# Obamacare in NYS.



## arnisador (Jul 18, 2013)

[h=1]Heres why health insurance premiums are tumbling in New York[/h]





> Individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or more for  coverage will be able to shop for health insurance for as little as $308  monthly[...]With federal  subsidies, the cost will be even lower.
> [...]
> New York has, for two decades now, had the highest individual market  premiums in the country. A lot of it seems to trace back to a law passed  in 1993, which required insurance plans to accept all applicants,  regardless of how sick or healthy they were. That law did not, however,  require everyone to sign up, as the Affordable Care Act does.
> 
> New York has, for 20 years now, been a long-running experiment in  what happens to universal coverage without an individual mandate. Its  the type of law the country would have if House Republicans succeeded in  delaying the individual mandate, as they will vote to do this  afternoon. The result: a small insurance market with very high insurance  premiums.




See also:
[h=1]New Yorkers to see 50% drop in health insurance costs in Obamacare exchange[/h]





> [h=2]New York state residents will be able to get health insurance next  year on the Obamacare exchange for half the average price available in  the state today.[/h]  The cost of a "silver" plan -- which covers at  least 70% of medical costs, on average -- will drop to as little as  $359 a month for a single adult Manhattan resident, for instance,  according to a rate sheet  released Wednesday by state officials. Currently, the cheapest plan a  city resident can buy on the individual market is $1,001.



[h=1]Health Plan Cost for New Yorkers Set to Fall 50%[/h]





> State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for 2014 that  are at least 50 percent lower on average than those currently available  in New York. Beginning in October, individuals in New York City who now  pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage will be able to shop for health  insurance for as little as $308 monthly. With federal subsidies, the  cost will be even lower.
> 
> 
> Supporters of the new health care law, the Affordable Care Act, credited  the drop in rates to the online purchasing exchanges the law created,  which they say are spurring competition among insurers that are  anticipating an influx of new customers. The law requires that an  exchange be started in every state.



The Affordable Care Act has already brought many benefits people really like--no bans on pre-existing conditions, kids staying on until 26, etc.--and it keeps getting better despite the continuing tragicomic efforts of the House to repeal it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 18, 2013)

So you're moving back to NY to take advantage of this great windfall?

NYS already had a number of affordable options.  I'll wait and see what happens come January 1st but from what I read, I fall in the 'sorry but you don't qualify to shop around' exemption zone.

We'll see if this new 'competition' lowers our premiums or just jacks us up because they can.

As to exchanges, funny how many states have said 'no' to them. I support the House's repeal efforts. As to kids on the plan until 26, hell, raise it to 70 and make their parents liable for their college bills too. While you're at it, lock voting age and drinking age in line with this too.

I still think it's all bollocks.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 24, 2013)

Meanwhile, in Kentucky, people love Obamacare...as long as they're not told that that's what it is:

*Kentucky Health Workers Pitch Obamacare At State Fair Alongside Corn Dogs, Fried Kool-Aid*




> government workers at the Kentucky State Fair are hawking the virtues of Kynect, the state&#8217;s health benefit exchange established by Obamacare.  The man is impressed. "This beats Obamacare I hope," he mutters to one of the workers.
> 
> &#8220;Do I burst his bubble?&#8221; wonders Reina Diaz-Dempsey, overseeing the  operation. She doesn't. If he signs up, it's a win-win, whether he knows  he's been ensnared by Obamacare or not.
> 
> ...





> The crush of people don't greet Diaz-Dempsey with tea party dogma or  amateur constitutional scholarship. No one is there to complain about  the individual mandate or heckle about death panels. They have  questions.
> 
> They wonder if they could get coverage despite having a pre-existing  medical condition, how much it will cost them. They ask if Indiana has a  similar program, or if this was only for Kentucky. Could they just  enroll their child? They talk about their sons and daughters, neighbors  going without health care, and ask about the subsidies.
> 
> The vast majority are relieved to learn about the health exchange.  Linda Parrish, 47, showed up at the table and gushed to Diaz-Dempsey:  "This is what I've been waiting on." Parrish has health insurance, but  her best friend doesn't.




*Kentuckians hate Obamacare but love it by another name*



> The tea party has been calling people telling them not to sign up  because they falsely claim there are no real health insurance exchanges.  Many low income workers are against it because they were lied to about what the costs would be.
> 
> Christopher McClure hobbles through the doors, his inner thigh  hurting from what he suspects are a pair of spider bites. He is not  employed and does not have health insurance. His wife Michelle, 29,  works as an assistant manager at a pizza chain making $12,000 a year.  She also has no insurance and would qualify for the Medicaid expansion.  But she's against Obamacare, convinced that it will wipe out her meager  earnings. &#8220;Next enrollment season," she says, "they&#8217;re going to sock it  to me.&#8221;
> 
> ​The McClures under Obamacare would be fully subsidized. They are so  misinformed that they have no clue that Obamacare is that one leg on the  stool that removes a financial burden that is materially affecting  their access to real financial independence. It makes sense to remove  the health care anchor from people&#8217;s neck giving them the wherewithal to  go seek a job or make their own job.



Surveys repeatedly show that people react negatively to Obamacare, which the GOP has told them is horrible, but absolutely love the exchanges, the changes for pre-existing conditions and kids staying on until 26, etc. The GOP has demonized what is a very popular program and I hope that that bites them in the end.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 24, 2013)

Great for NY too bad almost all other states costs are going up.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 24, 2013)

> kids staying on until 26



As long as the parent pays the INCREASED premium.  No pay higher fee, no keep kid on policy.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 24, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Great for NY too bad almost all other states costs are going up.



Source?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 24, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Source?


Bobs only posted 50+ sources over the 2 or three threads.  Last one he posted showed a 63% increase in costs for my state.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 24, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Last one he posted showed a 63% increase in costs for my state.



Well, your state is indeed most states. Touche'.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 24, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Well, your state is indeed most states. Touche'.



According to the data Bob posted every state but 5 or 6 were going to see increases.  
However even if it were just mine why is NY more important then my state so we jump for joy for NY but screw us.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 24, 2013)

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.o...-to-raise-your-premiums-a-state-by-state-map/


arnisador said:


> Source?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 24, 2013)

Arni doesn't look at anything I post. He doesn't consider any of it valid.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 24, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> http://www.againstcronycapitalism.o...-to-raise-your-premiums-a-state-by-state-map/



Seems legit.  How about something like the WSJ, since I started off with the NYT?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 25, 2013)

The Society of Actuaries (SOA) is a professional organization for actuaries based in North America. It was founded in 1949 as the merger of two major actuarial organizations in the United States: the Actuarial Society of America and the American Institute of Actuaries.[3] It is a full member organization of the International Actuarial Association.[4]

The Society's vision is for actuaries to be recognized as the leading professionals in the modeling and management of financial risk and contingent events. The SOA has three overall goals: providing primary and continuing education for students and practicing actuaries, maintaining high professional standards for actuaries, and conducting research on actuarial trends and public policy issues.[5]

The SOA represents American actuaries from all major areas of practice except property and casualty insurance, which are represented by the Casualty Actuarial Society. In 2013, the SOA began offering qualification examinations covering general (property and casualty) insurance.[6]

The SOA, along with its public relations firm GolinHarris, won the PR Week Corporate Branding Campaign of the Year award for 2008. The award was given for the Society's efforts to revitalize the actuarial profession's brand in the US, including the slogan "Risk is Opportunity."[7]





arnisador said:


> Seems legit.  How about something like the WSJ, since I started off with the NYT?


Well since the Society of Actuaries actually did the study all the link did was show it published they didn't actually do the study do you dislike that actual people that did the study or just the source that disseminated it?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 25, 2013)

If the source doesn't agree with predetermined results, it's automatically dismissed.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 25, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> http://www.againstcronycapitalism.o...-to-raise-your-premiums-a-state-by-state-map/





> This map was created using information compiled by The Society of Actuaries in March of this year. The Society is a number crunching and non-partisan organization.



We can't have that. Only data that says "Obamacare Good" is valid. Only organizations that agree "Obamacare is good" are respectable. Only people who drank the "Obamacare is Good" kool aid are to be listened to.  All other views are "WrongSpeak".


----------



## arnisador (Aug 25, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Well since the Society of Actuaries actually did the study all the link did was show it published they didn't actually do the study do you dislike that actual people that did the study or just the source that disseminated it?



The article says:
"This map was created _using _information compiled by The Society of Actuaries in March of this year. The Society is a number crunching and non-partisan organization." 

(_Emphasis _ added.) The link is to the SOA Wikipedia page. It doesn't say who used that info. and doesn't link to any study, nor indicate the nature of the source that is mentioned in the bottom corner. (Not every report is a "study". This is a projection and may not have been a study as such--and who knows what assumptions they may have been asked to use by whomever commissioned the report.) So it sounds to me like they used some SOA data but created the map themselves. What isn't clear is whether they simply transcribed SOA numbers and whether those were unbiased SOA estimates or a report requested by some org. that asked that certain assumptions or methods be used (which is very reasonable as long as they're disclosed). So, yeah--still waiting on the source.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 25, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The article says:
> "This map was created _using _information compiled by The Society of Actuaries in March of this year. The Society is a number crunching and non-partisan organization."
> 
> (_Emphasis _ added.) The link is to the SOA Wikipedia page. It doesn't say who used that info. and doesn't link to any study, nor indicate the nature of the source that is mentioned in the bottom corner. (Not every report is a "study". This is a projection and may not have been a study as such--and who knows what assumptions they may have been asked to use by whomever commissioned the report.) So it sounds to me like they used some SOA data but created the map themselves. What isn't clear is whether they simply transcribed SOA numbers and whether those were unbiased SOA estimates or a report requested by some org. that asked that certain assumptions or methods be used (which is very reasonable as long as they're disclosed). *So, yeah--still waiting on the source*.



Of course, those who read the map graphic I posted will notice the *SOURCE very CLEARLY referenced in the LOWER RIGHT CORNER.*

But for those who may have either missed it, chose to ignore it or who can't read (in which case what are you doing on a web forum?) it was called "Cost of the Future Newly Insured under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) MARCH 2013"

A very quick search on Google (That's a web site you can type things into and search for results, for those unaware of that awesome ability) for that title quickly revealed the ACTUAL SOURCE STUDY.  For the Google-Impared, I have included the link below. 
http://cdn-files.soa.org/web/research-cost-aca-report.pdf

It is 83 pages long. I'm not going to read the whole thing. It uses big words like "This Analysis" and "Methodology" and other things that I'm really too stupid to understand. Concepts like "Modeling" to me involve naked women and cameras, not scientificy things you know.

I mean, to me, this is like Romulan:


> Our research estimates are made using The Lewin Group Health Benefits Simulation Model (HBSM). The HBSM is a micro - simulation model of the U.S. health care system. HBSM is a fully integrated platform for simulating policies ranging from narrowly defined insurance market regulations to Medicaid cover age expansions and broad - based reforms involving multiple programs such as the ACA. It was developed in 1989 to simulate
> the wave of reform proposals that culminated in the health reform proposal introduced by President Clinton in 1993. The model was used by the U.S. Bipartisan Commission on Comprehensive Health Care (the Pepper Commission) in 1990 and has been in almost constant use since then by The Lewin Group at the state and national levels.





> Finding 1: After three years of exchanges and insurer restrictions, the percentage of uninsured nationally will decrease from 16.6 percent to between 6.8 and 6.6 percent, compared to pre-ACA projections


Since Arni never reads my links I dug this bone out for him. Someone quote it so he reads it eh? 

Sounds good right?  More people will have insurance. 



> Finding 2:
> Under the ACA, the individual non-group market will grow 115 percent, from 11.9 million to 25.6 million lives; 80 percent of that enrollment will be in the
> Exchanges.



Still sounding good right? 



> Finding 3: The non - group *cost per member per month will increase 32 percent under ACA*, compared to pre-ACA projections.



Oops. a 32% INCREASE in cost!

Can't afford it now, lets bump it 30% That'll "help".

Now, like I said, I haven't read the whole thing. There's a lot of data in there, a lot of supporting information, and all sarcasm aside, a lot that I don't "get" as I'm not an expert in insurance jargon.  But the findings are pretty clear.  More people insured, most on the exchanges and costs will go up. Not down like they promised.

There's more in there, but I've hit my limit for mocking for today and need to go play some Yahtzee. Toodles. :wavey:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 1, 2013)

It's October 1st 2013.  Exchange Launch Day!

So, lets see...

Goto https://www.healthcare.gov/  and look up my state.  NY

Click path  https://www.healthcare.gov/families/ because I'm looking for an family plan. Clicked Apply.

Picked NY.  It sends me to the NY Exchange.

https://nystateofhealth.ny.gov/

Ok, looks familiar.  Again click on the family option.



> [h=1]SRVE0232E: Internal Server Error.
> Exception Message: [null][/h]
> [h=3]null[/h]
> _IBM WebSphere Application Server_



Blue State, had years to get this coded, can't even write a web app.   NY sucks.

But maybe someday I'll be able to use this.  I just hope it's before the IRS gestapo (now armed with assault weapons for your compliance) get involved.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 1, 2013)

Refresh my memory, where in the Constitution is the government empowered to force people to buy things?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 1, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Refresh my memory, where in the Constitution is the government empowered to force people to buy things?



Well, using the skill of selective interpretation, combined with the traits of arrogance, superiority, and conceit, it's plain as day.  Right there where it also says eat your taters.


----------



## Takai (Oct 1, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Well, using the skill of selective interpretation, combined with the traits of arrogance, superiority, and conceit, it's plain as day.  Right there where it also says eat your taters.



Eloquently put. (and yes, I ate my taters)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 1, 2013)

> [h=2]Attention:[/h]Due  to overwhelming interest in the NY State of Health - including 2  million visits in the first 2 hours of the site launch - the health  exchange is currently having log in issues. We encourage users who are  unable to log in to come back to the site later when these issues will  be resolved.



NYS needs a better web host.  MT can handle that load, you'd think NY could afford something better than an old 386 running off a cable modem in a closet.


But lets see....
Using the premium estimator here
http://www.healthbenefitexchange.ny.gov/PremiumEstimator

Based on that, compared to our current policy, the Silver plan would offer us half the coverage, for twice the premium.  

I still say it's bollocks.


----------

