General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't see how Obamacare is viable. In state after state, rates are skyrocketing
After raising its premiums for coverage on the Obamacare exchange by 36.3 percent for 2016, the state’s dominant health insurer is heralding another increase of the “same order of magnitude” for 2017.
BlueCross BlueShield, which covers 162,423 of the 268,867 Tennesseans enrolled in the government-run exchange (aka the Marketplace) claims it lost more than $150 million on that coverage in 2015 when its rates were among the lowest in the land. But the 36.3 percent increase for 2016, the largest of any state, brings Tennessee rates to just about the national average, which went up about 10 percent this year.
<snip>
http://www.knoxmercury.com/2016/05/11/obamacare-health-exchange-tennessee-sickening/
Humana (HUM) wasn’t kidding when it hinted last week of big premium hikes for 2017 in those ObamaCare markets where it remains.
This year, the nation’s fifth-largest insurer offers the cheapest bronze and silver plans in Michigan’s largest market, including Detroit. But Humana has filed for a 50% premium hike for its low-cost silver plan.
The unsubsidized cost for a 40-year-old will jump from $210 a month to $315, if approved. On top of that, the maximum out-of-pocket cost for plan members will rise 9%, to $7,150 from $6,300 in 2016.
Meanwhile, Humana wants a 38% premium increase for its lowest-cost bronze plan, from $178 a month to $246.
Rate requests for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, an important player in the state, aren’t yet available. But Humana isn’t the only exchange participant eyeing massive premium hikes. Health Alliance Plan, a subsidiary of the Henry Ford Health System, has requested 30% premium hikes for its least expensive bronze and silver plans.
<snip>
http://www.investors.com/politics/policy/humana-seeks-50-obamacare-premium-hike-in-michigan/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)But, the Democratic leaders wouldn't listen to the left, as usual.
The way Obamacare was set up essentially left its fate in the hands of the private insurers. That's a not a good place to be for a liberal program.
Single payer is the only realistic option to get full, reasonably priced coverage for all Americans. But of course that is just foolish, pie in the sky thinking.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)The rates for my company have gone through the roof. The only cure is a public option that everyone can buy into.
Too bad Hillary and Trump won't do shit about it.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)Because of the 80/20 rule 80% of any premiums charged must be used for healthcare only 20% can be used for anything else including profits. The problem is they use that couple years ago to go charge people to raise their premiums because they knew they wouldn't have to pay it back until the year was over
That convinced a lot of people that Obama cause the rise in premiums
cali
(114,904 posts)Are you honestly going to say that health care costs rose that much in Michigan?
dawg
(10,624 posts)Consumers won't be affected so long as the credits continue to be tied to the second least expensive silver plan. It *will* cost the program more money, but so would single-payer or a public option.
The primary reason this is happening is that far fewer employers than expected dropped their coverage. The people who ended up on ACA policies were sicker and needier than anticipated. Insurers are having to adjust their prices to reflect that reality. The tax credits will continue to limit the impact to most needy families.
If the new premiums turn out to have been too high, the law will force insurers to rebate the excess of the premiums they collected. So it is impossible for them to gouge us (other than the 20% they are allowed).
I *do* think a single-payer system would be better. But this isn't the disaster it's being portrayed as.
