Health Care Reform Polling data

[huusom]

[QUOTE
You may have also missed the story today that Blue Shield of CA is raising rates up to 59% for some policyholders because of new state mandated laws. This is their third rate increase in six months - one in October 2010, one in January 2011, and another for March 2011. Blue Shield is non-profit.[/QUOTE]

Can you provide us with a link about this 59% increase news?

 

[dgoldenz]

Can you provide us with a link about this 59% increase news?

Blue Shield of California seeks rate hikes of as much as 59% for individuals - latimes.com

 

[MichaelB]

You may have also missed the story today that Blue Shield of CA is raising rates up to 59% for some policyholders because of new state mandated laws. This is their third rate increase in six months - one in October 2010, one in January 2011, and another for March 2011. Blue Shield is non-profit.

Health Care brokers and intermediaries use the reform act as an excuse, but it is certainly not the reason. They were raising their rates before the reform and will probably continue to do so.

 

[dgoldenz]

Health Care brokers and intermediaries use the reform act as an excuse, but it is certainly not the reason. They were raising their rates before the reform and will probably continue to do so.

Two of the three increases were specifically due to the new reform mandates, legislation passed in California that companies can't deny children applying alone in a 3-month open enrollment period, and another new law stating that men and women must be charged the same rates. So men will get to pay more and women will get to pay less.

Besides, the health reform act was supposed to solve our problems so we could all go ride some unicorns and rainbows while getting cancer treatments for free. What happened to saving the average family $2500/year in premiums? Haven't heard that claim since 2008...

 

[huusom]

This increase is the most outrageous form of taxing without representation. The insurance companies are allowed to charge more to always maintain a profit margin. Where is the incentive to compete? We can change goverment with our votes but we're helpless against the insurance companies.

This system must be changed. A public option is definitely needed.

 

[Independent]

In theory, I think we structured our Govt to be representative, because (again, in theory), those reps should be informed enough to enact legislation designed to achieve goals that meet the people's will. If not, let's just eliminate Congress and we will pass laws based on American-Idol style phone in votes.

-ERD50

+1

In my favorite health insurance plan, people would cast annual votes.

 

[Independent]

Do away with insurance group pricing differences. Just price for admin cost differences. That will substantially level the playing field.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

 

[ERD50]

This increase is the most outrageous form of taxing without representation. The insurance companies are allowed to charge more to always maintain a profit margin. Where is the incentive to compete? We can change goverment with our votes but we're helpless against the insurance companies.

This system must be changed. A public option is definitely needed.

It is the govt that set up the system that allowed insurance companies to come to this point. Starting with the market-twisting tax benefits for employee sponsored health insurance, which started the tie in between getting health ins and employment, isolated the consumer from the costs, and much, much more.

We have met the enemy and he is us?

-ERD50

 

[obgyn65]

The last time I participated in a healthcare related topic on this website, one moderator closed the thread (became too "political"). Therefore now I stay away from this topic...

We have met the enemy and he is us?

-ERD50

 

[MichaelB]

I'm not sure what you mean here.

The same coverage has different prices depending on the size of the group. This difference can be as much as 2x. In general, smaller group policies are much more expensive than large groups.

 

[lets-retire]

The same coverage has different prices depending on the size of the group. This difference can be as much as 2x. In general, smaller group policies are much more expensive than large groups.

I think that was supposed to be addressed in the health insurance law the Senate passed and the HOR deemed to have passed. It is one section of the law I agreed with. I don't see any reason why health insurance companies can't use the same methods as auto insurance as far as rating groups. Their business model is based on the state so it makes sense to rate people based on the profitability in the state.

 

[Texas Proud]

The last time I participated in a healthcare related topic on this website, one moderator closed the thread (became too "political"). Therefore now I stay away from this topic...

They usually start out civil, but since most of us already have a strong opinion one way or the other... it soon becomes a shouting match because that other person just does not get it...


Politics have gotten to the point of win-lose... which also leads to lose-lose.... if I do not get my way, neither will you... unless you barely give enough to get a few votes here or there... Funny thing is that there could have been a bipartisan bill passed that would have gotten a good number of things the dems wanted passed as long as it did not include universal health care... and it would have included a good number of things the repubs would have liked to see (tort reform, buying across states etc.)... since they decided to go the win-lose way instead of the win-win... their program will be attacked for years to come...

I say years to come because I do not think there will ever be enough votes to overturn the law as written... so even if repubs get the president and more senate seats... they will not get the number in 2012 to overturn the law... so fighting continues for another 2 years... now comes 2014 and they still will not have the votes... now the law is really starting to take effect... so they defund some of the law... again, win-lose... so fighting continues until 2016... heck, I bet that we will be talking about this in the 2020 presidential race...

So, yes... I can see the pig coming at some time in this thread and we will start over in another...

 

[Independent]

The same coverage has different prices depending on the size of the group. This difference can be as much as 2x. In general, smaller group policies are much more expensive than large groups.

I've never looked at this is detail, but I've always assumed there was a lot more anti-selection in small group than large group, i.e. a small employer may not even seek group insurance until one important individual in the group becomes uninsurable.

So requiring the same rates for small groups as large groups seems like a big step toward guaranteed issue at standard rates for individual policies. Was that your intent?

 

[MichaelB]

I've never looked at this is detail, but I've always assumed there was a lot more anti-selection in small group than large group, i.e. a small employer may not even seek group insurance until one important individual in the group becomes uninsurable.

So requiring the same rates for small groups as large groups seems like a big step toward guaranteed issue at standard rates for individual policies. Was that your intent?

I was only thinking there is too much cross subsidy right now. Higher rates for small groups and lower rates for large groups. The lower rate encourages over-use and hides the real cost. The higher rate discourages enrollment. The system becomes distorted.

Standard rates for all would be a big step forward.

 

[ziggy29]

You may have also missed the story today that Blue Shield of CA is raising rates up to 59% for some policyholders because of new state mandated laws.

There is certainly truth to the idea that the new laws and their mandates are causing premiums to rise.

However, I trust insurance companies even less than I trust government (and I have little trust in government)... and I wouldn't put it past them to propose apocalyptic rate far in excess of their increased costs in order to try to get the people to scream for repeal of the new laws.

 

[eridanus]

However, I trust insurance companies even less than I trust government (and I have little trust in government)... and I wouldn't put it past them to propose apocalyptic rate far in excess of their increased costs in order to try to get the people to scream for repeal of the new laws.

Blue Shield also stated that the increased premiums had "almost nothing" to do with the health care bill.

"The company, a member of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association with 3.3 million members, which announced the move late Thursday, stressed that its decision has "almost nothing to do with the federal health reform law" and that ultimately the law will help slow down health care costs."

"But responding to this most recent increase the company said, "our individual market medical costs are rising rapidly due to higher provider prices, increased utilization, and the fact that healthier people are dropping coverage during a bad economy," the company said."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Blue-...3.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=3&asset=&ccode=

 

[dgoldenz]

There is certainly truth to the idea that the new laws and their mandates are causing premiums to rise.

However, I trust insurance companies even less than I trust government (and I have little trust in government)... and I wouldn't put it past them to propose apocalyptic rate far in excess of their increased costs in order to try to get the people to scream for repeal of the new laws.

The increases still have to comply with the 80% loss ratio rule now currently in effect, so they can't propose massive rate increases "just because"....and like I said, Blue Shield is non-profit. Maybe people will see now that "massive profits" aren't the problem.

 

[ziggy29]

the fact that healthier people are dropping coverage during a bad economy

This is a big one, IMO. And it's certainly true that large group and employer-subsidized plans are not nearly seeing the rise that individual plans are. Part of that is the purchasing clout of a large group (the insurers don't want to lose that business so they can't jerk Megacorp around too much) and that people have no incentive to decline massively subsidized care (healthy or not, why would I reject coverage $800/mo coverage when I only pay $120 for it?) -- especially since employer coverage usually means the insureds are, well, employed. So there is no significant adverse selection in the large group employer plans.

Yet this also shows why large groups and universal coverage are much more effective than the dysfunctional individual health insurance market.

 

[dgoldenz]

Yet this also shows why large groups and universal coverage are much more effective than the dysfunctional individual health insurance market.

Easy to say, not easy to pay for. Most of my clients wouldn't have health insurance if they had to pay group insurance rates. If you can't write the check, then you can't write the check!

 

[ziggy29]

Easy to say, not easy to pay for. Most of my clients wouldn't have health insurance if they had to pay group insurance rates. If you can't write the check, then you can't write the check!

Doesn't change the fact that the market for individual policies is dysfunctional for a variety of reasons.

And I assume most of your clients aren't unemployed, have little income and have chronic health problems. Cherrypicking makes it all sound so easy...

 

[dgoldenz]

Doesn't change the fact that the market for individual policies is dysfunctional for a variety of reasons.

And I assume most of your clients aren't unemployed, have little income and have chronic health problems. Cherrypicking makes it all sound so easy...

Maybe, but that's the nature of the market. You could say the same thing about disability insurance with its strict underwriting. A lot (20%?) of my clients are unemployed and bought individual insurance instead of forking out the $1500+ per month that most of their group plans required for COBRA. More and more of my clients are buying individual because their employers have cut back on subsidies for health insurance or don't have any subsidy for dependents. I have seen more people whose employers were charging $1000+ per month for family rates than ever before.

The bottom line is people that don't have it massively subsidized either through their employer or the government can't afford group rates. When 2014 rolls around, you'll see many of the people insured today simply make the economic decision to drop health insurance instead of paying the $1000+ per month for a family or $400+ per month for an individual.

We just saw Blue Shield of CA and many other companies say there is a big problem with younger, healthier people dropping coverage because of the bad economy. What happens when their rates double or triple? Somehow I don't think raising the price will encourage them to buy...

 

[samclem]

Back to polling data: The new health care law still isn't supported by most Americans: From a Gallup poll this week (as reported by CNN):

Forty-six percent of those surveyed Tuesday and Wednesday say they want their representative to vote for repeal; 40% want the law to stand.

This is not an isolated case. The Real Clear Politics composite of many polls over the last month indicates 53% of Americans favor repeal of this law.

. . . Blue Shield is non-profit. Maybe people will see now that "massive profits" aren't the problem.

Some BC/BS is non-profit, some isn't. From Wikipedia:

Prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, organizations administering Blue Cross Blue Shield were tax exempt under 501(c)(4) as social welfare plans. However, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 revoked that exemption because the plans sold commercial-type insurance. They became 501(m) organizations, subject to federal taxation but entitled to "special tax benefits"[9] under IRC 833. In 1994, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association changed to allow its licensees to be for-profit corporations.[5] Some plans[specify] are still considered not-for-profit at the state level.

But I agree that the actual profits are not a significant problem.

 

[dgoldenz]

Some BC/BS is non-profit, some isn't. From Wikipedia:

But I agree that the actual profits are not a significant problem.

Anthem Blue Cross is for-profit in CA. Blue Shield of CA is non-profit. Most states only have one BCBS company, CA has two.

 

[ziggy29]

Back to polling data: The new health care law still isn't supported by most Americans: From a Gallup poll this week (as reported by CNN):

But to reiterate what was said before, there's no reason why we have to look at this as an "all or nothing" thing. Some of the reforms are more popular than others, and that old saying about baby and bathwater comes to mind.

 

[MichaelB]

The bottom line is people that don't have it massively subsidized either through their employer or the government can't afford group rates. When 2014 rolls around, you'll see many of the people insured today simply make the economic decision to drop health insurance instead of paying the $1000+ per month for a family or $400+ per month for an individual.

We just saw Blue Shield of CA and many other companies say there is a big problem with younger, healthier people dropping coverage because of the bad economy. What happens when their rates double or triple? Somehow I don't think raising the price will encourage them to buy...

You say this frequently - people won't pay the unsubsidized rates. If they are covered today, those rates are being paid. How can we ever hope to have any type of functional healthcare system when people don't pay the full amount? How can we expect to reform a system if we don't acknowledge the real costs?