• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

80 new insurers entering the exchanges

And you will buy the insurance from them because it costs more? I'm sure you are in the minority, most of us look for the better deal.

Nope... but, as I indicated.. most of the new insurers entering the market are coming in with higher prices. This is likely a predictor of where premiums are headed over the next couple of years as the bailouts end and pre-existing insurers finally get their premiums to where they need to be for them to be profitable.
 
Last edited:
As a CFO for various companies in CO, I have been buying insurance on behalf of my employees for 25 years, I would not have characterized Colorado has having a poor insurance market. Where does that come from? I would characterize CO's good results here as substantially from a solid, bi-partisan implementation of the PPACA. So, unless you can support your assertion here, I suggest you are only arguing from impression, which is not an argument.

How to tell if PPACA is working | BenefitsPro
What Has The Affordable Care Act Accomplished A Year Later? « CBS Denver

Regulations... things like community rating... were causing premiiums in some states (such as CO and NH) to be higher than they otherwise would have been.

Biggest winners: NY, CO, OH, MA; Biggest losers: NV, NM, AR, NC

Eight states will enjoy average premium reductions under Obamacare: New York (-40%), Colorado (-22%), Ohio (-21%), Massachusetts (-20%), New Jersey (-19%), New Hampshire (-18%), Rhode Island (-10%), and Indiana (-3%). Most, but not all, of these states had heavily-regulated individual insurance markets prior to Obamacare, and will therefore benefit from Obamacare’s subsidies, and especially its requirement that everyone purchase health insurance or pay a fine.

49-State Analysis: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Premiums By Average Of 41% - Forbes
 
Also, in areas where the floor decreased, 35% of the time it was the result of a new entrant setting the new low. That (35%) is "many"

1) you are not allowed to use "floor".

2) 35% of 37%... Many can be any number you want it to be.. But that isn't very many when taken in context of the entire picture.

Edit: I did the math
165 rating areas.
35% of 37% of that is only 21 areas in which the new insurer came in with the lowest price. In the other 144 rating areas.. The new insurer came in with higher premium then the comapny that already existed. Sure, you can call that many.. But overall.. not really.
 
Last edited:
1) you are not allowed to use "floor".

2) 35% of 37%... Many can be any number you want it to be.. But that isn't very many when taken in context of the entire picture.

Edit: I did the math
165 rating areas.
35% of 37% of that is only 21 areas in which the new insurer came in with the lowest price. In the other 144 rating areas.. The new insurer came in with higher premium then the comapny that already existed. Sure, you can call that many.. But overall.. not really.

1) Correct. The proper term is "price leader"

2) It is many, not "very many" which is not what GB claimed

3) In many of those other areas, the price leader in 2014 lowered the premium to keep their position as price leader *or* another insurer from 2014 dropped their price low enough to become the new price leader.

All in all, in 37% of those areas, the price of the 2nd lowest silver plan is GOING DOWN. The people in those areas now have a more affordable choice for coverage.
 
Regulations... things like community rating... were causing premiiums in some states (such as CO and NH) to be higher than they otherwise would have been.



49-State Analysis: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Premiums By Average Of 41% - Forbes

Thank you. I wish you had posted the links in the first place so I would not have to challenge you. I do appreciate the opportunity to learn something... though, at first blush, this appears to be speculation about the overall changes in insurance markets pre v. post Obama care... and focuses a lot on the younger insured. It is certainly should be a surprise to no-one that one of effects of the ACA is to spread the insurance risk via pool expansion (the young subsizing the old)... it was the design. This nonetheless gives me something to ponder and research from.... and, I appreciate the fact you weren't talking out of your A...
 
Last edited:
Thank you. I wish you had posted the links in the first place so I would not have to challenge you. I do appreciate the opportunity to learn something...

That report was put out before the exhanges were operating and has been debunked
Fighting Premium Spin with More Spin

The Manhattan Institute report compared the lowest cost premiums on the individual market before the exchanges, adjusted for preexisting condition denials or rate hikes, in each state to the lowest cost premiums on the new exchanges. The methodology explains that it included the five least expensive plans on a county basis before the law took effect and those now being sold on statewide exchanges, excluding catastrophic plans, for 27-, 40- and 64-year-old males and females who don’t smoke.
The institute didn’t adjust the level of benefits or coverage of these plans. As we’ve said before, the law requires certain minimum benefits, which many individual market plans don’t meet. Not everyone will take advantage of, or welcome, those expanded benefits, of course, and the study was looking only at the cheapest plans available on the market before and after these regulations kicked in and the exchanges opened.
Using that methodology, it calculated a wide-range of premium changes on the individual market in Virginia — from a 67 percent increase in premiums for 27-year-old males to a 19 percent decrease for males aged 64.
It didn’t include premiums for catastrophic plans, which could offer a cheaper option to those 27-year-olds. Those under age 30 can purchase catastrophic plans, which cover less than 60 percent of the average cost of health care, but these young adults won’t be eligible for subsidies if they choose such a plan.
The lowest cost catastrophic plan we found on HealthCare.gov for a young person living in Fairfax County, Va., outside of Washington, D.C., was $123.93 per month, for example. That’s $58 less than the average of the five lowest cost state plans, $182, as calculated by the Manhattan Institute without catastrophic plans. But it’s higher than the average of the five lowest cost plans before the Affordable Care Act, $109.
 
1) Correct. The proper term is "price leader"

Yes, I completely understand that you do not like the term used in the industry. Yet.. You used it anyway. Shrug.

All in all, in 37% of those areas, the price of the 2nd lowest silver plan is GOING DOWN. The people in those areas now have a more affordable choice for coverage.

Yes, 61 of those rating areas - mainly those that most likely had messed up their markets prior to obamacare - will see decreases. That leaves a whole heck of a lot not seeing those decreases.
 
Thank you. I wish you had posted the links in the first place so I would not have to challenge you. I do appreciate the opportunity to learn something... though, at first blush, this appears to be speculation about the overall changes in insurance markets pre v. post Obama care... and focuses a lot on the younger insured. It is certainly should be a surprise to no-one that one of effects of the ACA is to spread the insurance risk via pool expansion (the young subsizing the old)... it was the design. This nonetheless gives me something to ponder and research from.... and, I appreciate the fact you weren't talking out of your A...

No problem. I really didn't think it was controversial that some states had over regulated the market and caused premiums to be higher than otherwise. Those states will see benefits from Obamacare... If i had realized it would be challenged, I would have provided a link previously.
 
Yes, I completely understand that you do not like the term used in the industry. Yet.. You used it anyway. Shrug.



Yes, 61 of those rating areas - mainly those that most likely had messed up their markets prior to obamacare - will see decreases. That leaves a whole heck of a lot not seeing those decreases.

SO now you have to make up facts about how those markets were "messed up". well, even if true, this shows that ACA is "unmessing" them.

It takes an unimaginable amount of ideological blindness and hackishness to argue that an unheard of *drop* in premiums is not incredibly good. And to think you used to argue that premiums would sky rocket and that the exchanges would fail.
 
You are yet again confused. That is not the reason I provided that cite. Besides which..> You cite doesn't even address what was provided.

Yo are confused. I said nothing about why you posted the cite.
 
SO now you have to make up facts about how those markets were "messed up". well, even if true, this shows that ACA is "unmessing" them.

It takes an unimaginable amount of ideological blindness and hackishness to argue that an unheard of *drop* in premiums is not incredibly good. And to think you used to argue that premiums would sky rocket and that the exchanges would fail.

Yes, I suspect that the areas that saw premiums drops (based on the other thread with Green) are areas that were over-regulated. Obamacare is improving rates in those handful. I have always indicated that there would be states that would see lower premiums. There are also states that are seeing large premium increases not on average (due to very expensive plans reducing their costs to a level still above the lower priced) but based on the premium floor in that state/rating area.
 
Yes, I suspect that the areas that saw premiums drops (based on the other thread with Green) are areas that were over-regulated. Obamacare is improving rates in those handful. I have always indicated that there would be states that would see lower premiums. There are also states that are seeing large premium increases not on average (due to very expensive plans reducing their costs to a level still above the lower priced) but based on the premium floor in that state/rating area.

So now it's "over-regulated" even though you've presented no evidence comparing the regulations of the 50 states.

And according to the report, only 5% of the market areas are seeing the median avg increase in silver plans by more than 10%.
 
So now it's "over-regulated" even though you've presented no evidence comparing the regulations of the 50 states.

You're right. There are no states that were regulated prior to Obamacare in such a way that resulted in higher premiums than other states. :roll:

And according to the report, only 5% of the market areas are seeing the median avg increase in silver plans by more than 10%.

Wow.. Even with the most expensive companies in most areas decreasing their rates? I'm actually surprised the median is that high.
 
Last edited:
You're right. There are no states that were regulated prior to Obamacare in such a way that resulted in higher premiums than other states. :roll:

Please show us the research you've done proving which states are "over-regulated" and which are not.

Wow.. Even with the most expensive companies in most areas decreasing their rates? I'm actually surprised the median is that high.

You should be surprised. It's a historically low rate.

Thanks Obama!!
 
Please show us the research you've done proving which states are "over-regulated" and which are not.

Don't have to. Cites have been provided in many different threads and even in this very thread showing that the few states that are benefiting typically had more regulations pre-obamacare that caused rates to be higher.

You should be surprised. It's a historically low rate.

Again. It's median rate, according to you. With insurance companies that were charging too much lowering their rates and the cheaper plans (predominantly) increasing their rates it makes both the average and median look good. Not that you could be expected to understand that.
 
Don't have to. Cites have been provided in many different threads and even in this very thread showing that the few states that are benefiting typically had more regulations pre-obamacare that caused rates to be higher.

All I've seen is you claim that those states had more regs.


Again. It's median rate, according to you. With insurance companies that were charging too much lowering their rates and the cheaper plans (predominantly) increasing their rates it makes both the average and median look good. Not that you could be expected to understand that.

No, it's the median average rate, and it's rise is low by historical standards. That looks good because it *is* good.
 
All I've seen is you claim that those states had more regs.

Sorry to hear. Maybe some glasses are in order.

No, it's the median average rate, and it's rise is low by historical standards. That looks good because it *is* good.

Is it the Median rate or the average rate. Sounds like you just might be confused again.

And yes. I know that the companies with the cheapest rates increasing their rates.. and the more expensive companies lowering their rates to a level still above the new rates of the cheaper companies... *Is* great news. :roll:
 
It all maybe funny to you. I have definitely noticed you take pride upon fostering something upon the American people that majority of them did not want and still do not want.

Pretty much everything in the ACA other than the individual mandate has majority support behind it. Look no further than the remaining battleground, the Medicaid expansion, which polls well where everywhere the question is asked (even in states where intransigent GOP governors are blocking it). Yet I rarely hear the obsessive poll watchers bemoaning the injustice of those governors blocking the will of the people.

But actually.. No.. Not very many are setting them lower than the already existing companies. According to the link... in 35% of 37% of the rating areas that saw the premium floor reduced, the new entrant is offering the lowest prices. Or in other words, most new entrants are coming in with higher prices than the companies already offering.

The point of fostering competition is the effect is has on all actors in the market. If a new competitor comes in below an old one, great. If a new competitor's entrance puts pressure on an existing market actor to lower its rates or mitigate premium increases, also great. It doesn't matter where any particular insurer comes in, it matters what incentives all payers in the market are responding to. Given that insurers had imperfect information on how many competitors would be entering the market when they submitted bids last spring, the effect of this year's jump in competition will likely be more pronounced in the rates submitted next spring.

There are, without a doubt, some states that had messed up their insurance market so much that Obmacare was actually an improvement. That is the minority of states, though and I suspect a bulk of those 37% referenced above are in those states.

Changes to state regulatory environments happened at the end of 2013. Any impact that was going to have on premiums (positive or negative) is over. Attributing changes in 2015 premiums relative to 2014 premiums to a regulatory change that was already priced into 2014 premiums is lazy.

As for premium growing more slowly..> Don't forget there are many reasons for that beyond "competition" including the bailouts that go on for a couple of more years and regulators preventing increases the insurance companies beleive are needed - again, not all but many cases.

Your skepticism of the merits of competition in insurance markets is noted but I suspect the pattern of you finding yourself (un?)pleasantly surprised each fall is going to persist for some time.

Regulations... things like community rating... were causing premiiums in some states (such as CO and NH) to be higher than they otherwise would have been.

Colorado didn't have community rating prior to the ACA (the only rate restrictions in their individual market were on gender rating), nor did it have any guaranteed issue rules.
 
Changes to state regulatory environments happened at the end of 2013. Any impact that was going to have on premiums (positive or negative) is over. Attributing changes in 2015 premiums relative to 2014 premiums to a regulatory change that was already priced into 2014 premiums is lazy.

I still suspect a bulk of the 21 (I believe it was) new companies that came in with lower rates then the already existing companies are the ones that had higher regulations that caused higer rates. I do believe that the new exchange insurance companies are telling you where premiums are headed in a specific area. If the new companies are coming in with higher premiums, it's likely those areas will continue seeing increases in subsequent years. If the new companies are coming in with lower premiums, that area is likely going to be seeing lower rates over the course of time. In a minority of areas, companies are coming in with lower premiums and those states are more likely to be the ones that had higher regulations.

Colorado didn't have community rating prior to the ACA (the only rate restrictions in their individual market were on gender rating), nor did it have any guaranteed issue rules.

Actually, Colorado did have modified community rating. They had it.. Republicans got rid of it... Democrats brought it back. Keep in mind what I was responding to in the comment.

But there are more regulations than just that and CO was expected to do far better than other states in premium following O-care.
 
Back
Top Bottom