LTC8K6

Nov 14 2014, 07:37 PM

kbp

Nov 14 2014, 07:27 PM

LTC8K6

Nov 14 2014, 07:24 PM

Well, I got my BCBSNC letter today.

+22.5%

Have you checked to COMPARE with any other employees that get subsidies?

I expect to be able to do that tomorrow for one employee.

chatham

Nov 14 2014, 07:47 PM

I dont beleive in statistics until I get the facts in the mail.

chatham

Nov 12 2014, 10:44 PM

And John Kerry knew about the lies. In fact he put one lie in place. It was his idea to tax the insurers instead of the people. They knew the insurance companies would pass that cost to the buyer.

Baldo

Nov 15 2014, 05:29 AM

NY Times

Cost of Coverage Under Affordable Care Act to Increase in 2015

By ROBERT PEAR, REED ABELSON and AGUSTIN ARMENDARIZ NOV. 14, 2014

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday unveiled data showing that many Americans with health insurance bought under the Affordable Care Act could face substantial price increases next year — in some cases as much as 20 percent — unless they switch plans.

The data became available just hours before the health insurance marketplace was to open to buyers seeking insurance for 2015.

An analysis of the data by The New York Times suggests that although consumers will often be able to find new health plans with prices comparable to those they now pay, the situation varies greatly from state to state and even among counties in the same state.

But Republicans quickly pounced on the data as evidence of the opposite.

“Last year, many who liked their plan were surprised to learn they couldn’t keep it,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, who is in line to become chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. “This year, many who like their plan will likely have to pay more to keep it.”

The new data means that many of the seven million people who have bought insurance through federal and state exchanges will have to change to different health plans if they want to avoid paying more — an inconvenience for consumers just becoming accustomed to their coverage....snipped

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/politics/cost-of-coverage-under-affordable-care-act-to-increase-in-2015.html?emc=edit_th_20141115&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=58233893

20%!

Uncle Ben & Auntie Janet of the Fed keep telling us there is no inflation?

The premiums are increasing unless they change their plans. Sort of works the opposite a free market system where you search to save money and have better product. Whereas in this way you run faster on the treadmill to keep STANDING STILL.

But don't worry, it is only an inconvenience

"If you like getting shafted by Obama, you can keep getting shafted by Obama!

Quote:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/upshot/the-policy-at-the-heart-of-the-jonathan-gruber-controversy.html

The Policy at the Heart of the Jonathan Gruber Controversy
Neil Irwin - Nov 14, 2014

The controversy this week around the comments of a health economist, Jonathan Gruber, about President Obama’s health law has centered on his most explosive remarks, captured on video, about the “stupidity of the American voter” and the suggestion that the law was passed dishonestly. It was those blunt remarks that have Republicans in Congress talking about a new round of hearings to assail the law and, one imagines, a man who helped create its intellectual architecture.

But beyond his inflammatory comments, what substantive policy point was Mr. Gruber trying to make about the design of the Affordable Care Act, and how does it fit in with what is now the health care law of the land?

Referring to the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Gruber said in an academic panel discussion last year (a tape of which surfaced this week): “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the C.B.O. did not score the mandate as taxes. If C.B.O. scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies.”

The line between what constitutes federal taxes or spending and what doesn’t is often debatable. If the government requires coal companies to pay lifetime health benefits for their employees, does that count as federal spending? What about federal rules requiring businesses to install (sometimes costly) ramps for wheelchair access?

The arbiter of these things for federal budgeting purposes, the Congressional Budget Office, says ... it depends. In the first case, the C.B.O. concluded that because coal companies are required to pay health insurance premiums through specific trust funds, that does indeed count in the federal budget. In the second case, handicapped access ramps don’t count as federal spending, because the businesses have latitude in how they comply with the laws.

Those examples both come from a report the C.B.O. released in May 2009, just as the health care reform debate was coming to a full boil. It aimed to enumerate under what circumstances a mandate that Americans obtain health coverage would or would not count as federal spending and would or would not need to come onto the federal budget.

To figure out whether an individual mandate would count on the federal books — whether it would be more like the coal miners’ insurance or the wheelchair ramps — the C.B.O. laid out several factors. Would consumers be able to choose among a number of insurance plans? Would plans have differing levels of coverage from which people could choose, and be offered by different companies? The more clearly the answer to those questions was “yes,” the more lawmakers could rest assured that the individual mandate wouldn’t shift trillions of dollars in private-sector health spending onto the government’s books.

And for advocates of the Affordable Care Act, it was politically important that that be the case. These small differences in how the mandate was devised could be the difference between vastly expanding official government taxes and spending or keeping that spending officially in the private sector.

So the Obama administration officials and congressional Democrats who were writing the law had strong political incentives to ensure that the individual mandate they proposed would fit the C.B.O.'s definition of things that don’t have to be counted on the federal government budget.

What’s slightly curious about Mr. Gruber’s comments is that the versions of Obamacare that received public discussion and debate never broke from that goal. The same could not be said of the Clinton administration’s failed 1993 health reform effort, which stumbled in part on just this issue.

But it’s also the case that this wasn’t some obscure debate in which no one at the time knew what was going on. There was clear public guidance from the C.B.O. on how the individual mandate had to be devised in order to not move trillions of dollars of health care expenditures onto the federal budget, and the writers of the law used that guidance to make it so.

kbp

Nov 15 2014, 09:08 AM

https://web.archive.org/web/20091202074141/http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/factcheck?id=0142

.