<p>Why were you uninsured, flossy?</p>
<p>Come on, what? I’m just telling you what happened to me. Sometimes, I wonder what some of you are reading. lol.</p>
<p>Dstark, at that time I was uninsured because my husband worked in management for a small business run by the owner’s coke-addicted son who squandered all of the money and cancelled the employees health insurance plan a few months before going out of business. His last payroll check also bounced. </p>
<p>CF referred to possibly negotiating every time you meet with a doc, specialist, have a lab, etc. Again, not one-time experiences.</p>
<p>Yeah, I know. That would not be good. I agree.</p>
<p>“small business run by the owner’s coke-addicted son who squandered all of the money and cancelled the employees health insurance plan”</p>
<p>I had a dejavu about a movie where this happened! 
Can’t remember the name where the dad dies and the son shuts it down or something like that.</p>
<p>Edit: Horrible bosses!</p>
<p><a href=“Horrible Bosses - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horrible_Bosses</a></p>
<p>I’m going to introduce a new logical principle here.</p>
<p>Fang’s Razor: Do not assume that people or businesses are complete idiots. </p>
<p>Fang’s Razor says the “rack rate” (the uninsured rate) for medical costs has to be less than or equal to the rate negotiated by insurers. Why is that? Because insurers are not idiots, and they are never going to negotiate payments UP from the providers’ initial price. They will never, ever say to a provider: “Oh, okay, your price is $1000, how about if we pay $1500?” Because they are not idiots.</p>
<p>Medical providers know that insurers are not idiots. Moreover, providers are also not idiots. So they set the rack rates to be higher than the rate that they think any insurer will pay. Then the providers and insurers negotiate a price between what the providers ask (ridiculously high) and what the insurers want to pay (zero).</p>
<p>It may be that uninsured Flossy was offered a discount from the ridiculously high rack rates. But she probably didn’t pay less than what the insurers would have paid. </p>
<p>I am not sure who I am allowed to link to but this article seems accurate to me and is very telling about how the state-run exchanges are working. Contrary to popular belief, of the 14 state-run exchanges including Washington DC, seven remain severely dysfunctional and underperforming. The govt spent $1.2 billion on these exchanges.</p>
<p><a href=“Obamacare's Failed State Exchanges”>http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/27/obamacares-failed-state-exchanges</a></p>
<p>BTW, Washington is one of those states which has a functional state-run exchange. One little problem: only 23% are between 18 and 34.</p>
<p>Flossy, how long did you go without insurance? When were you aware the cokehead cancelled your health insurance?</p>
<p>GP, I dont know how long you have been on CC but this is how it works. A thread is started. Over time people leave until you have a core group left at most. This thread has been one of the more successful threads. We have a nice core of participants still here. Maybe a dozen people? And that core is close to equally divided which is good. </p>
<p>When you post…you are posting to the dozen and a few people that come and go. We aren’t stupid. We are educated. We are not productive with our time, but that is another story. ;)</p>
<p>So when you post nonsense like 23 percent are young like this is a little problem, which to you is a catastrophe, who are you talking to?</p>
<p>We went through this already. Everybody knows the young sign up last. Everybody on this thread knows the potential premium increase is something like 2.5 percent if the young dont sign up. I saw on tv two days ago that if the number rises to 33 percent, the premium increase to make up the loss is 1.1 percent. 1.1 percent.</p>
<p>For 2015, when the premiums are thought out, 2014 enrollees will be used and…insurance companies will think about who will sign up in 2015. So…if the numbers come in light in 2014 but the insurance companies think there will be more healthy sign ups in 2015, premiums can rise slightly, stay flat or even decrease. If this isnt mentioned in your Reason web site…then your web site is unreasonable. ;)</p>
<p>We are not dummies. ;)</p>
<p>Dstark, how long? Hmmm. Back then I was making a lot more money than my H but had just taken a new job at a MUCH lower salary in another city so when H’s job disappeared we both moved (originally, we were planning to do a commuter type thing but fate stepped in) and he quickly found a new job there in his current industry where he has fortunately been pretty successful. Neither of us had employer insurance so I’m going to guess it was at least a year or two of chaos before we got settled and purchased insurance on the independent market. Of course, it was not my biggest problem at the time, either.</p>
<p>We were aware that the cokehead was taking piles of cash out of the register and disappearing frequently and sniffling excessively and that this situation was doomed but I didn’t find out the insurance was cancelled until the doctor’s office called with that news. The dentist’s office called , too. As an aside, two of the employees had AIDS so I’m guessing the policy costs skyrocketed. But, either way the end was in sight and all of the employees could see it coming but the owner would not listen to reason and allowed his son to destroy the business that he had spent a lifetime building. It was very sad.</p>
<p>Maybe, I should be working on a movie script. lol.</p>
<p>Flossy, 
wow! </p>
<p>I dont like that story. I am glad it worked out for you. </p>
<p>Having aids and no insurance or insurance with premiums that skyrocket is a heck of an aside. :)</p>
<p>“Everybody on this thread the potential premium increase is something like 2.5 percent if tge young doesnt sign up.”</p>
<p>LOL. You want bet your house that premiums won’t be going up by more than 2.5% next year.</p>
<p>The article is interesting because the media and some posters on this thread have been suggesting how well the state-run exchanges are doing compared the federal exchange. The article debunks it completely for at least half of these exchanges.</p>
<p>The potential premium increase caused by the young signing up in smaller numbers is something like 2.5%, and that’s not something that should cause us to quake in our boots. But there are other reasons why premiums might go up. </p>
<p>The main reasons for potential premium increases are (1) healthy people signing up in smaller numbers than sick people and (2) health care costs increasing for reasons unrelated to the risk pool. I’m a lot more interested in getting healthy older people to sign up than in getting younger people to sign up.</p>
<p>GP, the young signing up is a miniscule factor. There are other factors. Our age works against us. The annual increase in costs causes premiums to rise.</p>
<p>I dont like p… Away money. My daughter’s boy friend works in the tech industry and he hates dealing with the fed govt because work gets divided among different areas, different states and different companies because everybody has to have their piece. Makes things inefficient and sometimes leaderless. </p>
<p>In California, our premiums would go up by about 2.58 percent every year because we have aged a year, even if there were no other changes.</p>
<p>GP, sorry. You are already 2.58 percent in the hole.</p>
<p>Since we have parents with kids interested in being doctors…</p>
<p><a href=“Obama budget will seek record funding for new doctors”>Obama budget will seek record funding for new doctors;
<p>dstark - I like the proposal but the track record for passing budgets has not been stellar. :p</p>
<p>I have no doubt parents who were planning on paying for med school for their kids would be thrilled to have the taxpayers pay for it. On the other hand, if your kids were going to med school regardless, not quite sure how it is a net positive to have us pay for it instead of you. Net positive to the parents who were planning on paying for it, I suppose.</p>