Obamacare Rates Increasing, . . . no,really ! They really are.

Uh-Oh !

More rate increases sought.

From the Wall Street Journal :

"The Affordable Care Act created a new kind of “cooperative” heralded by supporters of health reform. These Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans, chartered and regulated by the states, would compete with for-profit health-insurance companies and were meant to appease disgruntled advocates of a single-payer and “public option” model for the nation’s health-care system.
All but one of the co-ops are operating in the red. One already has been shut down, and others are in precarious financial condition.

Generous federal loans helped 23 cooperatives to get up and running.

In practice, most co-ops have significantly underpriced premiums and grossly underestimated medical claims. Many seek significant premium increases for 2016: 58% for individual plans in Utah, 38% in Oregon and 25% in Kentucky, for example.

[An example:]
New York’s Health Republic Insurance received $265 million in federal loans and had the largest enrollment, with 155,000 members in 2014. Its premiums are significantly lower than established carriers in virtually every region of the state. But the co-op has applied for premium increases in 2016 of more than 14%, with some regions of the state as high as 30%. Industry actuaries believe that those raises will not be enough to offset high claims costs and the exhaustion of federal loan dollars.

etc., etc., etc. . . ."

[DonDiego recommends the reader read the article so as to defray any charges of cherry-picking. The bottom line: co-ops were established to offer an alternative to evil insurance companies. And 22 of 23 are losing money. DUH !]

DonDiego does not know how much of the Congressional appropriation [$2.4-billion] 'lent" to these co-ops has been, . . . he suspects it cannot and, therefore, will not be paid back.
DonDiego supposes raising the premiums on their customers will result in ever-decreasing customers; so payback becomes ever-more doubtful.

Something for nothing remains a distant dream, . . .
Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
Uh-Oh !

More rate increases sought.

From the Wall Street Journal :

"The Affordable Care Act created a new kind of “cooperative” heralded by supporters of health reform. These Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans, chartered and regulated by the states, would compete with for-profit health-insurance companies and were meant to appease disgruntled advocates of a single-payer and “public option” model for the nation’s health-care system.
All but one of the co-ops are operating in the red. One already has been shut down, and others are in precarious financial condition.

Generous federal loans helped 23 cooperatives to get up and running.

In practice, most co-ops have significantly underpriced premiums and grossly underestimated medical claims. Many seek significant premium increases for 2016: 58% for individual plans in Utah, 38% in Oregon and 25% in Kentucky, for example.

[An example:]
New York’s Health Republic Insurance received $265 million in federal loans and had the largest enrollment, with 155,000 members in 2014. Its premiums are significantly lower than established carriers in virtually every region of the state. But the co-op has applied for premium increases in 2016 of more than 14%, with some regions of the state as high as 30%. Industry actuaries believe that those raises will not be enough to offset high claims costs and the exhaustion of federal loan dollars.

etc., etc., etc. . . ."

[DonDiego recommends the reader read the article so as to defray any charges of cherry-picking. The bottom line: co-ops were established to offer an alternative to evil insurance companies. And 22 of 23 are losing money. DUH !]

DonDiego does not know how much of the Congressional appropriation [$2.4-billion] 'lent" to these co-ops has been, . . . he suspects it cannot and, therefore, will not be paid back.
DonDiego supposes raising the premiums on their customers will result in ever-decreasing customers; so payback becomes ever-more doubtful.

Something for nothing remains a distant dream, . . .
Did anyone else's bullshit detector go off?

  • This was an editorial, not a news article.
  • The editorial department of the WSJ ultimately answers to Fox News' Rupert Murdoch.
  • One of the authors runs an institute that is funded by Big Pharma.
  • The other author works for the ultra-right wing American Enterprise Institute.

    Neither a right-wing editorial nor a left-wing editorial is ever a credible source for unbiased news. Does anyone here disagree with that?
  • Quote

    Originally posted by: forkushV
    Did anyone else's bullshit detector go off?

  • This was an editorial, not a news article.
  • The editorial department of the WSJ ultimately answers to Fox News' Rupert Murdoch.
  • One of the authors runs an institute that is funded by Big Pharma.
  • The other author works for the ultra-right wing American Enterprise Institute.

    Neither a right-wing editorial nor a left-wing editorial is ever a credible source for unbiased news. Does anyone here disagree with that?

  • Oh no ! This is terrible. The Wall Street Journal is a haven for crackpot right-wingers bent on destroying America ! ! !

    But, . . . that aside, . . . DonDiego requests forkushV cite a factual error in the Wall Srteet Journal article addressing the money-losing Obamacare Co-ops and the requests for higher rates, so that DonDiego can correct his earlier entry ?
    DonDiego thanks forkushV in advance.

    Oh, . . .and addressing the same topic, . . . the Boston Globe, not generally recognized as a hotbed of fascist activities, addresses the plight of the Obamacare Co-ops: Audit Finds Obamacare Co-ops Awash in Red Ink note

    The story is based upon an Health and Human Services Audit.

    i. The new owner of The Boston Globe is long-time Democratic donor and activist who has given more than $1.1 million to Democratic candidates and special interest groups while a single $1,000 contribution went to a lone Republican. Ref: newsbusters
    Quote

    Originally posted by: DonDiego
    Quote

    Originally posted by: forkushV
    Did anyone else's bullshit detector go off?

  • This was an editorial, not a news article.
  • The editorial department of the WSJ ultimately answers to Fox News' Rupert Murdoch.
  • One of the authors runs an institute that is funded by Big Pharma.
  • The other author works for the ultra-right wing American Enterprise Institute.

    Neither a right-wing editorial nor a left-wing editorial is ever a credible source for unbiased news. Does anyone here disagree with that?

  • Oh no ! This is terrible. The Wall Street Journal is a haven for crackpot right-wingers bent on destroying America...
    No, the Wall Street Journal news department is composed of journalists who would rebel if Rupert Murdoch tried to tell them how to slant their stories. The Wall Street Journal editorial department is effectively a branch of Fox News.

    Quote

    Originally posted by: forkushV
    No, the Wall Street Journal news department is composed of journalists who would rebel if Rupert Murdoch tried to tell them how to slant their stories. The Wall Street Journal editorial department is effectively a branch of Fox News.

    So then, . . . apparently no factual error in the comments on the Obamacare Co-Ops financial difficulties.

    it's actually not an uncommon business tactic to seek market share by lowering prices. However, if there is a miscalculation such a tactic may lead to business failure; the significant factor here is that if/when the co-ops fail, the Government loan is defaulted and the taxpayers lose.
    Or, . . . the Co-ops may raise their rates to achieve profitability or at least break-even. Hmm, . . . raising rates, the topic of this thread. Raising rates to cover expenses, . . . what a novel idea !
    Well DD since you brought up cherry picking...

    Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.

    Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.



    The entire transcript
    Uh oh! A calamity arises . . .

    The editorialist at The Wall Street Journal and the Senior Editor writing about the Obamacare Co-ops at Vox agree. Vox entitles its piece more, . . . umm, . . . gently: Obamacare tried to create alternatives to for-profit health insurance. They're struggling.

    The conclusion: ". . . the Affordable Care Act doesn't provide much guidance on what steps the federal government could take to collect on loan payments made to a failed co-op.
    There's only one paragraph in the law on the subject, which directs the secretary to 'provide that such loans shall be repaid.' How aggressively to enforce that provision could be a decision that, in the future, the Obama administration will have to grapple with."

    Oh, goodness !

    [DonDiego supposes the aggressive enforcement to which Ms. Sarah Kliff refers won't be very aggressive at all.]
    Quote

    Originally posted by: Tutontow

    Clinton: . . . . blah, blah, blah, . . . . blah, blah, blah, . . . Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?, . . . blah, blah, blah, . . . blah, blah, blah, . . .

    The entire transcript

    DonDiego suggest this post would be more appropriate in a thread addressing Benghazi or Ms. Clinton.

    But the importance of Ms Clinton's answer is the absolutely false choice she presented before suggesting it did not make a difference. The Benghazi attack was not caused by reaction to a protest elsewhere which no one had even noticed. Secretary Clinton knew this at the time of her testimony. It was not "guys out for a walk one night who decided that they'd go kill some Americans". Secretary Clinton knew this at the time of her testimony.
    Were the Benghazi attack the result of a distant protest noticed by the Islamists in Libya or just a random killing by joyriding Libyan youth, Ms Clinton would claim that her State Department could not be held accountable for such unforeseeable carnage. And so she did.
    In reality the attack was a well-planned assault upon an embassy which was woefully insecure and ill-defended. And the responsibility for the security of American embassies abroad belongs to the the Secretary of State.

    DonDiego got precious little out of his active duty with the US Navy, . . . although access to USAA insurance and financial functions has been a lifelong plus, . . . bit, DonDiego digresses. DonDiego learned that "Authority can be delegated, . . . but Responsibility cannot be delegated." It is why a commander of a Naval vessel can loose his command and hopes of advancement, because of significant errors by anyone under his command.
    Hillary has never lived by such a code; she is never responsible for anything that goes wrong under her "leadership". There is no reason to expect this would change if she were elevated, as is her destiny, to the Presidency.
    Quote

    Originally posted by: DonDiego
    Quote

    Originally posted by: Tutontow

    Clinton: . . . . blah, blah, blah, . . . . blah, blah, blah, . . . Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?, . . . blah, blah, blah, . . . blah, blah, blah, . . .

    The entire transcript

    DonDiego suggest this post would be more appropriate in a thread addressing Benghazi or Ms. Clinton.

    But the importance of Ms Clinton's answer is the absolutely false choice she presented before suggesting it did not make a difference. The Benghazi attack was not caused by reaction to a protest elsewhere which no one had even noticed. Secretary Clinton knew this at the time of her testimony. It was not "guys out for a walk one night who decided that they'd go kill some Americans". Secretary Clinton knew this at the time of her testimony.
    Were the Benghazi attack the result of a distant protest noticed by the Islamists in Libya or just a random killing by joyriding Libyan youth, Ms Clinton would claim that her State Department could not be held accountable for such unforeseeable carnage. And so she did.
    In reality the attack was a well-planned assault upon an embassy which was woefully insecure and ill-defended. And the responsibility for the security of American embassies abroad belongs to the the Secretary of State.

    DonDiego got precious little out of his active duty with the US Navy, . . . although access to USAA insurance and financial functions has been a lifelong plus, . . . bit, DonDiego digresses. DonDiego learned that "Authority can be delegated, . . . but Responsibility cannot be delegated." It is why a commander of a Naval vessel can loose his command and hopes of advancement, because of significant errors by anyone under his command.
    Hillary has never lived by such a code; she is never responsible for anything that goes wrong under her "leadership". There is no reason to expect this would change if she were elevated, as is her destiny, to the Presidency.


    Nicely said DD.
    Quote

    Originally posted by: DonDiego
    Quote

    Originally posted by: forkushV
    No, the Wall Street Journal news department is composed of journalists who would rebel if Rupert Murdoch tried to tell them how to slant their stories. The Wall Street Journal editorial department is effectively a branch of Fox News.

    So then, . . . apparently no factual error in the comments on the Obamacare Co-Ops financial difficulties...
    I don't know. For example, the statement " Industry actuaries believe that those raises will not be enough to offset high claims costs." Is that from the report? Or is that from the editorialist being paid off by Big Pharma? Or is that from the editorialist working for the extremely right wing American Enterprise Institute? Or was that phrase insisted upon by Rupert Murdoch.

    That's why I don't present editorial content as actual news. DonDiego should consider doing likewise.
    Already a LVA subscriber?
    To continue reading, choose an option below:
    Diamond Membership
    $3 per month
    Unlimited access to LVA website
    Exclusive subscriber-only content
    Limited Member Rewards Online
    Join Now
    or
    Platinum Membership
    $50 per year
    Unlimited access to LVA website
    Exclusive subscriber-only content
    Exclusive Member Rewards Book
    Join Now