KSB and jerry

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The 3 biggest that he mentioned...are on there.

https://www.coveredca.com/hbex/insurance-companies/

 

What he did...was show how your "major players" were not major players in California...and those that are, are involved in the exchange...making your point...completely idiotic as usual.

The three I cited are 3 of the largest insurers in Cali. I did not limit it to individual policies.

 

They will not participate in the exchanges.

 

Hth

[IGotWorms 4,059]

The three I cited are 3 of the largest insurers in Cali. I did not limit it to individual policies.

 

They will not participate in the exchanges.

 

Hth

7% of the market--oh my Lord!!

 

 

PLUS, you lied about them "pulling out" of the exchange--they were never involved in the first place. By that logic I've "pulled out" of every woman I've never had sex with

[Recliner Pilot 61]

http://m.naturalnews.com/news/041397_Obamacare_health_insurance_small_businesses.html

 

 

 

Cali's largest health insurer for small business opts out of the exchanges.

 

"If you like your policy, you can keep your policy, period"

 

[IGotWorms 4,059]

"If you like your policy, you can keep your policy, period"

 

That has nothing to do with the exchanges. But of course you know that and are just trying to change the subject since you got your ass handed to you

[Recliner Pilot 61]

7% of the market--oh my Lord!!

:

Did I limit my description to what they do in the individual market?

 

Nope.

 

Nice attempted slight of hand, Matlock.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

That has nothing to do with the exchanges. But of course you know that and are just trying to change the subject since you got your ass handed to you

Tell that to the tens of millions who can't keep their plans and are stuck with the exchanges.

 

Doh!

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Did I limit my description to what they do in the individual market?

 

Nope.

 

Nice attempted slight of hand, Matlock.

 

You said they're "the largest insurers in the state" when they represent just 7% of the relevant market. Either you lied or you're just focking retarded. I assume the latter

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You said they're "the largest insurers in the state" when they represent just 7% of the relevant market. Either you lied or you're just focking retarded. I assume the latter

They are some of the largest insurers. Having them in the exchanges would "increase competition", which was the claim you made about the exchanges I addressed.

 

Feel free to explain how companies pulling out of the market increase competition.

[Sho Nuff 720]

The three I cited are 3 of the largest insurers in Cali. I did not limit it to individual policies.

 

They will not participate in the exchanges.

 

Hth

 

And as he posted..."UnitedHealth, Aetna and Cigna are small players now in California's individual health insurance market. More of their business is focused on large employers, where most Californians receive their health coverage. But the companies signaled a wait-and-see approach on these new government-run marketplaces.

Together, in 2011, those three big insurers had 7% of California's individual health insurance market, according to Citigroup research."

 

Meaning...they are not really big players...the bigger players...the 3 actual largest that had 87% are in the exchange.

So pretty much...your complaint is about 3 companies that had all of 7% of the market share.

 

Do you enjoy failing this much?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Once again, how does losing any of the companies in a market, no matter what the %, "increase competition" and bring down costs Slo-N-Nuts?

 

I will hang up and listen.

[Sho Nuff 720]

First gets his ass kicked by pen...he spins and flails around...then runs away.

Now gets his ass kicked by me and worms...and the spin will come...then he will run.

 

Again...reminding me why its better to just not reply to the idiocy that is RP and mock him instead.

Good day.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

No answer?

 

Shocking, really.

 

[Sho Nuff 720]

Can't admit when you were proven dead wrong again...

Shocking really...

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Once again, how does losing any of the companies in a market, no matter what the %, "increase competition" and bring down costs Slo-N-Nuts?

I will hang up and listen.

Bump

 

[jerryskids 6,838]

Apparently DC only has 5 people fully enrolled and 321 who have selected a plan. If I understand correctly, this isn't on the unusable healthcare.gov website so there aren't web problems, and DC has about 100,000 uninsured. If true there is a larger fundamental problem -- lack of interest.

 

Only five people have fully completed the enrollment process in the D.C. insurance exchange, according to information compiled by lawmakers from four of the insurance companies participating in the exchange.

Two people enrolled in CareFirst BlueShield plans during October and three enrolled in Kaiser Permanente plans during the month. No enrollment data has been collected by UnitedHealthcare or Aetna as of Nov. 4 or Oct. 24, respectively, the companies said.

The information was collected by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

These five have paid their first month of premiums. More have completed applications but not yet paid the premium.

But DC HealthLink spokesman Richard Sorian says the insurers’ enrollment figures are “not an accurate depiction of the strong level of interest in the District of Columbia in obtaining quality, affordable health insurance.”

As of Oct. 21, 321 DC residents and 426 small business had selected a health plan, Sorian said. Consumers have until Dec. 15 and small businesses have until Dec. 12 to pay for coverage to start on Jan. 1.

Many congressional staff will have to sign up on the small business exchange under a provision in the health law.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/obamacare-enrollments-washington-dc-99589.html#ixzz2k7QN4yuo

 

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Apparently DC only has 5 people fully enrolled and 321 who have selected a plan. If I understand correctly, this isn't on the unusable healthcare.gov website so there aren't web problems, and DC has about 100,000 uninsured. If true there is a larger fundamental problem -- lack of interest.

 

Interest will rise when people see the penalty for not being covered, right?

[jerryskids 6,838]

Interest will rise when people see the penalty for not being covered, right?

Perhaps... but weren't people supposedly clamoring for this? Isn't that why we are doing it, because those uninsured want insurance? I know we haven't hit the deadline so more will enter, but it seems like more would have jumped in when they could, if they were interested.

[Vikings4ever 556]

Interest will rise when people see the penalty for not being covered, right?

From what I've read, it's expected interest will rise as more people learn they're eligible for subsidies, since more than half the country is.

 

As for the penalty, it's probably not going to make a big difference. If people don't want to pay 4K a year for insurance, a hundred bucks isn't going to be a big deal. In addition, funny thing I read. If you configure your withholding so that the government doesn't owe you a return (or you owe money), the IRS can't do sh*t. They can only take the penalty out of a refund.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

From what I've read, it's expected interest will rise as more people learn they're eligible for subsidies, since more than half the country is.

 

As for the penalty, it's probably not going to make a big difference. If people don't want to pay 4K a year for insurance, a hundred bucks isn't going to be a big deal. In addition, funny thing I read. If you configure your withholding so that the government doesn't owe you a return (or you owe money), the IRS can't do sh*t. They can only take the penalty out of a refund.

That is interesting, I had not heard that but it makes sense. What could they do--track millions of people down and hit 'em with a collection suit or something? People wouldn't stand for that even if it was feasible.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Perhaps... but weren't people supposedly clamoring for this? Isn't that why we are doing it, because those uninsured want insurance? I know we haven't hit the deadline so more will enter, but it seems like more would have jumped in when they could, if they were interested.

Yes and no. Certainly there are many people who would like to be insured but couldn't afford decent insurance that actually provided some coverage. Now hopefully they'll be able to get that with the exchanges and subsidies.

 

But a large part of it is to bring on board the voluntarily uninsured. These people have simply decided they don't want to pay for insurance. It should be their prerogative but on reality it focks everyone else in the form of having to pay higher premiums to account for the uninsured. Those people aren't going to run out to buy healthcare on the exchanges, but perhaps the tax penalty will give them the incentive to act differently (if they can in fact be penalized as Vikings4Ever pointed out).

[lickin_starfish 1,942]

Where does the subsidy money come from? If my taxes go up so that I can afford insurance, then what's the point? Also, my family plan is going from $325/month to $950, and I wouldn't say that makes me better off. Lastly, if the exchanges are such a super-special deal, why did congress exempt itself from the ACA?

[drobeski 3,061]

What a focking mess. Pathetic and shameful.

[Voltaire 5,321]

Apparently DC only has 5 people fully enrolled and 321 who have selected a plan. If I understand correctly, this isn't on the unusable healthcare.gov website so there aren't web problems, and DC has about 100,000 uninsured. If true there is a larger fundamental problem -- lack of interest.

 

This race with Delaware is really heating up. I can't wait to see who gets to ten first.

[jerryskids 6,838]

Yes and no. Certainly there are many people who would like to be insured but couldn't afford decent insurance that actually provided some coverage. Now hopefully they'll be able to get that with the exchanges and subsidies.

 

But a large part of it is to bring on board the voluntarily uninsured. These people have simply decided they don't want to pay for insurance. It should be their prerogative but on reality it focks everyone else in the form of having to pay higher premiums to account for the uninsured. Those people aren't going to run out to buy healthcare on the exchanges, but perhaps the tax penalty will give them the incentive to act differently (if they can in fact be penalized as Vikings4Ever pointed out).

So far there are somewhere between 5 and 326 such people in DC. I'm not sure I'd call that "many."

 

Are you saying that the primary purpose of this law is to force people to buy insurance?

[IGotWorms 4,059]

So far there are somewhere between 5 and 326 such people in DC. I'm not sure I'd call that "many."

 

Are you saying that the primary purpose of this law is to force people to buy insurance?

 

Patience jerry, it's going to take some time for people to get covered. You know that. Come back to me in a year if there's still not a lot of people signed up through the exchanges. I do admit that things did not get off to a great start though , Sebelius really botched the rollout and should be sh!tcanned IMO.

 

Re: your second question--yes. The individual mandate is the lynchpin behind the whole law, nothing else works without it.

[Voltaire 5,321]

So far there are somewhere between 5 and 326 such people in DC. I'm not sure I'd call that "many."

 

Are you saying that the primary purpose of this law is to force people to buy insurance?

Forcing people to buy insurance makes sense. Otherwise what you do is don't buy it, wait until you get sick/injured and buy it, then once you recover opt back out again.

 

Plus they need it for a funding mechanism. The whole thing falls apart if they don't gouge health young people who don't get sick. That's not specific to Obamacare, all health insurance policies force/use the healthy to pay for the sick.

[drobeski 3,061]

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Forcing people to buy insurance makes sense. Otherwise what you do is don't buy it, wait until you get sick/injured and buy it, then once you recover opt back out again.

 

Plus they need it for a funding mechanism. The whole thing falls apart if they don't gouge health young people who don't get sick. That's not specific to Obamacare, all health insurance policies force/use the healthy to pay for the sick.

People can pay the fine until your scenario plays out. Once they don't need it anymore they can go back to paying the fine until they need it again.

 

Seems to me your "funding mechanism" has a flaw.

[Voltaire 5,321]

People can pay the fine until your scenario plays out. Once they don't need it anymore they can go back to paying the fine until they need it again.

 

Seems to me your "funding mechanism" has a flaw.

Maybe. The penalty the first year is <$100 and peters out at 2.5% of income which is ridiculously low IMO. I'm guessing a lot of folks would rather pay the penalty. Since the government doesn't care about pre-existing conditions, if they get run over by a bus, pull out their cellphone, call the ambulance, while waiting for it to show up - you know- assuming a reasonably functional website was available to allow them to do so, dial into HC.gov and sign up. Three months later, after the full body cast is removed, cancel the policy during the car way home. That would be the 8 Mile thing to do anyways.

[jerryskids 6,838]

 

Patience jerry, it's going to take some time for people to get covered. You know that. Come back to me in a year if there's still not a lot of people signed up through the exchanges. I do admit that things did not get off to a great start though , Sebelius really botched the rollout and should be sh!tcanned IMO.

 

Re: your second question--yes. The individual mandate is the lynchpin behind the whole law, nothing else works without it.

 

 

Forcing people to buy insurance makes sense. Otherwise what you do is don't buy it, wait until you get sick/injured and buy it, then once you recover opt back out again.

 

Plus they need it for a funding mechanism. The whole thing falls apart if they don't gouge health young people who don't get sick. That's not specific to Obamacare, all health insurance policies force/use the healthy to pay for the sick.

I get that the individual mandate is critical to funding this thing, but my question was if that was the PRIMARY purpose of the law. I thought that the primary purpose was to enable tens of millions of people who wanted insurance (but couldn't get it) to get it, and that some people would be dragged kicking and screaming (through the mandate). Right now it looks like tens of... tens want it, and that the vast majority will be fined er... mandated.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

 

 

I get that the individual mandate is critical to funding this thing, but my question was if that was the PRIMARY purpose of the law. I thought that the primary purpose was to enable tens of millions of people who wanted insurance (but couldn't get it) to get it, and that some people would be dragged kicking and screaming (through the mandate). Right now it looks like tens of... tens want it, and that the vast majority will be fined er... mandated.

 

The primary purpose of the law was to get everybody insured. There are a variety of reasons for that goal--they should want insurance, yes, but also because it is expensive for the rest of us to have to pay for the uninsured. So the goal is to get everyone on board and accounted for. Some will come willingly and some will not.

[Voltaire 5,321]

 

 

I get that the individual mandate is critical to funding this thing, but my question was if that was the PRIMARY purpose of the law. I thought that the primary purpose was to enable tens of millions of people who wanted insurance (but couldn't get it) to get it, and that some people would be dragged kicking and screaming (through the mandate). Right now it looks like tens of... tens want it, and that the vast majority will be fined er... mandated.

The primary purpose was to provide affordable care to everybody. That's gonna cost some $$$ so they had to dig up the cash. I see the individual mandate and all the unpopular taxes (semantically, even the mandate is only legal if you call it a tax): medical devices, cadillac insurance, tanning beds, whatever else they did, as a means to that end.

 

Plenty, likely most, Dems would have rather cut the insurance agencies out entirely rather than funnel taxpayer money into their pockets so I'd hardly consider the individual mandate as the primary purpose.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

The primary purpose of the law was to get everybody insured.

And yet according to the CBO there will be around 27 million perpetually uninsured.

 

What a clusterfukk.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

And yet according to the CBO there will be around 27 million perpetually uninsured.

 

What a clusterfukk.

And I ask again - what's your proposal for universal coverage?

 

I'd love a single payer plan but if you guys kick and scream at the private, market-driven Obamacare then you'll NEVER accept single payer.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

And I ask again - what's your proposal for universal coverage?

 

I'd love a single payer plan but if you guys kick and scream at the private, market-driven Obamacare then you'll NEVER accept single payer.

And I'll say again, why should I have a proposal for universal coverage?

 

 

And you are correct, I will never support a single payer system.

[DankNuggs 305]

Apparently DC only has 5 people fully enrolled and 321 who have selected a plan. If I understand correctly, this isn't on the unusable healthcare.gov website so there aren't web problems, and DC has about 100,000 uninsured. If true there is a larger fundamental problem -- lack of interest.

 

If you are uninsured you are more likely to be poor, if you are poor you are more likely to be lazy. If you are lazy, you are more likely to do things at the last minute...

 

So they'll sign up, but they'll do it right before the deadline

[DankNuggs 305]

And I ask again - what's your proposal for universal coverage?

 

I'd love a single payer plan but if you guys kick and scream at the private, market-driven Obamacare then you'll NEVER accept single payer.

Mandatory catastrophic is a far cheaper structure than mandatory and subsidized Cadillac plans

[DankNuggs 305]

 

Plenty, likely most, Dems would have rather cut the insurance agencies out entirely rather than funnel taxpayer money into their pockets so I'd hardly consider the individual mandate as the primary purpose.

Too bad dems are foolish and don't realize the cost of .gov anything is far more than private markets that include profit.

[penultimatestraw 473]

If you are uninsured you are more likely to be poor, if you are poor you are more likely to be lazy. If you are lazy, you are more likely to do things at the last minute...

 

Link?

[Voltaire 5,321]

Too bad dems are foolish and don't realize the cost of .gov anything is far more than private markets that include profit.

Have you noticed that all the countries that have national health care provide it both cheaper and more universal than free market pre-Obama USA? Or that Medicare itself is cheaper as well?

 

Mandatory catastrophic is a far cheaper structure than mandatory and subsidized Cadillac plans

Now this makes more sense.