Blue Shield Raised Our Rates 73% In One Year
invite response
2010 Dec 27, 2:40pm 85,999 views 345 comments
« First « Previous Comments 339 - 345 of 345 Search these comments
Homeboy
2013 Jan 3, 4:37am
You speak about the fact that the rate of increasing rates is decreasing. My point is that the rates are STILL increasing. ACA was passed with the promise that rates would decrease. It hasnt. It still increases. Patrick and other people on this forum are proof of this, so are stats which show that rates still increase. Your only point is that the rate of increase in the last year have not increased. SO basically if rates went up 20% last year but only increased 18% this year, the rate of increase was less. This is hardly much of an argument.
You are just saying the same thing over and over, and not responding to any of my arguments. First of all, those aren't the numbers - you just made those up. Second, YOU claimed that ACA CAUSED the premium increases, which is a bald faced lie. Third, if rates are not rising as fast as they were, that is an improvement. I don't understand your position - do you want to go back to having premiums rise even faster? Why would you want higher premiums? Not only do you seem to be against ACA, which is arguably an improvement, you want to falsely BLAME ACA for the problem, which clearly existed (and was even worse) before ACA. Fourth, you are BACKPEDALING and now changing your argument to the extremely weak, "But they promised..." which is not what you were arguing before.
Because we know what is coming. Unlike Pelosi, if you actually read it, you dont have to sign it into law to find out whats in it and whats going to happen. As I have repeated many times, the provision will increase cost of health care as we know it. Its simple math... more services, less reimbursement... its very simple.
O.K., I get it - you hate Pelosi and the Democrats. Still no reason to make arbitrary assumptions based on nothing. I understand that you WANT ACA to fail so that it will validate your hatred of liberals, but you have no way of knowing what's going to happen. Your view is not "simple math". Simple math would dictate that more customers equals more income. By your reasoning, Walmart should have failed a long time ago - they have so many customers, how can they possibly make money? LOL.
The problem is that the new services mandated through the ACA will not and can not be covered. This is one reason why they are making EVERYONE get insured by law... its to partially cover the cost. HOwever even this is not enough. Pre-existing conditions will be one huge costs, but so will the low income people who will have this subsidized by people like you and me.
I don't know what you mean by "new services". Do you mean they have invented some treatment that didn't exist before? I doubt it. ACA says that insurance companies can't deny coverage to anyone. They can still charge more for certain people, but how much more is also limited. I don't know why you are calling this "new services". The "services" will be the same. To equalize the cost of giving insurance to people who were denied it before, EVERYONE is required to buy insurance, even healthy people. So MORE money coming in, not less.
To think that the cost of treating uninsured people in the ER will be equal to the cost of increased premiums is wrong. First of all the cost is now transferred to people like you and me. Secondly, I can guarantee you the treatment of the uninsured in the past to the newly insured is not equal.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but whatever it is, you don't appear to have any evidence to support it. I'll ask you again - who do you think is paying for the medical treatment of poor, uninsured people right now, and why do you think that's going to change?
Your fixation on the highest paid nurses you can find isn't representative of the hard work, long hours, and hazards of nursing. Without nurses there is no health care.
I have no fixation on highly paid nurses. You wanted fact and I presented them to you. You didnt believe me when I stated how much they made and I simply presented the facts to you. That is all.. do you believe me now?
First of all, those aren't the numbers - you just made those up.
Yes, its called using an example.
YOU claimed that ACA CAUSED the premium increases, which is a bald faced lie.
My claim was that premiums are likely going up IN PART to the provision in the ACA. You claim this is a "bald faced lie"... can you prove that this is not the case?
if rates are not rising as fast as they were, that is an improvement.
This is such a backwards way of thinking. So rates increase, but the rate of increase slowed down so its better? The fact is that rates continue to increase. The ACA was presented with the promise it would actually decrease premiums. This has not happened, nor do I think it will happen. The provisions in it make it unlikely that will be the case.
do you want to go back to having premiums rise even faster?
NO, i want it to go down. You seem content that the rate of increases have slowed down. I will be content with rates actually decrease.
Not only do you seem to be against ACA, which is arguably an improvement, you want to falsely BLAME ACA for the problem, which clearly existed (and was even worse) before ACA.
Yes I do not agree with the ACA at all. Anything is arguably better. I do not deny that there were problems before the ACA, but the ACA does not make it better for the average AMerican. For the average American, the high cost of premiums is the main problem. The ACA will not address this, in fact my argument is that it will worsen it.
I understand that you WANT ACA to fail so that it will validate your hatred of liberals
Is it possible to disagree with the ACA without hating liberals? I know you probably dont think so. BTW the only reason I brought up Pelosi was because what she said was quite ridiculous. Im sure even you could agree to that.
Simple math would dictate that more customers equals more income.
nope. depends on how much resources those customers use versus how much they pay into the system. The problem with what you say is that you assume that all these new customers will be similar to present customers who will use the same amount of resources and have the same amount of payments. THis will not be the case with provisions such as pre-existing condition and medicaid clauses. This is the reason why I am saying that companies are likely increasing premiums in preparation for this.
who do you think is paying for the medical treatment of poor, uninsured people right now, and why do you think that's going to change?
Unfortunately many people are uninsured and they simply get no care. Some go to ERs and get treated for life threatening issues, but elective nor non-life threatening issues simply do not get treated. Some have care that subsidized by either local govt or federal govt system. A lof of this will now be subsidized by us, because now insurance companies will be forced to enroll these people previously getting govt subsidized care. Unfortunately, the reimbursement for treating the indigent with govt sponsored care is often less than the cost of treatment. So where does the money come from...people like us who have increased premiums to subsidize this care. Why do you think there was a mandate for everyone to get insurance? Even you admitted that it was to subsidize.
David Losh
2013 Jan 3, 10:16am
You wanted fact and I presented them to you.
You did not present a fact, you presented an anecdote based on one nurse in one company, and you didn't get that right. That nurse would have topped out at $120K, but $90K is the high end for the California area, San Francisco.
Your making an assertion, I guess, that nurses are paid too much. I know that isn't the case.
Now you may be a union rep who is disappointed that those Kaiser nurses will be voting to become members of the Nurse's Union, rather than the Service Workers Union. That would give them more clout to get a decent living wage for the work they do.
Think about it, nurses are the first line of defense against every contagious disease in a hospital setting. What are the risks?
Homeboy
2013 Jan 3, 3:14pm
My claim was that premiums are likely going up IN PART to the provision in the ACA. You claim this is a "bald faced lie"... can you prove that this is not the case?
No, that was not your claim. You wrote: "So the aca passes and we see rates increase substantially..." I don't see the words "in part" there. You made the claim; you need to prove it, not me. I already posted an article showing the rate of increase is 4%, when previously it was double-digits. That's plenty of proof for my position. Where is YOUR proof that ACA caused premium increases when there were none before. That's just ludicrous.
NO, i want it to go down. You seem content that the rate of increases have slowed down. I will be content with rates actually decrease.
Who said I was content? Ideally, I'd like to see a single-payer system, but the republicans wouldn't let us have that. So it is what it is. It's still better than nothing. It's better than going back to what we had before. But you don't seem to get that. You keep blaming ACA for all the problems with healthcare that existed BEFORE ACA. AND I have to keep reminding you that the main part of the law ISN'T EVEN IN EFFECT YET. When guaranteed issue and the individual mandate take effect, and THEN premiums skyrocket for the middle class, then I think it will be fair to criticize. Until then, it's pure speculation. You don't have any facts to stand on.
But right now, you want lower premiums, and you hate the ACA. But getting rid of ACA would not make premiums go down, so your position is illogical.
Homeboy
2013 Jan 3, 3:31pm
Is it possible to disagree with the ACA without hating liberals? I know you probably dont think so.
Of course it is. But then YOU'RE the one who brought up Pelosi, and she seems to be the favorite target of right wingers who hate liberals.
nope. depends on how much resources those customers use versus how much they pay into the system. The problem with what you say is that you assume that all these new customers will be similar to present customers who will use the same amount of resources and have the same amount of payments.
Actually, that's not the case. YOU are the one making the assumptions. You are assuming none of the people who will be required to buy insurance under the individual mandate will pay for it. That's absurd. What I'm saying is that you can't know that until it happens.
Unfortunately many people are uninsured and they simply get no care. Some go to ERs and get treated for life threatening issues, but elective nor non-life threatening issues simply do not get treated.
Um, you do know that preventative care from a doctor's office is cheaper than going to the ER after you get a serious illness, don't you? I think you are again making an assumption. You assume it will cost more for poor people to have a health plan than for them to go to the ER, when it's quite possible the opposite will be true.
Some have care that subsidized by either local govt or federal govt system. A lof of this will now be subsidized by us, because now insurance companies will be forced to enroll these people previously getting govt subsidized care.
Really? Can you give me an example of government-sponsored healthcare that will cease to exist and be replaced by ACA?
Unfortunately, the reimbursement for treating the indigent with govt sponsored care is often less than the cost of treatment. So where does the money come from...people like us who have increased premiums to subsidize this care. Why do you think there was a mandate for everyone to get insurance? Even you admitted that it was to subsidize.
We're just going in circles. I already said some people will be subsidized, and I explained how that is paid for. This all comes down to your claim that ACA caused premiums to go up, because of your theory that they're already pricing in the future subsidies. Unfortunately for you, it's simply not true. I already proved that premiums are increasing LESS than they were before, so that completely blows your theory out of the water. The FACTS simply don't agree with your premise.
zzyzzx
2013 Jan 4, 12:04am
If I understand you correctly Patrick, you now have a job, right? That was fast (I think). So how is your health insurance there?
« First « Previous Comments 339 - 345 of 345 Search these comments
Blue Shield has raised our rates so many times recently that I decided to graph it.
We have a very high deductible plan because I'm trying to be self-employed and that's all I could afford on my own. There is an $8000 per person deductible so it covers basically nothing but catastrophic care. Now it's $777 per month. It was $447 per month a year ago. This is utterly insane. 73% in one year! Here's the future if this keeps up:
2011: $1344 per month
2012: $2325 per month
2013: $4022 per month
2014: $6958 per month
2015: $12,037 per month
2016: $20,824 per month
Of course I'm shopping for other insurance via http://www.healthcare.gov/ but so far none of the others seem to be much cheaper.
Blue Shield claims that their own costs have gone up 19%. So WTF did they raise my premiums 73%? Isn't there any law against price gouging?
This all pleases our corporate masters of course, because the need for health insurance prevents small entrepreneurs from competing with them. It also makes employees into obedient servants.
#insurance