<p>Catahoula, your idea is that every insurance company in the market will voluntarily set prices too low, knowing they’ll lose money, and hoping that next year when they raise prices the extra customers won’t just melt away like snow in summer? Hoping that next year they’ll make back what they lost, plus enough profit to make up for the profit they forewent the first, losing, year?</p>
<p>They’d be better off raising prices on the exchange, knowing that most people on the exchange are insulated from premium price increases.</p>
<p>First off, a lot of theory. Second: have some given up on proving rates for 2015 will rise by the fearsome percentages speculated by unnamed sources- and are now hedging by talking 2016?</p>
<p>Whether by accident or design, the numbers that count are kind of hard to come by, LF, and no matter how high rates rise this year, I doubt the refrain will change: “I’m just grateful they kept them down as much as they did.” >:D< </p>
<p>Seriously, CF: anyone pricing right shares their profits with the politically timid, and HHS is there with a lifeline if they all do that lemming thing. A couple of years will see whether the majority that hates the ACA grows (dismemberment/repeal) or falls (grows to love it like that last gal at closing time) and the insurers will coast till it’s clear which is going to happen.</p>
<p>Doesn’t matter whether the government pays the premium or the subscriber pays the premium, or if the subscriber pays some and the government pays the rest-- if the premium is too low to cover costs the company loses money.</p>
<p>The subsidies are irrelevant to whether the business entity might forgo profits and accept a loss in the short term. The subsidies aren’t in addition to premiums; they are part of the premium.</p>
<p>It’s not as if predatory pricing were something new. Recall Anthem’s attempt a few years back to raise premiums by 39%. Only after a tremendous outcry did they “discover” that they’d made an “error” in their calculations. That move was really dumb, because IMO it was the final straw which proved beyond all doubt that they needed to be regulated and the system needed an overhaul. If they could have contained their greed just a little, ACA probably never would have gotten off the ground. But they couldn’t. </p>
<p>So we can’t assume that insurance companies will necessarily act in their own long term best interest. And they certainly can’t be trusted to act in the best interests of their subscribers, much less the uninsured. </p>
<p>Anybody who bought a Blue Shield Obamacare plan in my region is probably going to the emergency room because their network is a joke. Some may call this insurance; I call it a cruel joke.</p>
<p>It is indeed a terrible thing that Anthem has done – not to mention a criminal thing – apparently in multiple states. I hope the various commissioners throw the book at them. </p>
<p>I love how some of you are more than willing to condemn the insurances companies but give the govt and the politicians a pass for this crazy law. It’s hazardous for your health (and I mean it literally) when you allow your political beliefs to get in the way of rational thinking.</p>
<p>I don’t know why you keep excluding Blue Shield. In my neck of the woods, their networks are pathetic.</p>
<p>Prior to Jan 1 the networks were not a problem; after Jan 1 they are all screwed up. So what has changed since that date? Oh yeah, we got Obamacare.</p>
<p>Reading some posts here at times affected my BP. Good thing I have great docs and affordable insurance. And I know how to breathe deeply and get past all the hysteria. :)</p>
<p>Not quite. But the government did have prior knowledge – with certainty – that provider lists have been wrong for 30 years. Its not like it was a trade secret in the insurance industry. But the government bought their services anyway. What ever happened to caveat emptor? :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but the government approved of the inadequate networks.</p>