For awhile state Division of Insurance officials were warning elected officials that only two insurance companies had signed on to sell health insurance via the new Silver State Health Insurance Exchange (SSHIX in the vernacular) under ObamaCare, and neither of those was willing to provide insurance in the rural counties.
But by the time the deadline passed and the smoke cleared, four insurance companies, all HMOs, had signed on, but only two are willing to service the rural counties — and only with considerably higher premiums, as much as 75 percent higher. Additionally, those rates announced this past week are just the preliminary figures and may change drastically after the Division of Insurance reviews all rate filings to ensure they are adequate, not excessive and non discriminatory. Final figures are not expected to be released until Sept. 1.
SSHIX breaks insurance coverage into four geographic areas:
- Southern NV: Clark & Nye Counties
- Northern NV1: Washoe County
- Northern NV2: Carson City, Douglas, Lyon and Storey Counties
- Rural NV: All other counties
Enrollment begins Oct. 1 and coverage starts Jan. 1, 2014.
Most of the rates published online are higher than current rates for individuals.
The exchange explains ObamaCare premiums may only be based on age, geographic location, family composition, and tobacco use. ObamaCare prohibits setting rates based on gender, health history, current health status, and history of being insured. There also are no annual or lifetime limits on expenditures.
“As a result, it is difficult to accurately compare the premiums shown to plans in the Nevada market prior to January 1, 2014,” the state explains.
Additionally, individuals making less than $45,960 a year and families of four with income less than $94,200 are eligible for tax credits to help defray cost.
If you choose to forgo health coverage, in 2014 you’d have to pay a fine (Or is that a tax under the Supreme Court ruling?) of $95 or 1 percent of income, which ever is more. It jumps to $325 or 2 percent in 2015 and $695 or 2.5 percent in 2016, still far cheaper than most premiums.
As for smokers, expect to pay 50 percent higher premiums, and that 50 percent penalty cannot be defrayed by tax credits. Apparently there is no penalty for mainlining heroin or snorting cocaine.
Here are the rates for the two HMOs that agreed to cover rural Nevada:
The Silver plan requires the insured to cover 30 percent of costs, while the Gold plan requires only 20 percent out of pocket.
Health Plan of Nevada and St. Mary’s rates are also available.
Here are rates from earlier this year for individuals, according to eHealth:
And those have shot up dramatically in the past year:
The federal government generously gave the state $75 million of our tax money to set up the exchange.
4TH ST8 
Are those “ehealth” numbers you presented specific to rural Nevada? I can’t tell to which jurisdiction they relate.
And are they guaranteed issue? In other words, are those rates for insurance that the carrier has to five to you? Or can they turn you down if you have a background of prostate cancer?
Nope. National figures.
Ok. So apples vs. oranges
The HPN proposed premiums are higher than COBRA premiums!
I went to eHealth and plugged in an Ely zip code for a 60-year-old male and found:
— Anthem charges $361 a month for a plan with $1,000 deductible and 30 percent copay.
— United Health was $407 for $5,000 deduct and 20 percent copay.
— Aetna has a $496 plan with $1,500 deduct and 20 percent copay.
So Anthem’s own Silver Plan under SSHIX is 180 percent higher
What happened to the “Affordable” in ACA? Oh, RIGHHHT govment subsiddy…
With all the subsidy availability its more like a huge effort to get a whole bunch of middle class people on a form of government assistance.
How about that? Yet ANOTHER huge increase in the welfare state…. can we get the change we used to have ….please?
Cause the way things look now we won’t be having any change left to spend on any of those new healthy salads at Micky D’s !!
The law of supply and demand says that if the present two companies begin making excessive profits, others will come and drive prices down.
If the two companies begin to make excessive profits, the law of supply and demand says others will come and drive prices down.
Oops Rincon. There are four, not two.
And they are all more on the exchange than they are currently charging for the same product!
In Anthem’s case way the hell more.
ACA is beginning to show itself as the health insurer support and profitability guarantee law of 2014…
Oh I guess you meant only the rurals, Rincon.
Thing is costs for the cities are following the same pattern from all four insurers.
ACA begins and prices go up for all.
Now where did we all hear that before?
of course, that “teaser rate” of $361/month assumes that the insurer will actually agree to issue you a policy. Do you have a history of tobacco smoking? Heart disease? History of cancer? then you are out of luck. Under ObamaCare, of course, the insurer has to issue you the policy.
And, of course, you conveniently ignore the fact that that at many income levels ObamaCare offers you a credit to help you pay for your insurance. That’s like ignoring the denominator! A single male, age 60, earning $98,000, gets a $250 monthly credit to help him purchase insurance. Insurance that can no longer be denied to him.
A $98,000 welfare case.
The biggest expansion of welfare ever.
Teaser rate, OK. So ACA is bringing out the real rates and forcing EVERYONE to pay them, in one way or the other.
Tax money has to come from somewhere….you offering your wallet up Nyp?
I’m sure a hard-working citizen who gets a price break on the cost of health insurance that he would otherwise not be able to obtain at any cost because of a pre-existing condition will be very interested to hear you guys describe him as some kind of welfare sponger.
By the way, Steve – if, like most Americans, you buy your health insurance through your employer’s group plan, you get a special subsidy from the government as well, for you are permitted to pay for the insurance in pre-tax dollars. Is the government discount you receive for your health insurance welfare?
By Steve’s definition, anyone that collects more benefits on an insurance policy than the total of the premiums they pay is sponging off the company. The nature of insurance, whether private or government-run is socialist in nature. Get used to it.
I failed to engage the brain before typing, Steve. I’m unfamiliar with the details. If the $250/month is to compensate for the excess premium charged due to a preexisting condition or because of his age, then it’s awkward, but perhaps kosher. If it’s just to help him pay his share, then it’s ridiculous.
“The law of supply and demand says that if the present two companies begin making excessive profits, others will come and drive prices down.”
Not necessarily. Government sometimes erects barriers to entry to prevent new companies from entering a market, which also provides the companies currently in that market a quasi-monopoly. Another example of the stacked deck you previously referred to.
R-J today predicts the whole thing will collapse under the weight of the cost of its mandates.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/individuals-cant-afford-obamacare
So Nyp, we go from pre-tax to whole tax.
AND we get to pay almost 150% MORE than an individual does today.
But no worries the guvmint to the rescue. They’s gonna tuck us under its wing and take from one o’ us to pay fo’ tha’ otha.
Someone with a gross income of near $100,000 receiving guvmint ass-istance. Just inane.
Now that you point it Nyp, we’s even includin’ them big bad super rich corporations in the guvmint welfare expansion.
Like I said the BIGGEST expansion in welfare EVER. Purty soon the whole enchilada will be run offa dis here welfare system…
Good buy USA hello socialist Europe. I guess we can only hope it halts there….though I suspect with people on the other side of the aisle actually believing they are ensuring freedom and self determination by taking it all away the path is far from fully traveled.
Sorry – I can’t tease out a coherent argument in Steve’s post in order to respond.
As for the R-J editorial, it reads, not surprisingly, like a cut & paste from some wingnut think-tank. Using as a poit of comparison “teaser rate” insurance plans that don’t actually issue policies to people with past medical conditions and which include extremely low annual and lifetime “ceilings”. Focusing on one part of thestate and ignoring others in order to cherry-pick. Making sweeping statements with no evidence whatsoever about employers dropping coverage because of non-existent group policy premium increases. And ignoring the credits individuals will be getting to help afford individual policies.
The usual misinformation.
Just remember — you guys are on the record in predicting a total economic and social disaster will take place on January 1. We will keep track of how your prediction pans out, and what it says about the credibility and usefulness of the contemporary conservative movement.
When central planner attempt to manipulate the market, they always eventually fail.
________________________________
“Sorry – I can’t tease out a coherent argument in Steve’s post in order to respond.”
Now the welfare state is expanding into the upper middle income ranges its
BIGGEST expansion of welfare EVER.
AND it only costs on hundred fifty percent MORE than what it currently costs.
How soon before the feds are looking for ways to see everyone has a house, 2 cars and 1.6 children?
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-27/politics/40864513_1_radio-address-president-barack-obama-copyright
OH yea and whoop D do. You guys are already on it.
The only reason you can’t find something to refute is cause you know you guys are full of crap.
That’s why ObamaCare doesn’t “maniulate the market.” It is a conservative approach to addressing a well-known market failure. It was designed and promoted by conservative think-tanks, and sucessfully implemented at the state level by a Republican governor.
“Just remember — you guys are on the record in predicting a total economic and social disaster will take place on January 1. We will keep track of how your prediction pans out, and what it says about the credibility and usefulness of the contemporary conservative movement.”
And if the prediction pans out, I’m sure Nyp will blame the total economic and social disaster on the sequester.
Not at all. If ObamaCare turns out to be a disaster – if rates for most Americans skyrocket, if aggregate health costs resume their upward spiral, if death panels do whatever it is that death panels do, if millions of people suddenly find that they can’t see their doctor, etc. — then the blame will fall quite clearly on people like me who advocated for ObamaCare so stenuously. Worse than that, if Mr. Mitchell’s prediction that the entire American healthcare system will go off the rails turns out to be correct, we liberals would be obligated to re-examine our entire way of thinking about politics, economics and public policy. It would be a disaster not only for the country but also for liberalism.
However, if ObamaCare succeeds — if millions of people are able to afford quality health insurance, if costs continue to go down, if people with employer-sponsored plans find little or no change in their insurance status, if the delivery of medical care becomes more efficient and cost-effective, if the economic disaster predicted by conservatives fails to materialize — what lessons should conservatives draw regarding their own worldview?
Well, Nyp, if it turns out that “costs continue to go down” because the “death panels do whatever it is that death panels do,” then I guess we’ll both be in a bit of a quandary.
We get way too weird about death in the first place. If you really want to live a long time, take care of yourself. Don’t live an unhealthy lifestyle and then expect the cavalry to come to the rescue when the inevitable occurs – unless you pay for the care. Death panels are fine. If you don’t like them, buy supplemental insurance to avoid them.
We also refuse to euthanize those who want it even if they are suffering greatly. Where’s the individual freedom in that?
On several points, Rincon, I agree.
________________________________
I also agree to a certain extent.
One of the barbers at the barber shop I go to recently died of lung cancer. On his deathbed, he told one of the other barbers, “Every cigarette was worth it.”
In the last five years of my uncle’s life, he lost both of his legs to Type 2 diabetes. It was his own fault because he refused to change his diet and lifestyle. But he never complained, never lamented that no one was taking care of him, and he was pretty happy til the moment he died.
I don’t agree that people should pay extra to avoid a visit from the death panel, but I would agree that we have no right to “live an unhealthy lifestyle and then expect the cavalry to come to the rescue when the inevitable occurs.” That all fits in with the concept of freedom and responsibility.
I kind of agree. But line-drawing is very hard. And people are naturally susceptible to the tens of billions of dollars spent every year convincing them to drink, smoke, eat cheeseburgers, sit on the couch and watch TV shows wrapped around advertisements, etc., etc.
And, for once, a rare moment of harmony is reached.
I still say those premiums are way too high. Unfortunately, I may be finding out the hard way…
Do you purchase your own insurance? Or do you get it through a company healthcare plan?
Nyp, that will be determined in coming months.
what do you mean? what kind of health insurance do you have right now? A group policy offered by an employer? Or something you buy for yourself?
How about an employer intent on trying to shrink its way out of CH11?
If you don’t get insurance through your employer but have to buy it yourself, think about this: like most Americans, my insurance is provided by my company. They get a volume discount. More importantly, the health insurance I get from my employer isn’t taxable. It is paid for in “pre tax dollars.” But if my company doesn’t offer health insurance and I have to buy it on my own, I have to buy it with my “post-tax” dollars.
Does that make sense to you?
Is it fair?
so your employer is going to work its way out of bankruptcy by shafting its employees and taking away their insurance benefits. Unfortunate. But that is how bankruptcy works. If you have to buy your own health insurance it would be unfair to be forced to do so with post-tax dollars.
“so your employer is going to work its way out of bankruptcy by shafting its employees and taking away their insurance benefits.”
Don’t make assumptions. We have no idea what they will do with health care though they are cutting heads,,,,again. An employer can only borrow and cut for so long before they run out of things to cut and money to borrow. They recently about gave away 85% of the company to a pension fund to get out of that obligation. There is not much left and shrinking only makes it worse.
I said I may have to find out the hard way. Along with quite few more.
As if ACA fixed the pre tax dollars thing. It doesn’t, though that does take some of the sting out of being forced to buy something I may not need or want. Kinda makes things equal in that regard.
State line limits are BS people should be able to shop for coverage just like we do for automobile liability today.
Then consider this, what we see with the premiums being proposed, its the old raise the price so we can give you a break and charge the same amount as before we raised the price. Oldest retail trick in the book.
Oh well, if I am one of those to be RIF’d maybe my wife and I will be pushed onto Medicaid.
I hope you do OK Steve. It sounds like Obamacare may be giving a push, but even with the old system, if your employer stopped paying for health insurance, many employees would still be without a job, insurance, or both. Those with serious preexisting conditions would either have to find another job fast (only one with insurance) or pay the monstrous premiums out of savings and perhaps jeopardize their retirement – or go without insurance entirely. Your health care options should never have been tied to your employer in the first place. Of course, the choice wasn’t really yours.
“the choice wasn’t really yours”
Some things never change.
Companies go bankrupt all the time. That is how capitalism works.One of the purposes of government is to provide individuals with some basic level of protection from the most severe economic consequences of such dislocations. Mandatory unemployment insurance, etc. Health insurance is part of that. You should never be without health insurance. And society can’t afford to pay for your care if you or a family member have to be hospitalized when you don’t have insurance. And people buying their own insurance should not be tax-disadvantaged compared to company employees.
That concept is the idea behind ObamaCare.
Basic care and average prescriptions should not require health insurance to obtain. We have a pretty good cushion if it comes to that. Making us pay for insurance we most likely will not use is simply wrong.
If it makes you feel better, since our cushion is comprised of about 1/3 after tax savings, if we have to use it we would be showing no income and we would be put on Medicaid. So Nyp you would in fact be opening up your wallet for me and my wife. I suppose I should thank you for providing something we most likely will not use.
As a taxpayer, I would much rather have you purchase a private insurance policy with some tax credit support from the government to help with the expense then have you go on Medicaid.
You should also considering purchasing a high-deductable “bronze” plan rather than a gold or silver.
You can start gathering information about your private insurance options at
healthcare.gov
If we have no income all our options are limited to Medicaid…..Thanks!
Cobra ain’t free or cheap.
No it certainly is not.. Cobra is lousy.
ACA proposed premiums are higher than the Cobra premiums I have been shown.
Of course they do come with that subsidy…