Reply With Quote
I knew that's where you get indoctrinated every morning. Do you write any diaries over there? Maybe you're Markos HIMSELF.
Under 50 lives the carriers ARE rating individuals (including dependents) separately.
Right out of the Federal Register:
I've got quotes using exactly those parameters, right now for groups up to 14 employees (simply the first to hit my desk), but I should have dozens in the next month or so for employers up to 50; I'll let you know if any carriers are still using composite rating for small groups. Also we are hearing consistent rumors from some trade associations that "Small Group" is going to have a Federal Definition in the next couple of years of "Under 100".d. Age Rating
In 147.102(a)(1)(iii), we proposed that the premium rate charged by a health insurance issuer for non-grandfathered health insurance coverage in the individual or small group market may vary by age, except that such rate may not vary by more than 3:1 for adults, as set forth by the statute. We proposed todefine adults as individuals age 21 and older for purposes of this provision. For individuals under age 21, we proposed that rates must be actuarially justified based on a standard population. Further, we proposed that an enrollee's age for rating purposes be determined at the time of policy issuance and renewal and requested comment on whether other measurement points, such as birthdays, were appropriate.Show citation box
After consulting with the NAIC, we proposed the following standard age bands for use in all states and markets subject to section 2701 of the PHS Act:
- Children: A single age band for children ages 0 through 20.
- Adults: One-year age bands for adults ages 21 through 63.
- Older adults: A single age band for adults ages 64 and older.
Also, Fuzzy, my business has always been exclusively group (most over 30; a few smaller just happened); have never marketed, quoted or even seen an individual policy.
I knew that's where you get indoctrinated every morning. Do you write any diaries over there? Maybe you're Markos HIMSELF.
Vast Majority Of Tea Party Prefers Government Shutdown Over Compromise
A huge majority of tea party types want likeminded lawmakers to defend by their convictions even if it results in a government shutdown, placing the ultra-conservative contingent sharply at odds with the rest of the country.
The latest findings released Monday by Pew Research Center found 71 percent of tea party Republicans want lawmakers who share their views to stand by their principles even if doing so leads to a government shutdown. Only 20 percent of tea partiers said they want those lawmakers to compromise, even if it leads to a budget with which they disagree. Republicans in general were more divided, but a plurality — 49 percent — still said they would rather have their lawmakers stand by their principles rather than compromise.
Those views separate the GOP from both their Demcratic counterparts and the country as a whole. According to Pew, 57 percent of all Americans would prefer lawmakers who share their views to compromise, while only a third said they'd prefer them to stand by their principles even if it shut down the government.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...the-government
principles?
Can I get a link please?
Again, I said they could do that before. There was no law preventing them. All it says in the quote is that they may do that ie they still can if they so choose and that there is a cap of 3:1. You are twisting that into "OMG IT'S NOW 3 TIMES AS MUCH" whereas before they could do more than a 3:1 ratio if they wanted to. There has been little to no actuarial oversight in health insurance. This isn't car insurance.
What I am seeing here is you going nuts over what might happen. You have rumors from trade associations etc. What I don't see here is something saying that there is a lower limit on composite group size. If that were the case then sure I could get the hand wringing. Why don't you call your carriers and see what they actually offer rather than see what they try and sell you on their own? Things changing does not necessarily mean the world is going to end.
Oooooh scary. A government shutdown. The end of the world as we know it.
For a country where most live paycheck to paycheck then yeah even a day of shutdown is meaningful. Not to mention the effect it has on consumer and market confidence. Would you like to revisit what happened economically last time this happened? We have a recent emperical example of why it's a bad thing.
Oooooh scary. A government shutdown. The end of the world as we know it.
4 months ago, worse now:
More and more Americans are feeling the effects of the sequester
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...the-sequester/
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...ductions_1.pdf
If the Republicans play their cards right, 0bama and the Dems will look like THEY are responsible for shutting the government down in order to protect 0bamacare which everybody hates. Don't ask me how those cards will be played. People that make a lot more money than I do will have to figure that out.
"Obamacare which everybody hates"
You Lie
Saying that everyone hates it is fun I guess but people tha tactually pay attention to polls realize that favorability bears out pretty much to party lines. There is no pudding for proof yet. The GOP already tried this in 2011 and lost the midterm because of it. That is why the rank and file is telling the Randians to piss off. There is no 'do it the right way' tghat will pin it on the Dems. You paying attention ot the story as it goes on?If the Republicans play their cards right, 0bama and the Dems will look like THEY are responsible for shutting the government down in order to protect 0bamacare which everybody hates. Don't ask me how those cards will be played. People that make a lot more money than I do will have to figure that out.
Putting a guy that ballooned national debt unlike any before is fun I guess. It just goes to show how clueless you are as to your mascot. Reagan was a through and through neocon. He is infinitely closer to McCain and the republican establishment than he is Cruz, Rand and co.
Middle class GOP types make me laugh doubly when it comes to economics.
The GOP will take the blame for shutting down the government. They will not be able to spin it any other way.
It's funny that with the shutdowns and sequester, Republicans have vividly illustrated how vital government spending is to the economy. Good job, guys!
The House Republicans’ Dangerous New Cons utional Doctrine: Repealing Laws by De-Funding Them
Yesterday morning on ABC's "This Week," Newt Gingrich and I debated whether House Republicans in should be able to repeal a law - in this case, the Affordable Care Act - by de-funding it. Here's the essence:
GINGRICH: Under our cons utional system, going all the way back to Magna Carta in 1215, the people's house is allowed to say to the king we ain't giving you money.
REICH: Sorry, under our cons utional system you're not allow to risk the entire system of government to get your way.
Had we had more time I would have explained to the former Speaker something he surely already knows: The Affordable Care Act was duly enacted by a majority of both houses of Congress, signed into law by the President, and even upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Cons ution of the United States does not allow a majority of the House of Representatives to repeal the law of the land by de-funding it. If that were the case, no law is safe. A majority of the House could get rid of unemployment insurance, federal aid to education, Social Security, Medicare, or any other law they didn't like merely by deciding not to fund them.
I believe the Affordable Care Act will prove to be enormously popular with the American public once it's fully implemented - which is exactly why the Republicans are so intent on bulldozing it before then. If they were sincere about their objections, they'd let Americans try it out - and then, if it didn't work, decide to repeal it.
The cons utional process for repealing a law - such as Congress and President Clinton did with the old Glass-Steagall Act - is for both houses to enact a new bill that repeals the old, which must then be signed by the President.
If the President vetoes it, then the repeal can only go into effect if the veto is overridden by two-thirds of the House and the Senate.
The Republicans who are now running the House of Representatives are pushing a dangerous new cons utional doctrine. They must be stopped. There should be no compromising with fanatics.
http://robertreich.org/post/62056653726
Repug dirty tricks in TX
TX Repugs waited until a couple weeks before the enrollment to "disqualify" navigators, and force them into training which won't be completed until 2014, making it much more difficult for the TX poor, uninsured to enroll.
0bama's Navigators
Seriously?
Well, you do think Cruz is a genius and this bill will pass the Senate.
If Kool-Aid drinking 0bama supporters would bother to pay attention, they indeed would hate it. At least the ones that will be getting screwed.
Obamacare Will Increase Health Spending By $7,450 For A Typical Family of Four
9/23/2013 @ 8:00AM
It was one of candidate Obama’s most vivid and concrete campaign promises. Forget about high minded (some might say high sounding) but gauzy promises of hope and change. This candidate solemnly pledged on June 5, 2008: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year….. We’ll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States.” Unfortunately, the experts working for Medicare’s actuary have (yet again[1]) reported that in its first 10 years, Obamacare will boost health spending by “roughly $621 billion” above the amounts Americans would have spent without this misguided law.
What this means for a typical family of four
$621 billion is a pretty eye-glazing number. Most readers will find it easier to think about how this number translates to a typical American family—the very family candidate Obama promised would see $2,500 in annual savings as far as the eye could see. So I have taken the latest year-by-year projections, divided by the projected U.S. population to determine the added amount per person and multiplied the result by 4.
Simplistic? Maybe, but so too was the President’s campaign promise. And this approach allows us to see just how badly that promise fell short of the mark. Between 2014 and 2022, the increase in national health spending (which the Medicare actuaries specifically attribute to the law) amounts to $7,450 per family of 4.
Let us hope this family hasn’t already spent or borrowed the $22,500 in savings they might have expected over this same period had they taken candidate Obama’s promise at face value. In truth, no well-informed American ever should have believed this absurd promise. At the time, Factcheck.org charitably deemed this claim as “overly optimistic, misleading and, to some extent, contradicted by one of his own advisers.” The Washington Post less charitably awarded it Two Pinocchios (“Significant omissions or exaggerations”). Yet rather than learn from his mistakes, President Obama on July 16, 2012 essentially doubled-down on his promise, assuring small business owners “your premiums will go down.” He made this assertion notwithstanding the fact that in three separate reports between April 2010 and June 2012, the Medicare actuaries had demonstrated that the ACA would increase health spending. To its credit, the Washington Post dutifully awarded the 2012 claim Three Pinocchios (“Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.”)
The past is not prologue: The burden increases ten-fold in 2014
As it turns out, the average family of 4 has only had to face a relatively modest burden from Obamacare over the past four years—a little over $125. Unfortunately, this year’s average burden ($66) will be 10 times as large in 2014 when Obamacare kicks in for earnest. And it will rise for two years after that, after which it hit a steady-state level of just under $800 a year. Of course, all these figures are in nominal dollars. In terms of today’s purchasing power, this annual amount will rise steadily.
more...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...amily-of-four/
Democrats should send a thank you card to the Tea Party, tbh...
Cruz, Rubio, Lee, WombatHair are ed, and the Repugs are screwing themselves.
McConnell Shoots Down Ted Cruz's Plan To Risk Shutdown Over Obamacare
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) broke with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Monday, revealing that he won't filibuster legislation to fund the government in service of conservative goals to defund Obamacare.
The Republican leader's decision is a major blow to the push by Cruz and powerful conservative activist groups, who wanted Republicans to unite and filibuster a continuing resolution until Democrats caved agreed to gut funding for the Affordable Care Act.
"Senator McConnell supports the House Republicans' bill and will not vote to block it, since it defunds Obamacare and funds the government without increasing spending by a penny," McConnell spokesman Don Stewart told TPM in an email Monday. "He will also vote against any amendment that attempts to add Obamacare funding back into the House Republicans' bill."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcco...over-obamacare
a "contributor" to Forbes? weak
What I am saying is based ENTIRELY on the first quotes I have gotten for carriers for 1/1/2014 renewals. IN THE ACTUAL QUOTES from the carriers, the cases are being shown, not with composite ratings, but with individual ratings. Go back to my original post in this thread, that is what I actually said. This is not theoretical, or panic, or anything else, it is what is actually happening, and what I am getting. It came as a complete surprise. Had no idea it was coming; did not expect it. I am going to try to take advantage of it, however.
Forbes? Capitalist tool Forbes?
Here's the destroy-the-99%- that gets published by Forbes.
Give Back? Yes, It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybin...back-to-the-1/
A lot more credible than the 'diarists" who spin their lies at the Daily Kos.
I got a woody just reading that article. I can't believe you linked to such a cornucopia of truth. You're not helping your cause pal.
Here's a little gem from your article bouts:
An end must be put to the inhuman practice of draining the productive to subsidize the unproductive. An end must be put to the primordial notion that one’s life belongs to the tribe, to “the community,” and that the superlative wealth-creators must do penance for the sin of creating value.
lol Rand
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
