Colorado health insurers seek 27 percent premium increase in individual market

[Boiler 47,538]

Colorado health insurers are asking to charge customers in the individual market nearly 27 percent more on average in premiums next year, the state Division of Insurance announced Friday.

The division must still review and approve the requests — after receiving public comment. But insurers can back out of the market if the state doesn’t OK their premium hikes.

 

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/14/colorado-health-insurers-seek-premium-increase/

[jg121783 3,921]

But the left denies that premiums have gone up under Obamacare.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

But the left denies that premiums have gone up under Obamacare.

Who are you reading that has denied that premiums have gone up? That is basic arithmetic. 

 

You can argue we are still better off with Obamacare than what we had before (or will have with the current plan in the Senate), and still recognize that premiums have gone up. It's not the only thing that matters.

[jg121783 3,921]

Just now, bcking said:

Who are you reading that has denied that premiums have gone up? That is basic arithmetic. 

 

You can argue we are still better off with Obamacare than what we had before (or will have with the current plan in the Senate), and still recognize that premiums have gone up. It's not the only thing that matters.

I can name more than one person on these forums who have denied premiums have gone up.

 

You could argue we are better off but you could also argue we are not better off with Obamacare.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, jg121783 said:

I can name more than one person on these forums who have denied premiums have gone up.

 

You could argue we are better off but you could also argue we are not better off with Obamacare.

Ya I agree you could argue both ways. 

 

Arguing premiums have gone up though is pretty silly. Even before Obamacare went through I assumed premiums would go up. It made insurers actually cover healthcare instead of allowing them to pick and chose and rely on ignorance in consumers when selecting plans. Insurers had/have to cover more, so of course they were going to want to charge more.

 

Interesting article I just read on this topic:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/15/news/economy/health-care-insurers-cruz-amendment/index.html

 

Even the two major insurance company CEOs are now coming out and saying that the changes in the Senate Bill would make premiums rise even more. If you allow Insurance Companies to offer "cheaper plans", you will get all the healthy people onto those plans and the people who are actually sick will be left alone on the comprehensive plans. That will drive their premiums up because the healthier population isn't balancing them out.

[IAMX 3,055]

Part of it is also what many Americans brag about when criticizing healthcare of Canada.

 

The US has expended far too much in assets in areas that don't need them. So there's a ton of areas throughout the country with empty beds and a ton of amazing hardware that goes virtually unused.

 

The result is.. the cost needs to be passed along somewhere. It's pretty obvious where it winds up -- the customer.

 

But this is the result of excess that comes along with an industry that is not reliant upon need, but their ability to get government mandates to justify those excess costs. If they didn't get those mandates, these companies would be a lot more conservative with how they manage their overhead. This is why in the private realm, government needs to stay out. Make it completely private, or completely public.

 

So pick your poison -- semi-private, semi-public healthcare where the customer pays excessive amounts? Or universal where everyone can get preventative care and expenses can be far more curtailed and minimized? As a fiscal conservative, the latter appeals to me a lot more.

Edited July 15, 2017 by IAMX

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

I don't know why both sides can't just come to a common consensus and find a system that works fairly for all. 

 

Healthcare is scary one for the future, with pre-existing conditions we are unsure how we will end up. Just getting holiday/travel insurance is a pain as soon as we say cancer on the application form. They will blame any claim as part of my wifes pre-existing cancer even though it's five years since her surgery. 

Edited July 15, 2017 by Mr&Mrs G.

[IAMX 3,055]

46 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

I don't know why both sides can't just come to a common consensus and find a system that works fairly for all. 

 

Healthcare is scary one for the future, with pre-existing conditions we are unsure how we will end up. Just getting holiday/travel insurance is a pain as soon as we say cancer on the application form. They will blame any claim as part of my wifes pre-existing cancer even though it's five years since her surgery. 

My youngest sister who beat leukemia had 3 private insurances, two through her step-dad, who worked for NASA, all three insurers denied her coverage for her last bone marrow transplant. It was decided by cancer specialists that time was the best to get it done while she was healthy rather than dramatically increasing the risk of having it done while she was having yet another relapse. With all three insurers denying her coverage due to her pre-existing condition of cancer, it was ultimately the state of California that covered her and the wonderful people at UCSFMC (University of California, San Francisco Medical Center) who aided her in killing off that cancer completely, along with defeating numerous other cancers prior. The insurance industry is a farce, and completely counterproductive to the idea of a healthy and productive society.

Edited July 15, 2017 by IAMX

[jg121783 3,921]

1 hour ago, IAMX said:

My youngest sister who beat leukemia had 3 private insurances, two through her step-dad, who worked for NASA, all three insurers denied her coverage for her last bone marrow transplant. It was decided by cancer specialists that time was the best to get it done while she was healthy rather than dramatically increasing the risk of having it done while she was having yet another relapse. With all three insurers denying her coverage due to her pre-existing condition of cancer, it was ultimately the state of California that covered her and the wonderful people at UCSFMC (University of California, San Francisco Medical Center) who aided her in killing off that cancer completely, along with defeating numerous other cancers prior. The insurance industry is a farce, and completely counterproductive to the idea of a healthy and productive society.

That is exactly the point I have made numerous times here. Both sides concentrate on legislation centered around insurance companies and it is the wrong approach.

[OriZ 3,165]

6 hours ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

I don't know why both sides can't just come to a common consensus and find a system that works fairly for all. 

 

Healthcare is scary one for the future, with pre-existing conditions we are unsure how we will end up. Just getting holiday/travel insurance is a pain as soon as we say cancer on the application form. They will blame any claim as part of my wifes pre-existing cancer even though it's five years since her surgery. 

I hear ya. My wife has 17 different diagnoses under her belt, and has had a hell of a time getting anybody to cover her prior to the ACA. I don't like the ACA and neither does she, but we always believed people with pre existing conditions should be able to get coverage. I still remember back in 2008 when she quit her job(after I pushed her to do it because they wouldn't even let her wear her neck brace after her neck surgery) and the only option was COBRA. Nowadays we have a plan with BCBS, but something like life insurance is completely out of the question, the only thing she has is accidental. 

[IAMX 3,055]

5 hours ago, OriZ said:

I hear ya. My wife has 17 different diagnoses under her belt, and has had a hell of a time getting anybody to cover her prior to the ACA. I don't like the ACA and neither does she, but we always believed people with pre existing conditions should be able to get coverage. I still remember back in 2008 when she quit her job(after I pushed her to do it because they wouldn't even let her wear her neck brace after her neck surgery) and the only option was COBRA. Nowadays we have a plan with BCBS, but something like life insurance is completely out of the question, the only thing she has is accidental. 

Ouch.

[CaliCat 3,957]

5 hours ago, OriZ said:

I hear ya. My wife has 17 different diagnoses under her belt, and has had a hell of a time getting anybody to cover her prior to the ACA. I don't like the ACA and neither does she, but we always believed people with pre existing conditions should be able to get coverage. I still remember back in 2008 when she quit her job(after I pushed her to do it because they wouldn't even let her wear her neck brace after her neck surgery) and the only option was COBRA. Nowadays we have a plan with BCBS, but something like life insurance is completely out of the question, the only thing she has is accidental. 

 

Under the new proposed plan, your wife will probably lose what coverage she has, or have her benefits heavily curtailed, for the simple reason, private health insurance must follow the same unfair rules any other insurance policy is predicated. If you're an alcoholic, your car insurance company will drop you, and you will have to pay an astronomical premium to get insured again. If your credit is bad. money will cost you more than for those whose credit score is good, or you'll be denied credit altogether. Insurance companies are in the business of betting and gambling against risk, and as a business, their first and foremost concern is with their stock holders. They are no different than any other company, that's in the market to make money.

 

What is bad and wrong with the ACA is that it didn't go far enough. The dems balked at the 11th hour and signed a half baked bill, that was meant to appease the GOP. Their plan should have ended up with a single-payer system, backed by the government, which incidentally happens to be you and me, and everyone else. 

 

Left to the private companies, health insurance and health care will forever be rationed - if you can pay you get it, otherwise you don't, or you end up in some county hospital, receiving care when they can provide it, which si not always. There is a reason the armed forces are not privatized, and it's because when you go to war, you're not thinking about ROI, balance sheets, and income statements. The same principle should apply to health care.

 

Ironically, it's those of us who can pay, and who do have insurance who tend to see the benefit of everyone having it, while those who don't are the staunchest defender of the insurance companies, who shun at their economic and social predicament. Bridges for sale. Everywhere.

 

 

[Boiler 47,538]

It is not a rationing situation, you do not insure the cost of Armed Forces, you do not insure the cot of Police, you do not insure the cost of Fire service, actually the fire service started with Insurers seeking to protect their risks but it soon became clear that it was illogical for each Insurer to have their own fire dept.

[CaliCat 3,957]

That's the point I was making. Good job.

[Boiler 47,538]

Where is my thumbs up?