Health Care Plans Under Obamacare Will Cost Even Less Than Expected

[Cigar]

A new analysis of health care premiums proposed under the Affordable Care Act concludes that health plans will cost even less than originally expected. That’s likely because the insurance marketplaces will encourage more competition between insurers.

Avalere Health looked at insurers’ proposed rates for Obamacare’s statewide insurance marketplaces in nine different states, and found that premiums for a 40 year old non-smoker on a mid-level health plan will cost anywhere from a low of $205 (in one Oregon region) to a high of $413 (in one Vermont region). That high-end price is actually lower than what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted the average mid-level plan cost would be in 2016.

...

Avalere’s report comes with some important caveats: the analysis is limited to 2014 premiums, whereas CBO’s projections deal with 2016 rates. Critics may argue that insurers are offering deceptively low rates to attract consumers in the health law’s first year of implementation, but plan on jacking those charges up once they have a larger customer base.

But insurers wouldn’t necessarily be able to do that under Obamacare, since the law subjects any premium hike over 10 percent by insurers selling plans on a marketplace to review. Furthermore, sicker Americans are expected to take advantage of the law’s protections before healthier and younger Americans enter the individual insurance market, meaning that future rate increases could be mitigated by a less costly pool.


http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/20/2185811/premiums-obamacare-lower-expected/


Ooops :shocked:

Kaiser tracking poll: Young Adults Want and Value Health Insurance
http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-june-2013/

[Chris]

And the predicted result of that predicted lowering of costs: Thanks To Obamacare, A 20,000 Doctor Shortage Is Set To Quintuple (http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2013/06/10/thanks-to-obamacare-a-20000-doctor-shortage-is-set-to-quintuple/):


Obamacare is set to provide some 16 million people with health insurance through Medicaid or the new exchanges next year. Unfortunately, their policies may not be worth much — as they may not be able to actually get care.

America is suffering from a doctor shortage. An influx of millions of new patients into the healthcare system will only exacerbate that shortage — driving up the demand for care without doing anything about its supply. Those who get their coverage through Medicaid or the exchanges may feel the effects of the shortage even more acutely, as many providers are opting not to accept their insurance.

Right now, the United States is short some 20,000 doctors, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. The shortage could quintuple over the next decade, thanks to the aging of the American population — and the aging and consequent retirement of many physicians. Nearly half of the 800,000-plus doctors in the United States are over the age of 50.

Obamacare is further thinning the doctor corps. A Physicians Foundation survey of 13,000 doctors found that 60 percent of doctors would retire today if they could, up from 45 percent before the law passed.

Doctors are also becoming choosier about whom they’ll see.

They’ve long limited the number of Medicaid patients they’ll treat, thanks to the program’s low reimbursement rates. According to a study published in Health Affairs, only 69 percent of doctors accepted new Medicaid patients in 2011. In Florida, just 59 percent do so. And a survey by the Texas Medical Association of doctors in the Lone Star State found that 68 percent either limit or refuse to take new Medicaid patients.

...By throwing nine million more people into the program without fixing this fatal flaw, Obamacare will make it even harder for Medicaid patients to find doctors.

Healthcare providers are signaling that they may turn away patients who purchase insurance through the exchanges, too.

...If Medicaid patients and new exchange enrollees can’t actually see doctors, they’ll head to emergency rooms for care. But the nation’s ERs are already in crisis. More than half are over capacity, after some 650 shut down over the past two decades.

...And no provider will be excited to accept the government’s cut-rate reimbursements — which the federal health reform law does nothing to fix.

The first step in addressing America’s shortage of doctors is full repeal of Obamacare. And the second is the installation of market-based reforms in its place. That’s the best way to ensure that Americans can actually get care when they need it.

[Mainecoons]

No doubt someone will come along shortly, just as they did for that story alleging how cheap rates will be in CA, and point out that the policies are not comparable and the comparisons are bogus. This is what happens when you get your "news" from Stink Progress. The debunk always follows close behind.

:grin:

[lynn]

Over 90 million tax payers earn less then $50,000 annually and doesn't the mandate state that premiums cannot be over 9.5% of income? A $50,000 income is $4,750 in premiums, $40,000 is $3,800, $30,000 is $2,850 and $20,000 is $1,900 for annual premiums. Insurance companies have always calculated our premiums based on the fact that someday you are going to cost in healthcare so this crap of telling us they need the younger population to enroll to keep premium cost down is a lie.

Think about it, who in their right mind would agree to paying over $4,000 annually for healthcare coverage from the age of 18-45 years who seldom require health services? Its the idea when you reach 45 years old and beyond that having paid all those years in premiums that it begins to justify this expense since now is the time for age related health problems to occur.

The problem with the system is this is also the time when employers start laying you off and replacing you with cheaper younger employees. Your investment in healthcare premiums is no longer yours and you are shit out of luck. This works for healthcare insurance companies since that costly insurance pool is no longer employed and they happily continue insuring the younger population. There is over 14 million people who are between the ages of 45-64 who are no longer employed and no longer have health coverage that they paid for most of their adult lives.

Maybe the insurance will reduce rates but the fact is they have been over charging us in the first place and finding more innovative ways to screw us.

[Cigar]

Over 90 million tax payers earn less then $50,000 annually and doesn't the mandate state that premiums cannot be over 9.5% of income? A $50,000 income is $4,750 in premiums, $40,000 is $3,800, $30,000 is $2,850 and $20,000 is $1,900 for annual premiums. Insurance companies have always calculated our premiums based on the fact that someday you are going to cost in healthcare so this crap of telling us they need the younger population to enroll to keep premium cost down is a lie.

Think about it, who in their right mind would agree to paying over $4,000 annually for healthcare coverage from the age of 18-45 years who seldom require health services? Its the idea when you reach 45 years old and beyond that having paid all those years in premiums that it begins to justify this expense since now is the time for age related health problems to occur.

The problem with the system is this is also the time when employers start laying you off and replacing you with cheaper younger employees. Your investment in healthcare premiums is no longer yours and you are shit out of luck. This works for healthcare insurance companies since that costly insurance pool is no longer employed and they happily continue insuring the younger population. There is over 14 million people who are between the ages of 45-64 who are no longer employed and no longer have health coverage that they paid for most of their adult lives.

Maybe the insurance will reduce rates but the fact is they have been over charging us in the first place and finding more innovative ways to screw us.

No-Way ... Not the Job Creators :shocked:

[Mainecoons]

If they've been overcharging us so much, pray tell, why is this one of the less profitable businesses out there, particularly compared to those tech companies full of liberals.

In fact, the combination of governmental meddling and too damn much paperwork required by insurance means that a doctor's visit costs 4 times what it should. This will become more and more evident as doctors set up cash/retainer practices and stop accepting insurance and Medicare.

[Chris]

Over 90 million tax payers earn less then $50,000 annually and doesn't the mandate state that premiums cannot be over 9.5% of income? A $50,000 income is $4,750 in premiums, $40,000 is $3,800, $30,000 is $2,850 and $20,000 is $1,900 for annual premiums. Insurance companies have always calculated our premiums based on the fact that someday you are going to cost in healthcare so this crap of telling us they need the younger population to enroll to keep premium cost down is a lie.

Think about it, who in their right mind would agree to paying over $4,000 annually for healthcare coverage from the age of 18-45 years who seldom require health services? Its the idea when you reach 45 years old and beyond that having paid all those years in premiums that it begins to justify this expense since now is the time for age related health problems to occur.

The problem with the system is this is also the time when employers start laying you off and replacing you with cheaper younger employees. Your investment in healthcare premiums is no longer yours and you are shit out of luck. This works for healthcare insurance companies since that costly insurance pool is no longer employed and they happily continue insuring the younger population. There is over 14 million people who are between the ages of 45-64 who are no longer employed and no longer have health coverage that they paid for most of their adult lives.

Maybe the insurance will reduce rates but the fact is they have been over charging us in the first place and finding more innovative ways to screw us.

I place the onus of that on government regulation aimed at reducing competition in insurance and healthcare.

[lynn]

If they've been overcharging us so much, pray tell, why is this one of the less profitable businesses out there, particularly compared to those tech companies full of liberals.

In fact, the combination of governmental meddling and too damn much paperwork required by insurance means that a doctor's visit costs 4 times what it should. This will become more and more evident as doctors set up cash/retainer practices and stop accepting insurance and Medicare.

Health Insurance companies are not the least profitable, they have been expanding to over sea markets that do not have single payer government healthcare. They are planning on outsourcing jobs to decrease their U.S. employee payroll as soon as they can safeguard our personal information. Health insurance companies have suffered decrease in revenue since manufacturing and production started leaving the country which eliminated many large healthy pools of employees.

To resolve that problem they turned their attention to state and federal government contracts to administer their Medicare and Medicaid population. If that wasn't profitable to them, they wouldn't contract with them. Those contracts are capitated plans which are designed to pay as little as possible to the providers of care and they are evil to the core but that is another topic of discussion.

[Mainecoons]

Kindly check your statement with the facts. I did not say they are the least profitable, I said they are a great deal less profitable than many other businesses.

http://www.sageworksinc.com/blog/image.axd?picture=2011%2f6%2f6.23mostprofitable.JP G


And for health insurers:

http://www.amednews.com/article/20130218/business/130219940/7/

You'll have to do a little math here. Divide the revenues by the net income. When you do, this is what you get:

Aetna: 5.8 %
Cigna: 7.4 %
Coventry: 4.5 %
Health Net: 0.63 %
Humana: 3.9 %
United Health: 5 %
Wellpoint: 4.4 %

Wow, these guys are wildly profitable, yep.

:rofl:

[lynn]

Kindly check your statement with the facts. I did not say they are the least profitable, I said they are a great deal less profitable than many other businesses.

http://www.sageworksinc.com/blog/image.axd?picture=2011%2f6%2f6.23mostprofitable.JP G


And for health insurers:

http://www.amednews.com/article/20130218/business/130219940/7/

You'll have to do a little math here. Divide the revenues by the net income. When you do, this is what you get:

Aetna: 5.8 %
Cigna: 7.4 %
Coventry: 4.5 %
Health Net: 0.63 %
Humana: 3.9 %
United Health: 5 %
Wellpoint: 4.4 %

Wow, these guys are wildly profitable, yep.

:rofl:

www.startribune.com/business/150305205.html

United Healthcare is the by far the biggest health insurance company out there . They hit 5.1 billion in profit in 2011, They are #22 in Fortune 500 top companies.
Followed by Wellpoint which is #45, Humana #79, and Aetna #89 . United Healthcare even owns a bank so please forgive me if I am pissed off that they take our premiums that is suppose to be used for our healthcare and instead use it to expand their portfolio.

[Mainecoons]

Lynn, you are confusing revenues with profit margin. I've shown you that their profit margins are pretty paltry compared to a lot of other companies.

If you have information to the contrary, please post it. Otherwise, you're just emoting.

I sincerely doubt the private health insurance industry is going to survive ObamaCare anyway. Remember, this was always about crashing the existing system so that single payer could be implemented.

[lynn]

According to The Motley Fool Wellpoint purchased Amerigroup for 4.5 billion, Cigna purchased Healthsrping for 3.8 billion and Aetna purchased Coventry Healthplan for 5.7 billion. They bought them for the sole purpose of locking up Medicaid members and with the mandate stand to gain 16 million more members.

They are not hurting financially by a long shot. I would rather they spent those billions on their insured for their healthcare then buying up companies to gain that big check from the government for insuring Medicaid members.

[Mainecoons]

That has nothing to do with what I posted. Again, look at the profit margins. And don't buy stock in this industry.

Mergers and consolidations are not a sign of health in an industry. To the contrary.

[Ransom]

I ask readers to look into Doc Fixes.....Medicare payments to doctors that was taken out Obamacare scoring and added directly to the deficit each year. Secondly, a decade is always used for expense reports, the first ten years are scored with but 6 years of full benefits (not implemented until 2014.....). This health care debacle will increase costs for consumers and we all know quality of health care is decreasing as well.

[Dr. Who]

Lynn, you are confusing revenues with profit margin. I've shown you that their profit margins are pretty paltry compared to a lot of other companies.

If you have information to the contrary, please post it. Otherwise, you're just emoting.

I sincerely doubt the private health insurance industry is going to survive ObamaCare anyway. Remember, this was always about crashing the existing system so that single payer could be implemented.
Keep in mind that large corporations have an almost infinite ability to hide profits. Insurance companies have even more than most. A great place to hide profits is in reserve liability or IBNR (incurred but not reported losses).

[patrickt]

Cigar;310684]A new analysis of health care premiums proposed under the Affordable Care Act concludes that health plans will cost even less than originally expected. That’s likely because the insurance marketplaces will encourage more competition between insurers.

Obviously. The government is noted for insuring competition. And when we get to fully socialized medicine, no competition.

Avalere Health looked at insurers’ proposed rates for Obamacare’s statewide insurance marketplaces in nine different states, and found that premiums for a 40 year old non-smoker on a mid-level health plan will cost anywhere from a low of $205 (in one Oregon region) to a high of $413 (in one Vermont region). That high-end price is actually lower than what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted the average mid-level plan cost would be in 2016.

So, a single healthy 40-year old who doesn't smoke pays a low of $205. Wow. That's impressive. $205 a year. Oh, wait, maybe that's a month. Or, perhaps it's weekly.
...
Avalere’s report comes with some important caveats: the analysis is limited to 2014 premiums, whereas CBO’s projections deal with 2016 rates. Critics may argue that insurers are offering deceptively low rates to attract consumers in the health law’s first year of implementation, but plan on jacking those charges up once they have a larger customer base.

Insurers could be offering low rates to prevent the King from bankrupting their companies.

But insurers wouldn’t necessarily be able to do that under Obamacare, since the law subjects any premium hike over 10 percent by insurers selling plans on a marketplace to review. Furthermore, sicker Americans are expected to take advantage of the law’s protections before healthier and younger Americans enter the individual insurance market, meaning that future rate increases could be mitigated by a less costly pool.

So, if the King can set what he's willing to pay doctors and can tell the insurance companies they can raise premiums, we're well on the way to fully socialized medicine as "the only alternative".

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/20/2185811/premiums-obamacare-lower-expected/


Cigar, be sure and get back to us on this when it becomes reality and not "projections".

Kaiser tracking poll: Young Adults Want and Value Health Insurance
http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-june-2013/[/QUOTE]

[Mainecoons]

Keep in mind that large corporations have an almost infinite ability to hide profits. Insurance companies have even more than most. A great place to hide profits is in reserve liability or IBNR (incurred but not reported losses).

Keep in mind this is pure speculation on your part.

[Cigar]

So far ZERO affect on ME ... period

[jillian]

Keep in mind this is pure speculation on your part.

no. that's how the business works.

[Mainecoons]

Feel free to provide a link proving the medical insurers do this. Otherwise, pure speculation on your part as well.

[Dr. Who]

Keep in mind this is pure speculation on your part.Of course, but the chief responsibility of any CFO is to shield income from taxes and don't tell me it's not. And I work in the industry, so I know that money is kept in IBNR for more than reserve liabilities. They can't go crazy with it, because they are audited by the government after all. They just have to make up plausible excuses for long tail liability.