Here It is Drudge Report Headline

[taterpeeler]

"It's a pretty flawed comparison to get the highest possible % of increase, looking at it the real increase is probably around 50%, and that does not take into account the subsidies that will be involved at all.

Not that the rates aren't higher than before, they obviously are, but the huge 150% increase number is being very selectively created"






I guess both sides of the aisle are capable of cherry picking
if you slap my face don't be mad when I slap yours

No its not. I ran rates for a silver look alike that is being sold today and then looked at the CA rate and it was increased about what the article mentions( I posted this last week). Sorry, but it is what it is...... plate spinners belong in the circus, is it in town?

 

[timsip]

The breakdowns Forbes did do not take into account the fact that they're comparing the cheapest discount plans vs insurance that is required to cover a lot more things. If they compared it vs a similar plan, it would be a much more valid comparison.

It's a pretty flawed comparison to get the highest possible % of increase, looking at it the real increase is probably around 50%, and that does not take into account the subsidies that will be involved at all.

Not that the rates aren't higher than before, they obviously are, but the huge 150% increase number is being very selectively created.

Most of us know that the 10000-20000 deductible value plans aren't valid to compare vs something with a much lower deductible that offers comprehensive coverage.

If you go to ehealth and run a quote for a 40 year old male in Contra Costa (94505) and compare plans for Health Net (one of the players in their exchange) you will find that a plan that is currently available today will run about $131; if you compare that to Health Net's Silver Plan, it will run you $362. Similar deductibles, similar coinsurance, more than double the price tag. The increases are accurate.

 

[Yagents]

BUT........ your brother will get maternity coverage now, so it's not a fair comparison

 

[CABenefits]

What if I don't want so-called "comprehensive coverage?" I'm perfectly happy with my HSA 4500, getting my routine physical for free, and paying $92/month.

Sounds like we have the same plan. Unfortunately being healthy will have its price starting next year

Mike

 

[ksigmtsu]

What if I don't want so-called "comprehensive coverage?" I'm perfectly happy with my HSA 4500, getting my routine physical for free, and paying $92/month.

I'm not defending the way they're going about this, I don't agree with it. I'm a big fan of HSA policies.

My only thought was that the article was intentionally exaggerating the figures by cherry picking, and I was trying to point it out. The figures still don't look good the way I'm seeing them.

 

[Dan3211980]

Typical republican lies. Obama is the MAN! He said rates will go down 3,000% and if we like our plan we can keep it.

Anyone who disagrees is a racist.

Rick

I sincerely hope this is sarcasm...

 

[ksigmtsu]

If you go to ehealth and run a quote for a 40 year old male in Contra Costa (94505) and compare plans for Health Net (one of the players in their exchange) you will find that a plan that is currently available today will run about $131; if you compare that to Health Net's Silver Plan, it will run you $362. Similar deductibles, similar coinsurance, more than double the price tag. The increases are accurate.

That's actually over a 250% increase on the single policy you're looking at, which would also show their figures to be incorrect.

I would assume it's an outlier for those that understand statistics.

 

[GreenSky]

I sincerely hope this is sarcasm...

Why would you hope it is sarcasm?

It's clear that all our problems stem from George Bush. Including the downfall of the Lakers.

Rick

 

[CABenefits]

I'm not defending the way they're going about this, I don't agree with it. I'm a big fan of HSA policies.

My only thought was that the article was intentionally exaggerating the figures by cherry picking, and I was trying to point it out. The figures still don't look good the way I'm seeing them.

It wasn't cherry picking because Covered CA only released rates for a 25yr old and a 40yr old. We have no idea yet what the exact rate will be for a family of 4, a family of 3, a 57 yr old, etc. The author just researched the rates today for those two examples. I will say for a healthy person the gap will be huge. For someone with health conditions, it will not be as wide as they are rated up today.

Mike

Mike

 

[Quotebroker]

That's actually over a 250% increase on the single policy you're looking at, which would also show their figures to be incorrect.

I would assume it's an outlier for those that understand statistics.

You would be shocked at how low Health Net of CA has been pricing their plans for the last year or so. Haven't done the comparisons myself obviously, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't an outlier.