Trump: 'My employees are having a tremendous problem with Obamacare'

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-03-2016, 06:56 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: https://www.healthinsurance.org/oklahoma-state-health-insurance-exchange/

BCBSOK will be sole exchange carrier; average rate increase = 76%

Oklahoma uses the federally-facilitated exchange, which means enrollees use Healthcare.gov. There were more than 130,000 people with effectuated coverage through the Oklahoma exchange as of March 2016 — up from 106,392 a year earlier.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma will be the only carrier offering plans in the exchange in 2017, but they already have 95 percent of the exchange market share. BCBSOK revised their individual market rate filing in August 2016, proposing an average rate increase of 76 percent for 2017; state regulators confirmed in October that the 76 percent average rate increase would take effect in January 2017. Oklahoma’s average rate increase for the individual market is by far the highest in the country for 2017.
-------------------------

Better now? That's almost double in one year.
The reason I found out about it, is because one of my friends complained of a 54% increase for the same plan yoy.

Better now?

What is that supposed to mean?

Why are the rates for the individual market increasing? The same reason the rates have increased for employer sponsored plans. 

Where do you work? Macy's?  How many health insurance plans does your employer offer?  Three? Less?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-03-2016, 09:18 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Better now?

What is that supposed to mean?

Why are the rates for the individual market increasing? The same reason the rates have increased for employer sponsored plans. 

Where do you work? Macy's?  How many health insurance plans does your employer offer?  Three? Less?

Better now means you got a good example of what you were asking for. To drive the prices down, competition was needed. No competition and the company can dictate it price.

I don't use the plan that's offered at my work, it's 100% employee paid for and not very cheap. My wife is offered the same plan with minimal differences and it's much cheaper there, so that's where we get ours from.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-04-2016, 11:56 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Better now means you got a good example of what you were asking for. To drive the prices down, competition was needed. No competition and the company can dictate it price.

I don't use the plan that's offered at my work, it's 100% employee paid for and not very cheap. My wife is offered the same plan with minimal differences and it's much cheaper there, so that's where we get ours from.

What was I asking for?

How many different insurance carriers does your wife's employer offer?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-04-2016, 12:59 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What was I asking for?

How many different insurance carriers does your wife's employer offer?

What my wife's company offers is irrelevant to the number of carriers that is supposed to be offered on the ACA, neither of us live in OK, so it doesn't affect us, but it does affect my friends. You said you wanted examples, I provided one.

The goals of the ACA was to find a way to cover middle to lower income people that don't qualify for Medicaid by:
decreasing the costs of healthcare
increasing coverage offered by healthcare
improve accessibility to people.

Competition is detrimental to reaching the stated goals, with no competition, we are right back where we started. 1 company dictating the prices it wishes to charge, and if you can't afford the new rates, then tough luck, you'll be fined by the IRS at the end of the year. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-07-2016, 01:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What my wife's company offers is irrelevant to the number of carriers that is supposed to be offered on the ACA, neither of us live in OK, so it doesn't affect us, but it does affect my friends. You said you wanted examples, I provided one.

The goals of the ACA was to find a way to cover middle to lower income people that don't qualify for Medicaid by:
decreasing the costs of healthcare
increasing coverage offered by healthcare
improve accessibility to people.

Competition is detrimental to reaching the stated goals, with no competition, we are right back where we started. 1 company dictating the prices it wishes to charge, and if you can't afford the new rates, then tough luck, you'll be fined by the IRS at the end of the year. 

If you wife's employer only offers one plan then you have just as many choices as the people in OK searching for a policy via the health insurance exchange. 

Obamacare was never about reducing the cost of healthcare. It was about reducing the cost of healthcare to the government. There is a difference. It was supposed to offer affordable, quality health insurance to increase access to healthcare to the poor so the government could stop picking up the tab for people misusing emergency departments. 

As I understood it, Obamacare would basically act as a safety net against against major medical problems. It does that. However, it does a poor job of increasing access because many, if not most, healthcare facilities don't accept it. It also does a poor job of offering "quality, affordable" health insurance. If most places don't accept it, it really isn't providing quality health insurance or increasing access to care. In order to be affordable, people need to pick policies with high deductibles (which they probably won't meet unless they have a serious accident or illness) and copays. 

I just listed three major pitfalls of Obamacare. But, the anti-Obamacare crowd constantly complains about standard practices of the insurance companies and private businesses, rather than issues that truly relate to Obamacare. The misinformation is irritating. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-07-2016, 01:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What my wife's company offers is irrelevant to the number of carriers that is supposed to be offered on the ACA, neither of us live in OK, so it doesn't affect us, but it does affect my friends. You said you wanted examples, I provided one.

The goals of the ACA was to find a way to cover middle to lower income people that don't qualify for Medicaid by:
decreasing the costs of healthcare
increasing coverage offered by healthcare
improve accessibility to people.

Competition is detrimental to reaching the stated goals, with no competition, we are right back where we started. 1 company dictating the prices it wishes to charge, and if you can't afford the new rates, then tough luck, you'll be fined by the IRS at the end of the year. 

Looking over open enrollment options: In Georgia my employer offers a choice between Anthem and Kaiser Permanente.  (In California, employees can choose between Anthem and Anthem.)  No one accepts Kaiser Permanente in my area so it isn't a viable choice unless I want to pay out of network prices for everything.  I enrolled in the Kaiser policy last year after checking their web site to make sure our doctors were in network.  When I saw my doctor I was informed they haven't accepted Kaiser Permanente for 4-5 years, but the insurance company hasn't updated their website.  So I realistically have a choice between Anthem or Anthem.

Eighty percent of Americans have employer sponsored health insurance.  Personally, I have had between 1-3 options to choose from which is less policies to choose from than many of the state health insurance exchanges which offer Obamacare.  This has nothing to do with Obamacare.


So what your wife's employer offers is relevant to your complaint; limited choices.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-14-2016, 01:30 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Looking over open enrollment options: In Georgia my employer offers a choice between Anthem and Kaiser Permanente.  (In California, employees can choose between Anthem and Anthem.)  No one accepts Kaiser Permanente in my area so it isn't a viable choice unless I want to pay out of network prices for everything.  I enrolled in the Kaiser policy last year after checking their web site to make sure our doctors were in network.  When I saw my doctor I was informed they haven't accepted Kaiser Permanente for 4-5 years, but the insurance company hasn't updated their website.  So I realistically have a choice between Anthem or Anthem.

Eighty percent of Americans have employer sponsored health insurance.  Personally, I have had between 1-3 options to choose from which is less policies to choose from than many of the state health insurance exchanges which offer Obamacare.  This has nothing to do with Obamacare.


So what your wife's employer offers is relevant to your complaint; limited choices.

In order for it to work for the consumers, there needs to be competition. This is the part that you keep glossing over.

The goal is to have multiple plans offered by multiple carriers in your area to keep it affordable for the consumers.
I can understand rural areas only having 1 carrier, but heavily populated areas should have more than one carrier.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-15-2016, 09:04 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: In order for it to work for the consumers, there needs to be competition. This is the part that you keep glossing over.

The goal is to have multiple plans offered by multiple carriers in your area to keep it affordable for the consumers.
I can understand rural areas only having 1 carrier, but heavily populated areas should have more than one carrier.

Obamacare doesn't prevent multiple carriers from providing multiple plans.

If your wife's employer only offers one plan, you're going to take that one plan.  You could go out and buy any plan you want right now, but you don't.  Because it is cheaper to have employer sponsored health insurance than buying an individual plan on the open market.

Obamacare isn't preventing employers from shopping among the multiple competing insurance provider's multiple plans.

Earlier you wrote, "the number of carriers that is supposed to be offered on the ACA."  How many carriers are supposed to be offered on the ACA?