Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-17-2013, 02:06 PM   #81
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestwifeever View Post
Holy moley, something in New York is going down in cost:


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/he...d=myyahoo&_r=0
From the article:
Quote:
For years, New York has represented much that can go wrong with insurance markets. The state required insurers to cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, but did not require everyone to purchase insurance — a feature of the new health care law — and did not offer generous subsidies so people could afford coverage.
With no ability to persuade the young and the healthy to buy policies, the state’s premiums have long been among the highest in the nation. “If there was any state that the A.C.A. could bring rates down, it was New York,” said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University who closely follows the federal law.
The previous rates for individual policies were high for everyone because of the intervention of NY State. If not for this intervention, insurance would have been priced according to risk (i.e. using underwriting) and most people would have been able to get affordable policies--possibly for less than the ACA approved ones they'll now be forced to buy. (For other people--market-based insurance would have been more expensive or not available, forcing them into a high-risk pool or other arrangement). The ACA may have addressed one ill-advised government policy. It's not too early to start looking at how we'll implement the next batch of needed fixes.

Some will celebrate the ACA, others will see the issue as NY's original program that created the mispricing.
__________________

__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 07-17-2013, 02:16 PM   #82
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestwifeever View Post
Holy moley, something in New York is going down in cost:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/he...d=myyahoo&_r=0
The statistic I found stunning was only 17,000 people in the entire state of NY purchased through the individual market. Of course if I had to pay those crazy rates, I probably would have been one of those 2 million plus who do not carry insurance.
__________________

__________________
Mulligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2013, 08:53 PM   #83
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
The previous rates for individual policies were high for everyone because of the intervention of NY State.
They weren't high for everyone. They were 2 or 3 times higher for individuals than for people in group policies, the networks were restricted, the coverage limited, and the lifeitme limits a joke. This was truly a choice between lousy coverage or none at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
If not for this intervention, insurance would have been priced according to risk (i.e. using underwriting) and most people would have been able to get affordable policies--possibly for less than the ACA approved ones they'll now be forced to buy. (For other people--market-based insurance would have been more expensive or not
available, forcing them into a high-risk pool or other arrangement).
If not for this regulation, the only people able to get individual health care insurance in New York would be those without any risk at all. Those needing the insurance would have been excluded by design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
The ACA may have addressed one ill-advised government policy. It's not too early to start looking at how we'll implement the next batch of needed fixes.

Some will celebrate the ACA, others will see the issue as NY's original program that created the mispricing.
The PPACA has addressed many needs shared by everyone. No one in New York that needed or needs individual health care coverage will be sorry to see that poor excuse for insurance be replaced by PPACA enacted reforms and policies.
__________________
MichaelB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 04:36 AM   #84
Recycles dryer sheets
kmt1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Scarsdale
Posts: 175
http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...rates-2014.pdf

Are the rates for NY. While they are lower than the existing disastrous rates in NY state, they seem pretty high compared to the rest of the country. I also suspect the real numbers might be different over time because this assumes a certain rate of participation which might be lower due to some people opting to pay the penalty (or tax or whatever it is that supreme count decided it was.)
__________________
"There are no solutions...there are only trade-offs." - Thomas Sowell

Looking to retire or semi-retire by 45 based on our net worth going to $6 million outside our house.
kmt1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 10:26 AM   #85
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Brat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 5,914
NY has always been costly, at least it is less costly than it once was. It will be interesting to see NJ $.

Yes, there may be a 'donut hole' where some people choose to pay the penalty because they earn too much for a substantial subsidy.
__________________
Duck bjorn.
Brat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 10:36 AM   #86
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brat View Post
NY has always been costly, at least it is less costly than it once was. It will be interesting to see NJ $.

Yes, there may be a 'donut hole' where some people choose to pay the penalty because they earn too much for a substantial subsidy.
I imagine that will be correct. But, I think there will be a significant part of that donut hole constituted with people either too dumb, lazy, or oblivious to the law to bother to sign up. I imagine it will take the entire 2014 year, just to get a significant amount of these people aware and signed up even if they are "freebie's".
__________________
Mulligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 10:57 AM   #87
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmt1972 View Post
....While they are lower than the existing disastrous rates in NY state, they seem pretty high compared to the rest of the country. ....
They seem to be in the ballpark with the 2014 approved rates in Vermont.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 12:52 PM   #88
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post

They seem to be in the ballpark with the 2014 approved rates in Vermont.
I believe "the spread" between states will be significantly narrowed in the coming year. The states that already had a higher regulations and more mandatory type coverages
such as CA and NY are not barking, while states with more "al a carte" coverages will be howling at the increase (at least the healthy ones that have existing coverage).
__________________
Mulligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 01:48 PM   #89
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,649
Brat...I realized that after I posted so I deleted the post! At first I thought it would be based on individual use. THEN I realized it was a collective use thing. Not sure how this will work. I'm sure the insurers will work hard to use at least 81% of what they take in.
There is always a work around to laws and unintended consequences.

Should be getting something from Anthem soon. July is half way over.
__________________
sheehs1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 09:06 PM   #90
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,629
Still incomplete details, but indications from Indiana's Dept of Insurance of significant rate increases in that state (which will be using Federal Marketplace).

http://www.indystar.com/article/2013...nce-plan-rates
__________________
ERhoosier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2013, 07:35 AM   #91
Recycles dryer sheets
killingme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 85
The thing to note is the downstate and upstate farming/rural rates are being considered together in the NYT article. Downstate (the five Burroughs) the rates will fall, since they were exorbitant to begin with, upstate the rates will increase.

The farm belters often choose to forego insurance due to its cost, regardless of age, and now they would be forced to buy or pay the tax/penalty, but really you are looking at apples and oranges since the median income is so much higher downstate. (eg new york city $121k, five buroughs $54K, Ithaca $27k, Buffalo $29k, Watkins Glen $32K) Downstate rates go down if and only if upstaters pay into the system.

Similarly, as mentioned regarding the young workers, why would they pay prior to age 27 in I am covered by my parents until 26? At that age making low end wages,I would not have been so altruistic.
__________________
killingme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2013, 07:58 AM   #92
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by killingme View Post
The thing to note is the downstate and upstate farming/rural rates are being considered together in the NYT article. Downstate (the five Burroughs) the rates will fall, since they were exorbitant to begin with, upstate the rates will increase.
Do you have a source for this? Based on the published rate tables, premiums decline across the board, for all regions. In addition, some insurers charge more for upstate regions than the NYC area.
__________________
MichaelB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2013, 08:25 AM   #93
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERhoosier View Post
Still incomplete details, but indications from Indiana's Dept of Insurance of significant rate increases in that state (which will be using Federal Marketplace).

http://www.indystar.com/article/2013...nce-plan-rates
What I thought was interesting from the article was the stark difference in the individual health insurance market. NY with a population base of approximately 19 million people has only 17,000 on individual plans. While Indiana with a population of around 6.5 million has 200,000 people had individual plans.
__________________
Mulligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2013, 08:38 AM   #94
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,914
A lot of that difference will probably go away once the employer mandate takes hold.
__________________
bUU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2013, 09:27 AM   #95
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
timo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Rio Rancho
Posts: 1,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
A lot of that difference will probably go away once the employer mandate takes hold.
I don't see what the problem would be if most employers dropped their plans and most people went through an exchange for their health insurance. It would be more portable, for one, and the employer wouldn't have to mess with health insurance.
__________________
"We live the lives we lead because of the thoughts we think" Michael O’Neill
timo2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2013, 09:34 AM   #96
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,914
Whether it will be a problem or not, all I was saying is that the difference would go away.

I think it would be a problem though: Employers are simply not anywhere near worthy of trust that they'll pass along the money that previously they used to sponsor employer-provided health insurance to the employees. I think any such suggestion would just be viewed by most businesses as an excuse to bolster their profits and stick it to their employees, especially those that they can readily replace.
__________________
bUU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2013, 09:46 AM   #97
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
timo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Rio Rancho
Posts: 1,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Whether it will be a problem or not, all I was saying is that the difference would go away.

I think it would be a problem though: Employers are simply not anywhere near worthy of trust that they'll pass along the money that previously they used to sponsor employer-provided health insurance to the employees. I think any such suggestion would just be viewed by most businesses as an excuse to bolster their profits and stick it to their employees, especially those that they can readily replace.

It probably would be too much to expect any savings to be passed down. But maybe the business would lower prices instead of increase executive pay.
__________________
"We live the lives we lead because of the thoughts we think" Michael O’Neill
timo2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2013, 09:50 AM   #98
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by timo2 View Post
I don't see what the problem would be if most employers dropped their plans and most people went through an exchange for their health insurance. It would be more portable, for one, and the employer wouldn't have to mess with health insurance.
In theory, this is fine if (a) the employer passed on all the saved health care costs to the employee to buy their own insurance, and (b) if the inequity in tax treatment between employer-provided insurance benefits and cash payments used to buy your own policy were eliminated.

If someone's coverage costs the employer $10,000 a year, I don't trust employers to give employees $10,000 a year to buy their own policy, or less than that net of the subsidy so it's a wash for the employee. Then again, that subsidy is another wrinkle. Do you give the same $10,000 (or whatever) to someone with $100K in household income as someone earning $40K in household income, knowing that the latter would also get a pretty hefty subsidy and would pay a lot less than $10K per year out of pocket for health insurance?
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2013, 09:54 AM   #99
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by timo2 View Post
It probably would be too much to expect any savings to be passed down. But maybe the business would lower prices instead of increase executive pay.
That still leave employees directed toward the dying in the streets scenario, since they'll have to buy health insurance but they won't have to buy food or clothing or safe shelter (for example), or pay co-pays for necessary medical services and medicines.
__________________
bUU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2013, 11:02 AM   #100
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,629
The more things get OT politically, the more the scent of bacon begins to fill the air
I still think it's useful to have a thread for updates related to the Exchanges/Marketplace as Oct 1 approaches.
__________________

__________________
ERhoosier is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:20 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.