Health insurers seek rate hikes, citing new reform law

Archer,

It is not an assumption. It is business. Just because you dismissed my points on "utilization" does not mean others have. Unless, of course, us hicks do not know Business as well as Economics.

AV8OR wrote: Archer,

It is not an assumption. It is business. Just because you dismissed my points on "utilization" does not mean others have. Unless, of course, us hicks do not know Business as well as Economics.

Business as usual, that is what it is.....little to do with the current legislation that hasn't even taken effect as yet. And please....the hick bit is a little stale, I'll put my "hick" credentials up against yours anyday lol

Hee - HAW!

Wayne Harrison wrote: I forget. Which president was it that signed the law giving federal aid to HMOs to stimulate them and who proposed a Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan for all Americans?

The sad part about that is that rather than learning from the mistakes of the past that more government intervention means more cost increases, the current administration decided, as they have all along, to double down on the mistake and make a bad situation a horrible one.

PrintSmith wrote: double down on the mistake and make a bad situation a horrible one.

Sounds just like the republicans plan for the economy

archer wrote:

AV8OR wrote:

archer wrote:

Joe wrote: www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16120503

"Health-insurance companies are raising rates in Colorado, ending sales of child-only policies and blaming their actions in part on the federal health reform law"

"This new law mandates that all policies include coverages that just weren't being purchased by small businesses and families before, and additional benefits do incur additional costs,"

UnitedHealthcare asked for 20.5 percent increases for 241 individuals.
Aetna ask for 26.4 percent hikes covering 6,600 people.
The Golden Rule Insurance Co. asked for a flurry of increases of up to 26.8 percent for nearly 2,000 people.

Yippie!

Surprise surprise. Get ready to pay >20% more. Many thanks!

So what was their excuse last year when my health insurance went up 34%......and the year before that when it went up 26%????

Perhaps, your insurance premiums went up as a result of what underwriters term "utilization."

.

Nice assumption but untrue. Everyone with an individual policy had their premiums raised by that percentage.....didn't you read all the flack BC/BS took in CA for raising everyone's rates by >30%....well they did it in CO too.....those of us who have to buy our own policies have been getting fleeced (such a good word for it) by insurance companies for years. Why should things change now? They just have a new excuse for business as usual.

I have individual health insurance here with Humana. Not that I'm defending their price increases, but I haven't seen anything close to 30%. From 2009 to 2010 my premium increased 20%. I haven't gotten my new rate for 2011 yet (should get it soon), but checking their web site it looks like my premium will go up 15%.

I'm actually surprised if it is "only" going up 15%. They are already required by the new health care bill to provide better coverage. One thing they can no longer do starting about now, is cancelling your policy once you have a big claim (they look at your original application and find something minor you forgot to disclose). Just that probably will cost them a lot of money.

I'm not aware of much in the health bill, though, that will prevent future increases similar to what we are seeing now. And people still think the public option would of given much lower premiums. That's not true. The CBO said the public option would actually be a little more expensive. The reason is the public option would of had more choices in health providers than individual policies now have. That would attract more less healthly people to the public option, that that would increase premiums.

And people still think the public option would of given much lower premiums. That's not true.

I agree. I would love to hear the proponents of public option explain why they like it. History has shown that gov't fails miserably when it tries to control prices. Medicare and Medicaid are a public option that are an illusion, they control the cost paid by the gov't and shift costs to the private payers. They depend on the private payers to pay the difference. Who is going to pay when the private insurance system collapses?

Joe wrote:

And people still think the public option would of given much lower premiums. That's not true.

I agree. I would love to hear the proponents of public option explain why they like it. History has shown that gov't fails miserably when it tries to control prices. Medicare and Medicaid are a public option that are an illusion, they control the cost paid by the gov't and shift costs to the private payers. They depend on the private payers to pay the difference. Who is going to pay when the private insurance system collapses?

The public option means No premiums..They don't pay premiums in the UK, or in Canada or Hawaii, they just get Healthcare...Free

Exactly... What Joe said.

Vice Lord - there are premiums. You pay one way or another either through taxes or premiums.