Obamacare in NYS.

[arnisador]

[h=1]Here’s why health insurance premiums are tumbling in New York[/h]

“Individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance for as little as $308 monthly[...]With federal subsidies, the cost will be even lower.”
[...]
New York has, for two decades now, had the highest individual market premiums in the country. A lot of it seems to trace back to a law passed in 1993, which required insurance plans to accept all applicants, regardless of how sick or healthy they were. That law did not, however, require everyone to sign up, as the Affordable Care Act does.

New York has, for 20 years now, been a long-running experiment in what happens to universal coverage without an individual mandate. It’s the type of law the country would have if House Republicans succeeded in delaying the individual mandate, as they will vote to do this afternoon. The result: a small insurance market with very high insurance premiums.

See also:
[h=1]New Yorkers to see 50% drop in health insurance costs in Obamacare exchange[/h]

[h=2]New York state residents will be able to get health insurance next year on the Obamacare exchange for half the average price available in the state today.[/h] The cost of a "silver" plan -- which covers at least 70% of medical costs, on average -- will drop to as little as $359 a month for a single adult Manhattan resident, for instance, according to a rate sheet released Wednesday by state officials. Currently, the cheapest plan a city resident can buy on the individual market is $1,001.

[h=1]Health Plan Cost for New Yorkers Set to Fall 50%[/h]

State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for 2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those currently available in New York. Beginning in October, individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance for as little as $308 monthly. With federal subsidies, the cost will be even lower.


Supporters of the new health care law, the Affordable Care Act, credited the drop in rates to the online purchasing exchanges the law created, which they say are spurring competition among insurers that are anticipating an influx of new customers. The law requires that an exchange be started in every state.

The Affordable Care Act has already brought many benefits people really like--no bans on pre-existing conditions, kids staying on until 26, etc.--and it keeps getting better despite the continuing tragicomic efforts of the House to repeal it.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So you're moving back to NY to take advantage of this great windfall?

NYS already had a number of affordable options. I'll wait and see what happens come January 1st but from what I read, I fall in the 'sorry but you don't qualify to shop around' exemption zone.

We'll see if this new 'competition' lowers our premiums or just jacks us up because they can.

As to exchanges, funny how many states have said 'no' to them. I support the House's repeal efforts. As to kids on the plan until 26, hell, raise it to 70 and make their parents liable for their college bills too. While you're at it, lock voting age and drinking age in line with this too.

I still think it's all bollocks.

 

[arnisador]

Meanwhile, in Kentucky, people love Obamacare...as long as they're not told that that's what it is:

Kentucky Health Workers Pitch Obamacare At State Fair Alongside Corn Dogs, Fried Kool-Aid

government workers at the Kentucky State Fair are hawking the virtues of Kynect, the state’s health benefit exchange established by Obamacare. The man is impressed. "This beats Obamacare I hope," he mutters to one of the workers.

“Do I burst his bubble?” wonders Reina Diaz-Dempsey, overseeing the operation. She doesn't. If he signs up, it's a win-win, whether he knows he's been ensnared by Obamacare or not.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- Obamacare -- totals 974 pages, and in the popular imagination is several times longer[...]But Diaz-Dempsey has managed to distill it all down to three sentences.

We are Kynect -- part of the new health care law.

Do you know anyone who doesn’t have health insurance?

You may qualify for Medicaid or a tax credit based on your income.

The crush of people don't greet Diaz-Dempsey with tea party dogma or amateur constitutional scholarship. No one is there to complain about the individual mandate or heckle about death panels. They have questions.

They wonder if they could get coverage despite having a pre-existing medical condition, how much it will cost them. They ask if Indiana has a similar program, or if this was only for Kentucky. Could they just enroll their child? They talk about their sons and daughters, neighbors going without health care, and ask about the subsidies.

The vast majority are relieved to learn about the health exchange. Linda Parrish, 47, showed up at the table and gushed to Diaz-Dempsey: "This is what I've been waiting on." Parrish has health insurance, but her best friend doesn't.

Kentuckians hate Obamacare but love it by another name

The tea party has been calling people telling them not to sign up because they falsely claim there are no real health insurance exchanges. Many low income workers are against it because they were lied to about what the costs would be.

Christopher McClure hobbles through the doors, his inner thigh hurting from what he suspects are a pair of spider bites. He is not employed and does not have health insurance. His wife Michelle, 29, works as an assistant manager at a pizza chain making $12,000 a year. She also has no insurance and would qualify for the Medicaid expansion. But she's against Obamacare, convinced that it will wipe out her meager earnings. “Next enrollment season," she says, "they’re going to sock it to me.”


​

The McClures under Obamacare would be fully subsidized. They are so misinformed that they have no clue that Obamacare is that one leg on the stool that removes a financial burden that is materially affecting their access to real financial independence. It makes sense to remove the health care anchor from people’s neck giving them the wherewithal to go seek a job or make their own job.

Surveys repeatedly show that people react negatively to Obamacare, which the GOP has told them is horrible, but absolutely love the exchanges, the changes for pre-existing conditions and kids staying on until 26, etc. The GOP has demonized what is a very popular program and I hope that that bites them in the end.

 

[ballen0351]

Great for NY too bad almost all other states costs are going up.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

kids staying on until 26

As long as the parent pays the INCREASED premium. No pay higher fee, no keep kid on policy.

 

[arnisador]

Great for NY too bad almost all other states costs are going up.

Source?

 

[ballen0351]

Source?

Bobs only posted 50+ sources over the 2 or three threads. Last one he posted showed a 63% increase in costs for my state.

 

[arnisador]

Last one he posted showed a 63% increase in costs for my state.

Well, your state is indeed most states. Touche'.

 

[ballen0351]

Well, your state is indeed most states. Touche'.

According to the data Bob posted every state but 5 or 6 were going to see increases.
However even if it were just mine why is NY more important then my state so we jump for joy for NY but screw us.

 

[ballen0351]

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.o...-to-raise-your-premiums-a-state-by-state-map/

Source?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Arni doesn't look at anything I post. He doesn't consider any of it valid.

 

[arnisador]

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.o...-to-raise-your-premiums-a-state-by-state-map/

Seems legit. How about something like the WSJ, since I started off with the NYT?

 

[ballen0351]

The Society of Actuaries (SOA) is a professional organization for actuaries based in North America. It was founded in 1949 as the merger of two major actuarial organizations in the United States: the Actuarial Society of America and the American Institute of Actuaries.[3] It is a full member organization of the International Actuarial Association.[4]

The Society's vision is for actuaries to be recognized as the leading professionals in the modeling and management of financial risk and contingent events. The SOA has three overall goals: providing primary and continuing education for students and practicing actuaries, maintaining high professional standards for actuaries, and conducting research on actuarial trends and public policy issues.[5]

The SOA represents American actuaries from all major areas of practice except property and casualty insurance, which are represented by the Casualty Actuarial Society. In 2013, the SOA began offering qualification examinations covering general (property and casualty) insurance.[6]

The SOA, along with its public relations firm GolinHarris, won the PR Week Corporate Branding Campaign of the Year award for 2008. The award was given for the Society's efforts to revitalize the actuarial profession's brand in the US, including the slogan "Risk is Opportunity."[7]

Seems legit. How about something like the WSJ, since I started off with the NYT?

Well since the Society of Actuaries actually did the study all the link did was show it published they didn't actually do the study do you dislike that actual people that did the study or just the source that disseminated it?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If the source doesn't agree with predetermined results, it's automatically dismissed.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.o...-to-raise-your-premiums-a-state-by-state-map/

This map was created using information compiled by The Society of Actuaries in March of this year. The Society is a number crunching and non-partisan organization.

We can't have that. Only data that says "Obamacare Good" is valid. Only organizations that agree "Obamacare is good" are respectable. Only people who drank the "Obamacare is Good" kool aid are to be listened to. All other views are "WrongSpeak".

 

[arnisador]

Well since the Society of Actuaries actually did the study all the link did was show it published they didn't actually do the study do you dislike that actual people that did the study or just the source that disseminated it?

The article says:
"This map was created using information compiled by The Society of Actuaries in March of this year. The Society is a number crunching and non-partisan organization."

(Emphasis added.) The link is to the SOA Wikipedia page. It doesn't say who used that info. and doesn't link to any study, nor indicate the nature of the source that is mentioned in the bottom corner. (Not every report is a "study". This is a projection and may not have been a study as such--and who knows what assumptions they may have been asked to use by whomever commissioned the report.) So it sounds to me like they used some SOA data but created the map themselves. What isn't clear is whether they simply transcribed SOA numbers and whether those were unbiased SOA estimates or a report requested by some org. that asked that certain assumptions or methods be used (which is very reasonable as long as they're disclosed). So, yeah--still waiting on the source.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The article says:
"This map was created using information compiled by The Society of Actuaries in March of this year. The Society is a number crunching and non-partisan organization."

(Emphasis added.) The link is to the SOA Wikipedia page. It doesn't say who used that info. and doesn't link to any study, nor indicate the nature of the source that is mentioned in the bottom corner. (Not every report is a "study". This is a projection and may not have been a study as such--and who knows what assumptions they may have been asked to use by whomever commissioned the report.) So it sounds to me like they used some SOA data but created the map themselves. What isn't clear is whether they simply transcribed SOA numbers and whether those were unbiased SOA estimates or a report requested by some org. that asked that certain assumptions or methods be used (which is very reasonable as long as they're disclosed). So, yeah--still waiting on the source.

Of course, those who read the map graphic I posted will notice the SOURCE very CLEARLY referenced in the LOWER RIGHT CORNER.

But for those who may have either missed it, chose to ignore it or who can't read (in which case what are you doing on a web forum?) it was called "Cost of the Future Newly Insured under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) MARCH 2013"

A very quick search on Google (That's a web site you can type things into and search for results, for those unaware of that awesome ability) for that title quickly revealed the ACTUAL SOURCE STUDY. For the Google-Impared, I have included the link below.
http://cdn-files.soa.org/web/research-cost-aca-report.pdf

It is 83 pages long. I'm not going to read the whole thing. It uses big words like "This Analysis" and "Methodology" and other things that I'm really too stupid to understand. Concepts like "Modeling" to me involve naked women and cameras, not scientificy things you know.

I mean, to me, this is like Romulan:

Our research estimates are made using The Lewin Group Health Benefits Simulation Model (HBSM). The HBSM is a micro - simulation model of the U.S. health care system. HBSM is a fully integrated platform for simulating policies ranging from narrowly defined insurance market regulations to Medicaid cover age expansions and broad - based reforms involving multiple programs such as the ACA. It was developed in 1989 to simulate
the wave of reform proposals that culminated in the health reform proposal introduced by President Clinton in 1993. The model was used by the U.S. Bipartisan Commission on Comprehensive Health Care (the Pepper Commission) in 1990 and has been in almost constant use since then by The Lewin Group at the state and national levels.

Finding 1: After three years of exchanges and insurer restrictions, the percentage of uninsured nationally will decrease from 16.6 percent to between 6.8 and 6.6 percent, compared to pre-ACA projections

Since Arni never reads my links I dug this bone out for him. Someone quote it so he reads it eh?

Sounds good right? More people will have insurance.

Finding 2:
Under the ACA, the individual non-group market will grow 115 percent, from 11.9 million to 25.6 million lives; 80 percent of that enrollment will be in the
Exchanges.

Still sounding good right?

Finding 3: The non - group cost per member per month will increase 32 percent under ACA, compared to pre-ACA projections.

Oops. a 32% INCREASE in cost!

Can't afford it now, lets bump it 30% That'll "help".

Now, like I said, I haven't read the whole thing. There's a lot of data in there, a lot of supporting information, and all sarcasm aside, a lot that I don't "get" as I'm not an expert in insurance jargon. But the findings are pretty clear. More people insured, most on the exchanges and costs will go up. Not down like they promised.

There's more in there, but I've hit my limit for mocking for today and need to go play some Yahtzee. Toodles. :wavey:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It's October 1st 2013. Exchange Launch Day!

So, lets see...

Goto https://www.healthcare.gov/ and look up my state. NY

Click path https://www.healthcare.gov/families/ because I'm looking for an family plan. Clicked Apply.

Picked NY. It sends me to the NY Exchange.

https://nystateofhealth.ny.gov/

Ok, looks familiar. Again click on the family option.

[h=1]SRVE0232E: Internal Server Error.
Exception Message: [null][/h]
[h=3]null[/h]
IBM WebSphere Application Server

Blue State, had years to get this coded, can't even write a web app. NY sucks.

But maybe someday I'll be able to use this. I just hope it's before the IRS gestapo (now armed with assault weapons for your compliance) get involved.

 

[Big Don]

Refresh my memory, where in the Constitution is the government empowered to force people to buy things?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Refresh my memory, where in the Constitution is the government empowered to force people to buy things?

Well, using the skill of selective interpretation, combined with the traits of arrogance, superiority, and conceit, it's plain as day. Right there where it also says eat your taters.