# Blue Cross Blue Shield to announce  health insurance premium hikes.



## min0 lee (Oct 30, 2010)

People are gonna lose their jobs over this… | RedState



> The postman delivering the mail this afternoon is long gone. Good thing. At least he didn???t hear the expletives that were thrown out to anyone within earshot as the envelope from Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield was opened and the 2011 rate increase was read.
> 
> It appears that, rather than making health care affordable as was promised, ObamaCare is taking our health insurance costs even higher???about $300 per month (or $3600 per year) higher. [Not that anyone with an IQ above an average AFSCME or SEIU member couldn't have figured it out anyway.]
> 
> ...


----------



## Dark Geared God (Oct 30, 2010)




----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 31, 2010)

^ Thanks for introducing the topic. 

I have read/.heard this elsewhere.  I want to learn more, but it's a difficult and complex topic for me to wade through.  Bandaidwoman has had good info and knowledge on this. 

The only thin, I'm a little cricumspect of is the source of your article, "red state."

Doesn't make the info wrong - we'll have to check it - but it could be overtly biased, exagerrated, or innacurate.

I do have my doubts about Obama care.


----------



## LAM (Oct 31, 2010)

I wonder if that would that be the family that doesn't pay federal income tax and get a sizable tax return because of the EITC?...the nerve


----------



## LAM (Oct 31, 2010)

Increase approved for individual Blue Cross health insurance policies | StarNewsOnline.com

Anthem Blue Cross dramatically raising rates for Californians with individual health policies - Los Angeles Times

http://newmexicoindependent.com/550...-hike-without-documentation-of-claimed-losses

http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164--243737--,00.html

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/localnews/Blue-Cross-customers-brace-for-cost-hikes

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2010/02/22/daily38.html

* seems more like the insurance company is simply bilking it's policy holders to increase profits and the GOP spin turns that into increased costs due to health care reform...


----------



## Dark Geared God (Oct 31, 2010)

aH WHATS A FEW 100.00 $$ more a month


----------



## lnvanry (Oct 31, 2010)

This is what happens when Obama failed to include the two most important pieces

1. A gov't option
2. Allowing people to shop companies/policies cross state boundaries


He conceded too much and passed a watered piece of legislations with no teeth...and it will end up being worse than doing nothing.

I know my group rates have even gone up (not Blue Cross, but another health insurer giant) and it was supposedly based on the fact that there is no longer any cap on our group coverage.


----------



## LAM (Oct 31, 2010)

lnvanry said:


> He conceded too much and passed a watered piece of legislations with no teeth...and it will end up being worse than doing nothing.



considering that it's taken what 50 years since the Dems got the last health care legislation passed it is definitely better than nothing, the GOP never proposes any such legislation.


----------



## Brandibeth (Nov 1, 2010)

I work in insurance and this has been the consensus.
U used to be able to buy family plans cheaper and pay less to have children who have not had pre-existing problems. But since EVERYBODY will be allowed into the program, family plans will go up because they are basically going to act as if all children are equal and pay as if they had pre-existing conditions. 
So you were in school it would basically be your A students and then your Fstudents, to make it all equal, now everybody averages out and makes a C.
I just love Obama.


----------



## Brandibeth (Nov 1, 2010)

Also, From what I understand, your employer can have a way out of it. There will be a form that you can sign that states that you choose to opt out of coverage and they wont be penalized if all workers choose to sign that and carry their own coverage. Im going to assume that owners will hope that employees with choose to do that, because if not, there will be alot of people who will lose their jobs.


----------



## Brandibeth (Nov 1, 2010)

Dark Geared God said:


> aH WHATS A FEW 100.00 $$ more a month


 
alot of people are already living pay check to pay check and small business owners are barely getting by as it is.


----------



## LAM (Nov 1, 2010)

Brandibeth said:


> Also, From what I understand, your employer can have a way out of it. There will be a form that you can sign that states that you choose to opt out of coverage and they wont be penalized if all workers choose to sign that and carry their own coverage. Im going to assume that owners will hope that employees with choose to do that, because if not, there will be alot of people who will lose their jobs.



people forget that the SBA defines small business as those with 500 or less, those with 50 or less people only account for like .3% of small businesses and the PPACA act will help to offset the costs for those.


----------



## Brandibeth (Nov 1, 2010)

^^^^ the problem is there are 3 things that they fall under in order to meet it. One of those states if they make less than 50,000. Well our guys are repo guys and they tend to make more than that. We dont pay hourly, we pay by the car. If you think or know differently, please let me know. Its something we are having difficulty finding info on. Tax wise


----------



## LAM (Nov 1, 2010)

Brandibeth said:


> ^^^^ the problem is there are 3 things that they fall under in order to meet it. One of those states if they make less than 50,000. Well our guys are repo guys and they tend to make more than that. We dont pay hourly, we pay by the car. If you think or know differently, please let me know. Its something we are having difficulty finding info on. Tax wise



Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News


"Individuals and families who make between 100 percent - 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and want to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for subsidies. They cannot be eligible for Medicare, Medicaid and cannot be covered by an employer. Eligible buyers receive premium credits and there is a cap for how much they have to contribute to their premiums on a sliding scale."

* the federal poverty line (FPL) for a family of 4 is like 22K.  so this means that a family of 4 that makes between 22-88k will get some type of subsidy if the employers does not provide coverage and the individual has to purchase their own.


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 1, 2010)

LAM said:


> Increase approved for individual Blue Cross health insurance policies | StarNewsOnline.com
> 
> Anthem Blue Cross dramatically raising rates for Californians with individual health policies - Los Angeles Times
> 
> ...



Bingo!


----------



## KelJu (Nov 1, 2010)

LAM said:


> Increase approved for individual Blue Cross health insurance policies | StarNewsOnline.com
> 
> Anthem Blue Cross dramatically raising rates for Californians with individual health policies - Los Angeles Times
> 
> ...





Don'tcha post that liberal shit in herr boy. That Mooslum Obama is raising insurance cost. I saw it! I saw it on FOX news!


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 1, 2010)

The bill itself, while over 1900 pages, is quite an easy read.  There are some things that you have to go back or go forward to check as they are referred to.  But that 1900 pages is more like less than 1000 due to 24 lines per page, huge font and super wide margins.  

I'm amused to death at all the railing against the healthcare bill.  Individual items are cited, referred to even.  All you have to do it look up the page and section and get the real story.  

Making it over 1900 pages just makes it sound too daunting for the average person to read.


----------



## LAM (Nov 1, 2010)

Zaphod said:


> I'm amused to death at all the railing against the healthcare bill.  Individual items are cited, referred to even.  All you have to do it look up the page and section and get the real story.



the power of the GOP relies on the ignorance of it's followers to "not" do their own research on such topics.  the same applies to the counties current economic status, all the raw data as to how we got to were we are today is on the U.S BEA website but you have to be able to read and interpret the raw data.  various websites tell you exactly what politician sponsored certain legislation, how they voted and who contributes to their campaign..wouldn't be many people at all behind the GOP if they did these things


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 1, 2010)

http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

Enjoy!


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 1, 2010)

LAM said:


> considering that it's taken what 50 years since the Dems got the last health care legislation passed it is definitely better than nothing, the GOP never proposes any such legislation.




I don't give out evaluations based on group performance.  Just b/c the GOP refused to pass health care legislation, doesn't make a crumby version of it any better.

"new boss, same as the old boss"


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 1, 2010)

Brandibeth said:


> I work in insurance and this has been the consensus.
> U used to be able to buy family plans cheaper and pay less to have children who have not had pre-existing problems. But since EVERYBODY will be allowed into the program, family plans will go up because they are basically going to act as if all children are equal and pay as if they had pre-existing conditions.
> So you were in school it would basically be your A students and then your Fstudents, to make it all equal, now everybody averages out and makes a C.
> I just love Obama.




hence why a public option was needed...


----------



## bmw (Nov 2, 2010)

I sure do miss Bush deficits.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 3, 2010)

bmw said:


> I sure do miss Bush deficits.



What do you mean you miss them, 93% of our current deficit is either from Bush policies or Obama extending the Bush tax cuts.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 3, 2010)

bmw said:


> I sure do miss Bush deficits.



You're funny.


----------



## bmw (Nov 3, 2010)

Dale Mabry said:


> What do you mean you miss them, 93% of our current deficit is either from Bush policies or Obama extending the Bush tax cuts.



Obama is the king of spending.  He has spent 3-4 times what Bush did.  

Since we're only blaming POTUS's here, don't forget that Bush also inherited a recession from Clinton (dot.com).

Now I'm no Bush dick-rider either. I was against the bailout of businesses "too big to fail".  Fuck em!  This is capitalism.  You fail because of poor business practices and then two other companies come in and take over your market share.  Bush prevented that and that's bullshit.

Honestly, I'm tired of all of them.  I think most Americans are.  I'd like a job where I can go work for a couple of years and get a fat pension for the rest of my life too.  I'm just not crooked enough to be a politician.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 3, 2010)

bmw said:


> Obama is the king of spending.  He has spent 3-4 times what Bush did.
> 
> Since we're only blaming POTUS's here, don't forget that Bush also inherited a recession from Clinton (dot.com).
> 
> (





> 1. We're still on the fast track to the poor house. When the GOP ran the show with George W. Bush, they spent like drunken sailors (apologies to drunken sailors). Things have only gotten worse since 2008 but the GOP's much-ballyhooed (at least by themselves) Pledge to America only pledges to spend the least bit less than the Dems.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We will still spend money no matter who's in control.


----------



## LAM (Nov 3, 2010)

bmw said:


> Obama is the king of spending.  He has spent 3-4 times what Bush did.
> 
> Since we're only blaming POTUS's here, don't forget that Bush also inherited a recession from Clinton (dot.com).



lol...were you working in Silicon Valley during that time because I was.  The dot.com burst had nothing to do with any of Clintons economic policies it had all to do with the combination of the stock market and 9-11.

and regarding the current deficit increases under Obama how much of that money would be spent on the military and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan regardless of who holds the office of POTUS?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 3, 2010)

bmw said:


> Obama is the king of spending.  He has spent 3-4 times what Bush did.
> 
> Since we're only blaming POTUS's here, don't forget that Bush also inherited a recession from Clinton (dot.com).
> 
> ...



I don't know what world you get your data from, but the United States of America found on Earth shows you to be wrong.  Source...

Critics Still Wrong on What


----------



## bmw (Nov 3, 2010)

LAM said:


> and regarding the current deficit increases under Obama how much of that money would be spent on the military and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan regardless of who holds the office of POTUS?





min0 lee said:


> We will still spend money no matter who's in control.



I completely agree.  

Fuck em all (politicians).


----------



## bmw (Nov 3, 2010)

Dale Mabry said:


> I don't know what world you get your data from, but the United States of America found on Earth shows you to be wrong.  Source...
> 
> Critics Still Wrong on What



What am I wrong about again?  The fact that our deficit is 3-4 times more now than in the Bush era, or that the dot com recession started while Clinton was in office? 

Ya lost me bro.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 4, 2010)

bmw said:


> What am I wrong about again?  The fact that our deficit is 3-4 times more now than in the Bush era, or that the dot com recession started while Clinton was in office?
> 
> Ya lost me bro.



You are wrong that the deficit is Obama's.  It is all happening right now, but the deficit for FY2010 is 93% from Bush policies (Wars, tax breaks, etc.)  Obama's part of the deficit won't even really start taking affect for 2 or so years.  You are complaining about Obama for Bush's debt.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 4, 2010)

In other words, let the tax cuts expire for all and cut and run in Afghanistan and our deficit is nearly a surplus, which would help pay down the debt.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Nov 4, 2010)

^^ I cannot understand why Americans are now, FINALLY complaining about the annual deficits that lead to the total national debt.

Where were these people in the 80s? 90? (in the 90s it got better) and in the 2000s?

These people either are ignorant or were asleep the whole time.


Even going back 40+ years, Americans that supported the Vietnam war could not have complained about higher taxes.  The US Presidents refused to raise taxes to pay for that war, and successive wars. --> end the gold standard.

Americans can go to foreign countries and start wars and get involved in foreign wars -- but they don't have to pay for it.

How do you pay for it?  Run deficits.

You can't have it both ways.


----------



## bmw (Nov 4, 2010)

Dale Mabry said:


> You are wrong that the deficit is Obama's.  It is all happening right now, but the deficit for FY2010 is 93% from Bush policies (Wars, tax breaks, etc.)  Obama's part of the deficit won't even really start taking affect for 2 or so years.  You are complaining about Obama for Bush's debt.



Obama's not the president?

Sweet!

Let's say I am upside-down on my house and can no longer pay, and you come in and say you'll take it over.  I deed the house to you and you assume the mortgage (debt).  I say thank you and away I go.  Who's debt is that now?  Who owns it?

That was just a silly illustration for lolz.  But really, Obama's spending makes Bush look like a miser so far.

I'm having fun!


----------



## gp77 (Dec 11, 2013)

Back to the original topic if you live in michigan there is a pretty cool website called My ACA Online - Licensed Agents that gives you insurance quotes for multiple companies right there online.  brother inlaw writes insurance policies and he told me that all the companies are going up up up from obama


----------

