrat]

74. The health insurance scam and SS "reform" go hand in hand.

More people will die before they are old enough to collect Social Security due to unaffordable health care.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

[denimgirly]

3. And there are many DUers who will still say the HCR is Amazing! Enjoy your Higher Rates

The bare minimum needed a public option...the ideal would have been single payer...without that it was and is assured that rates will rise and the robbery will continue thanks to the WH and their backroom deals.

[Lorien]

9. Those same DUers try to change the topic when anyone brings up the higher rates

they also said that they would help us to push for a public option once the "less than perfect" bill was passed. Obviously that was hogwash.

[Recursion]

16. HCR was about access, not cost controls. Yes, it should have been about both.

If you imagine that Anthem wouldn't have raised rates this year, HCR or no, I have a bridge to sell you.

[Feron]

17. Health insurance != health care access

Forcing people to buy insurance policies does not mean that they now have health care access. Most will have high deductible policies that they cannot afford to use.

And most medical bankruptcies are from people with insurance.

The health insurance company bailout bill doesn't change a thing in this regard. It's intent was to prop up a failing industry by mandating people buy their crappy policies.

It's a nice racket in which Americans essentially pay twice for health insurance. Once through taxpayer subsidies and again through premiums. So there is no incentive to keep costs down and every incentive to keep jacking up the rates. And insurance companies don't even have to pay out if you are sick.

This bill was a win for fascism and is not reform.

[Recursion]

19. Several things wrong with what you said

Forcing people to buy insurance policies does not mean that they now have health care access. Most will have high deductible policies that they cannot afford to use.

The access for them was through Sanders' massive increase of funding to FQHC's, something everyone on DU seems to ignore (in fact, HCR could have been just that and I would have been happy). The high-deductible policy is so that when they get a major illness they'll end up in debt for $5K rather than $500K. Preventive and routine care can be had for free from an FQHC.

And most medical bankruptcies are from people with insurance. The health insurance company bailout bill doesn't change a thing in this regard.

Yes, it does: it caps annual out-of-pocket expenses and forbids insurance companies from imposing cumulative care limits and recising policies (which are where a whole lot of those bankruptcies come from).

This bill was a win for fascism and is not reform.

:eyes:

[area51]

66. "This bill was a win for fascism and is not reform."

Thank you. It absolutely was a gift to the health insurance mafiosi.

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."

[totodeinhere]

18. Oh come on. With high costs like this, there will be very little access.

So your excuse does not fly. If they really wanted universal access, they would have put in price controls on health insurance premiums, but of course their buddies in the industry wouldn't let them do that.

[Recursion]

20. And if your insurance company prices you out, you have options now

Which you didn't have before. And, as we saw, the state can step in and keep them from making any increase they want.

Yes, I agree that the profit in private insurance companies is inherently a waste in the system.

Anthem is not the only provider. Not all or even many policies went up 29%.

And nobody has answered my point above that Anthem announced their rate raise before HCR was even enacted, so without HCR people would be worse off than they are now.

[golfguru]

32. Only ONE thing can put damper on rate hikes

and that is competition from a public option.
America thrives on competition. It keeps prices in check.
The HCR bill does just the opposite, it guarantees the for profit
insurers 40 million additional customers with NO COMPETITION from
public option.

[Recursion]

23. What did HCR do to raise the rates?

What would Anthem have done if HCR hadn't been passed?

[golfguru]

27. Anthem and all others are using the HCR bill as an excuse to hike rates..

The bill limits administrative expenses as a percentage of revenues.
So the premiums are going up to make up. They still make more profits
through higher rates, we the policy holders pay.

Nothing else has changed enough to justify IMMEDIATE 14 to 29% hikes.

[phleshdef]

35. Even if they hike up the premiums, they still have to give rebates back.

They have to prove at least 80-85% of that is spent on medical services and have to rebate anything over the excess of 15-20% of what they take in for premiums. Jacking up their rates might raise the buffer on what the total premium is but it also raises the buffer on what the total amount has to be given back as a rebate.

[Recursion]

56. The amnesia on this board is astounding

Thank you

[Cali_Democrat]

26. Where would we have had the votes for the public option or single player

The truth is that the votes didn't exist. Neither of these measures would have passed the Senate.

If no HCR was passed, rates would have risen anyways.

[golfguru]

41. Are you freaking kidding me?

We had the House
We had Nancy Pelosi as speaker
We had the White House with high popularity ratings for the newly elected president
We had the senate with the independents caucusing with us
We had Harry Reid as majority leader

We had the whole enchilada!
So if we can't pass a PEOPLE ORIENTED health care with all of that,
when can we do it? After the house switches this November?

President Obama had all the clout necessary to bring along every democratic
senator and house member. Lieberman was the sole problem. Are you saying
Lieberman singlehandedly stopped a real and people oriented HCR bill to pass?

Lame excuse if you ask me.

[Cali_Democrat]

43. "So if we can't pass a PEOPLE ORIENTED health care with all of that, when can we do it? "

Never.

Or at least not in our lifetimes. Democratic Senators like Max Baucus are paid off by the health insurance industry and would have never allowed a public option or single player.

The votes were never there.

If you followed the health care debate closely, you would have seen that many Democratic congressman were pushing back against the public option and single payer.

[golfguru]

44. I know, campaign contributions won over genuine HCR

Our political system is a disgrace. Term limits and tax payer funded
campaigns is the solution. But I won't hold my breath.

But I still believe the president could have twisted arms, bullied from
the pulpit, made some deals. Let's be honest, he himself did not want it,
for whatever reasons, campaign contributions by corporations has to be one
of them.

[Milo_Bloom]

45. The votes were there...

you just had to REALLY fight for them.

If you hold back the legislation that was PUBLICALY POPULAR and threaten to support a primary challenger, you would be AMAZED how quickly some of these "nevers" would compromise.

The PUBLIC option had OVERWHELMING public support. If you can't figure out how to use an extremely popular piece of legislation and use it to twist the arms of the members of your OWN PARTY, then you don't deserve to be in control.

The one thing the bush administration was good at was getting its people in line and it would use every threat, every tactic and start the drum beat against them the MOMENT they thought someone would break rank.

The public option was dead long before it started because Obama made it clear that although he would LIKE IT, it wasn't REQUIRED, which let sell out senators know they could make a stand and win on this issue.

[golfguru]

50. You got it right...if Obama wanted public option, he could have got it

As you said, threat of being primaried would have made ALL holdouts
fall in line, in spite of their being beholden to campaign cash received.

[denimgirly]

4. As a Canadian i am Amazed how little the US Government cares

about its people and absolutely love big business.

[golfguru]

5. Keep in mind the huge campaign cash which flows to

American politicians from the for profit insurers.
Campaign cash won, ordinary working folks lost.

[Skittles]

6. there's nothing amazing about that

what IS truly amazing is how many Americans have not quite figured that out yet

[Lorien]

7. The U.S. Government has little interest in U.S. citizens

who aren't corporate citizens. We're cut out of the process almost completely. The corporations fund the elections and own the machines that count the votes. It's no longer a Democracy; it's a fascist/ feudal system and has been for some time now (at least since 2000). But since the corporations control the media the people aren't aware that nearly everyone else is as pissed as we are.

[Blue_Tires]

36. we need the $$$$ for our banks and war toys...

[AndyA]

10. And shame, shame, shame on Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress

for passing this despicable health care reform. It takes a special kind of a person to be able to look the American people in the eye and call this a good thing for them.

Bullshit.

[Recursion]

22. WTF? You mean the HCR that wasn't even passed when Anthem announced this?

The HCR that let California step in and keep them from raising the full 39%*? The HCR that gives people who are priced out by this increase the option to go somewhere else? And vastly increased funding for FQHCs so that you don't need to use your high-deductible policy for routine and preventive care?

Does anyone actually think HCR is what made Anthem raise their rates? That they wouldn't have done this anyways? Or that they wouldn't have gotten away with the full 39%?

* I think CA already had that power, but the other states do now too.

[golfguru]

28. Anthem would have had hell of a time raising rates if they had to compete

with a public option.

[bigdarryl]

11. Just goes to show once again Emanuel and Obama FUCKED UP by giving up the public option

[Recursion]

24. How would a public option have stopped Anthem from raising their rates? NT

[golfguru]

29. C O M P E T I T I O N n/t

[Vinca]

12. I guess that's why the least of my worries if the GOP wins Congress

is the overturning of health care "reform." I have yet to run into one person who can afford the pre-existing condition pool. (Pssst . . . if you need it, you're probably sick and can't work.) Harry Reid should have leaned on that weasel Lieberbush and forced him to vote for Medicare for all (as opposed to saying "please, please" and not threatening his position in the Senate).

[Recursion]

13. Yeah, we should have left Anthem alone to do the 39% increase they wanted

Because health insurance rates weren't rising at all before the reform bill.

[golfguru]

14. Rates seldom approached 29% in a single year before.

I think the average rate of increase before the "good for us" HCR bill
passed was double the cost of living average...which equals aprox 6-8%.

The real sad truth is the lions share of rate explosions lie ahead.
Look out January 1st 2011. That is when most plans adjust rates for a year.

[Recursion]

21. They announced this while HCR was still being debated

They were going to make this increase whether HCR passed or not, and without HCR they probably would have raised it the full 39% they wanted.

[golfguru]

30. They must have read the bill and raised rates in anticipation

What other reason justifies IMMEDIATE hikes of 14 to 29%?

[Recursion]

55. In anticipation of what? If they don't spend the money on care they have to give it back

Remember? Their overhead is capped at a certain percent. If they go over that, they have to rebate the policyholders.

[Milo_Bloom]

31. What part of HCR stopped them?

[Recursion]

57. What part of HCR stopped forest fires? NT

[Milo_Bloom]

61. You made the claim...

"and without HCR they probably would have raised it the full 39% they wanted."

So.. what part of HCR stopped them?

[Recursion]

62. The part that lets states review premium hikes

Now in CA's case they already had that power, but now (or, rather, in 2014 IIRC) all states will.

[Milo_Bloom]

70. So nothing in HCR did anything.

At least you were honest about it.

[LatteLibertine]

15. Start calling your Reps

and writing. Ask for something to be done along the lines of rolling premiums back to 2008 levels and freezing them for now. IMO that should have been done from the beginning because Stevie Wonder could see this coming. Obviously universal health care or a public option would have been better. Still, don't take this quietly. Make some noise to the government.

[GSLevel9]

25. HCR was a complete waste of time... didn't help the people it was intended to help.

And I said it 6 months ago... the damned thing was co-written and supported by the Insurance Co's... and spoon fed to the Administration.

Clear enough?

[golfguru]

33. Not a waste of time for for profit health insurance corporations

They got everything....

No restrictions on rate hikes
Guaranteed 40 million (currently uninsured) additional customer base

Consumers got the shaft. Amazing what campaign cash can accomplish.

[Recursion]

58. Oh for God's sake

Insurance company's profit and overhead is capped at 15% of revenues. Half what it is now.

[phleshdef]

34. Why does everyone discount the significance of the rebate rules that kick in on jan 1st?

They will have to spend 85% of their premium dollars on medical services (for larger groups, 80 for small groups) and every dime over the allotted 15-20% that is not spent on that will be given back to all policy holders in the form of a rebate.

And yes, of course they will look for loopholes to exploit that, but I guarantee once people start getting rebate checks back from their private insurance companies every year, the whole way this thing is viewed is going to change significantly.

[dionysus]

37. must... rage... at obama... somehow... mustn't we preciousssss....

a public option was needed, but blame should go to the senate for that. the votes weren't there, not even close.

at work we had to switch plans a few times in the last 3 years beause they were jacking the rates up 20+ %, so blaming a rate increase that took place *before* the mediocre HCR bill passed is rather absurd, wouldn't you say?

[golfguru]

40. That 85% limit is exactly the reason why premiums are exploding

The for-profit-private-insurers do not want lower profits.
They can maintain high profits by jacking up premiums with
no restrictions whatsoever to counteract that 85% limit.

[Recursion]

63. And the cap on that comes in 3 years (yes, it was stupid to leave that time gap in)

Because in 3 years if your insurance costs more than 9.5% of your income, you can join a state-run non-profit insurance pool

[LWolf]

42. Ask us when we have a rebate check in our hands,

and then ask us if we were able to afford any care in the interim.

[Milo_Bloom]

46. Because it is so easy to get around, it's LAUGHABLE.

You will never, EVER see a rebate.

[phleshdef]

59. Care to provide some proof or do you think putting words in all caps makes you right?

[Milo_Bloom]

64. Proof?

This expierminent has already failed in places it has been tried.

They simply reclassify job titles. A sales rep becomes a "customer care advisor" or "quality control" and they that money is now considered "spent on care".

Currently they spent about .74 per dollar on care, so they aren't exactly far off from the .80 required.. shift a few jobs, raise premiums a bit and violla.... no rebates necessary.

[phleshdef]

67. Almost 2 billion would have been refunded last year, had this law been in effect then.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2223639620100722

[Milo_Bloom]

71. Nope... not .01

UNLESS it is instituted RETROACTIVELY, which it isn't.

[phleshdef]

73. Learn how to read. I said IF it had existed then.

Don't invent a fucking strawman argument to avoid my point.

[Milo_Bloom]

75. The Strawman is the word IF.

IF it had existed the insurance companies would have used one of the GIANT LOOPHOLES to shift how they report income and not .01 would have been rebated.

[TheKentuckian]

48. Those percentages are more generous than the industry claims

and they are macking the regulators as always.

These people's model was already heavy on flow through anyway, it is their objective to have as a high a percentage of the economy as possible go through their mitts.

Rather than cut significant checks, they will pay more for everything because the more dollars they can get 20% or 25% of the more they make. The dynamic is already in effect. They aren't refunding premiums that I can tell anyway. If I don't get any treatment, I'm not getting most of my money back but rather a pool wide formula that will get cooked as always.

It is most likely to increase costs, the better it works. If you think it would be a hard sell to get providers to increase costs then I have some Nebraska beachfront property we need to really talk about.

[phleshdef]

68. So you disagree with the analysis that 2 billion from 6 companies would have been refunded last year

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2223639620100722

[TheKentuckian]

69. Not necessarily. It depends on what will be counted as medical expenses.

However, that 2-6 billion is nothing in the context of what a two or three trillion dollar industry.

Some folks may get 10-100 bucks back from service costs but nothing of consequence. Even granting the high side you aren't making a dent in system wide costs.

[Skittles]

49. are you really that naive???

I mean, REALLY :o

[phleshdef]

60. Are you really that incapable of simple math skills?

[eridani]

51. This is meaningless. 15 states have already tried controlling costs this way

It has been an abject failure. The insurance companies fuck with the data, and the states can't stopthem.

[NorthCarolina]

38. Why do so many still refer to what passed as Health Care Reform (HCR), when

for all practical purposes, it was really no more than minor Health Insurance Reform (HIR), with the single biggest change being a public mandate for private insurance?

[golfguru]

39. Correct, 40 Million guaranteed ADDITIONAL customers was the biggest

boondoggle to the for-profit-private insurers.
And ZERO restrictions on rate hikes!
And no public option to compete with!

Oh yes, the campaign contributions were well rewarded.

[Recursion]

65. Because that's not remotely the biggest single change

Probably the biggest change is the capping of profit and admin costs at 15% of revenues and the requirement of covering all comers. And forbidding copays for preventive care. And removing the income cap on Medicare levies.

[jeanpalmer]

47. Will Sebelius please write them a nasty letter

and get the Rate Authority on their asses.

[secondwind]

52. does not bode well for Boxer or Brown.

[sakabatou]

53. Oh for fucks sake.

>.< Those with private accounts are going to be screwed.

[Billy Burnett]

54. Nationalization and universal health care.

Most of the world has succeeded in this feat.

Even Canada and Cuba do it well.

"Competition" still hands over the commons (our collective health) to private corporations.

Would anyone here say that more competition would be a solution to the privatization of our election systems?

The method that will succeed ... Nationalization and universal health care.

72. It was a sham

It was the illusion of health care reform, without any real reforms. They have no oversight, and basically handed the health insurance companies millions of customers.

President Obama is too quick to try and play nice with Rethugicans and be "bipartisan". Newsflash...you can't be bipartisan with people who's only goal is your destruction. He needs a little more FDR in him.

[uponit7771]

76. It's HCR's fault that CA approved the rate hike

[bornskeptic]

77. You don't have any idea about what's in the HCR bill, do you?

Once the exchanges begin to function, all rate increases will require approval from state and local regulators. It is true that the bill does not provide for limits on premiums before then. If no bill had been passed, the situation would be exactly the same in that respect, so blaming increases on HCR is stupid.