<p>"Actual facts are hard to come by, so I don’t think it’s fair to bash news reports when most of their sources on both sides are misleading at best. "</p>
<p>The story is factually correct - Obama promised 2500 cut in 2008, the premiums went up 3065 from 2008 to 2012. The relationship between the two statements assumes magic.</p>
<p>Nevermind, I just looked at BCBS MI’s facebook. I’m not the only one with this problem (to put it mildly…)</p>
<p>Romani how awful! Don’t hurt yourself till you know you’re covered, okay? No wild partying tomorrow! Stay on the couch.</p>
<p>I’m glad your policy went down, but at this rate, I’m wondering if it still exists. Probably best to ignore it all for awhile, you have evidence of payment.</p>
<p>Moderator’s Note</p>
<p>We don’t discuss political promises for the simple reason that IT IS political. You want to discuss premium increases, that is perfectly fine.</p>
<p>Doctors offices will be taking credit card information from patients and billing the card to protect themselves due to all the confusion inherent in the system, snafus, insurance card holders who have not paid the premiums, etc.</p>
<p>BD, they’ve taken the payment out of my account (it’s hard posted on my PNC account). Until yesterday, the plan was listed as active on my account. It’s still listed on my account for next year (1/1/14 start date) but EVERYTHING is listed as inactive. Nothing was yesterday. It’s so weird. I’m assuming there’s something wrong with the system. </p>
<p>Actually, I have three plans listed. One that went until today, one that is listed starting tomorrow, and one listed as starting 1/1/14. Wth… (they’re all the same plan, btw)</p>
<p>This is NOT an exchange plan. This is the plan I’ve been on since April and is continuing next year. This is all on BCBS.</p>
<p>I am the stay-at-home-and-be-the-DD on New Years’ type so no worries there :p</p>
<p>feds claim that 1.1 mill have enrolled as of today (yesterday?) from 36 states:</p>
<p>[White</a> House touts new Obamacare enrollment numbers, but doubts remain - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-touts-new-obamacare-enrollment-numbers-but-doubts-remain/]White”>White House touts new Obamacare enrollment numbers, but doubts remain - CBS News)</p>
<p>“The relationship between the two statements assumes magic.”</p>
<p>LOL!!</p>
<p>Romani…sorry to read the latest insurance nonsense…but the insurance company has you as paid…that is good…</p>
<p>Busdriver11, yep…put me down…My premiums are up $700 a month for the first two months…unless my kid gets a subsidy…then my premiums are up about 550 a month for the first two months. After the first two months…my increase should drop to 350 a month or less as my kid receives employer insurance coverage. We will see.</p>
<p>I wish I made that magic comment. I am going to use that comment in real life. :)</p>
<p>The IBD article is a basic fact checking piece. Here’s what they said vs. Here’s what actually happened. I don’t see the problem.</p>
<p>“I’d love to hear from someone whose costs were lowered significantly for similar benefits…and not by subsidy. Most everyone seems to be talking about large increases, and an occasional small decrease. Anyone paying a lot less? I leave out subsidies, because obviously that isn’t something that decreases the price, it just changes who pays.”</p>
<p>I posted a month or so ago the savings my sister and her H are getting. Their premium went from $1800/month down either $600 or $900 a month (can’t remember exactly.) They are not eligible for a subsidy. Either way their premiums have gone down by at least $3600 per person per year. </p>
<p>IIRC, I believe Frugal Doctor also posted about a big savings, in addition to getting much better coverage and also not subsidized.</p>
<p>If I am not mistaken, New York seems to be one place that meets BD’s condition of not considering the subsidy but insurance price tags being much lower for some people.</p>
<p>I am still a bit surprised in the disparity between Nysmile’s experience emilybee’s sister’s experience in their pricing. Anyone understand what might have caused such a disparity?</p>
<p>NYC vs. upstate is a possibility. They are different worlds, financially.</p>
<p>Flossy, not when it comes to individual insurance in NY, prior to ACA, it didn’t matter where you lived, it was extremely expensive - which is why only 17,000 people in the who state had indy policies before ACA. </p>
<p>Texas, NYSmile has a small business policy. My sister and her H were in the indy market. Two totally different things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, that is how many people signed up (e.g. filled out stuff online and selected a plan by putting it in their shopping cart).</p>
<p>They are not saying how many people actually enrolled (e.g. paid money, completed the process).</p>
<p>I’m sorry, why are we not considering the subsidies here? If premiums went down for a lot of people because of subsidies, then they went down.</p>
<p>Good point, CF.</p>
<p>I definitely see how people who have been gouged by insurance companies for the pre-existing conditions issue would have their premiums decreased. I know NY has been one of the high priced states where premiums have decreased overall (was it five states that had premium decreases)? Though I can’t imagine that those few states where rates have decreased have balanced out all the rest of the increases. I think anyone who really imagined that rates would go down for most people were too hopeful.</p>
<p>Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that some who had been seriously gouged would see their rates decrease (and some gougees would be gouged even more).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the point is to see whether or not the cost curve for healthcare has been bent downwards (e.g. getting less expensive) as a structural change. Subsidies are just a piece of financial engineering that could just mask whether or not there are actual improvements to the system.</p>
<p>Secondly, it is odd that there is a lack of apples-to-apples comparison - some plans are cheaper, unless you use them and have to also pay the huge deductible.</p>
<p>“I’m sorry, why are we not considering the subsidies here? If premiums went down for a lot of people because of subsidies, then they went down.”</p>
<p>I think that is fuzzy math. That isn’t making the cost of your health care go down, just because you don’t pay it. Hey, we could just put everyone on Medicaid, and then the cost of the premium would be zero. All health care would be free!</p>
<p>I’m not begrudging anyone who gets subsidies, whatsoever. But I do have a problem with those who pretend that because the taxpayers are paying them, somehow it doesn’t actually cost anything. The insurance companies are still getting their money, pricing the policies how they darn well choose, the cost of health care is still increasing, we haven’t reduced the price of anything…and that was one of the selling points, wasn’t it? Gosh, we could just give everyone who signs up a 100% subsidy, and see how we’ve lowered health care costs. It’s free, hallelujah!</p>
<p>And the lack of apples to apples comparing quality of networks and providers. There was an article in the WSJ stating that certain high quality hospitals had seen a rush on tests and elective procedures before the end of the year. Hospitals like Cedars and Barnes in St. Louis that are not included in many new policy networks.</p>