So with 2, are you saying that blue cross decided to drop Kelsey Seybold through the exchange but not through employer plans? If true, that would be interesting to know why. I know insurance companies have dropped Kelsey Seybold before (Aetna dropped them two years ago when they can't agree on pricing). Had always assume this was a trend toward trying to lower costs in the employer provided health insurance market.
Forgot about 1. Why is this irrelevant? How is this irrelevant to individual? How is this irrelevant to overall costs of health care?
Many are also saying premiums have risen drastically over the last 20 years prior to Obamacare. Many are also saying it's how odd Republicans have tried to sabotage health care policy without any substantive progress of their own plan for the last 20 years. Many are also saying Obamacare would have more enrolled people if Republicans didn't fund a campaign against it and actively tried to prevent people from getting the facts by spreading misinformation. Many are also saying this clown show poster will add nothing substantive to this discussion so there's no point responding to him. Many are probably right.
Kelsey is an expensive clinic, perhaps the most expensive you can utilize in Houston. (Which is weird.) They've had rate fights with people for years (you mentioned Aetna.) Blue Cross has kept them in their employer plans because they are popular. The individual network they use they kept Kelsey out to lower the cost because the individual market doesn't have nearly the power that the group market does. But yes, it's a cost mechanism. The point is that it taints the samples being compared because one plan has a significantly better network than the other. I think median is a bad statistical tool to use in this case.
Most frustrating part to me. Republicans had the power to make changes to healthcare for nearly a decade in the 2000s and chose to do nothing.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1 This is totally working and doesn't sound at all like Fannie and Freddie..........
well wuddya know... who would have expected this??? Obamacare is what it is -- a giveaway to the poor in exchange for votes
This is the truth. If you have an option buy from an employer or directly from the insurance company. Exchange plans are denying claims. Not the same plans.
says a random stranger It couldn't possibly have to do with all the new taxes on medical devices and drug manufacturers or all the costs going into servicing the law. no way
read post above yours http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/business/Medicare-Hospital-Billing-Data-Is-Released.html also they aren't procedures. they are ailments.
Most of the reform for Obamacare took effect on Jan 1, 2014. This article covers costs increase in the year 2012. The article basically guessed at a few possible reason(s) but at the end concluded it has no good idea why there were these increases. Although the article specifically covers years 2011 to 2012, it was also pointed out that they have no idea about not just the increases in that year, but for the last decade (and no, not just any comment, the comment is from a dr, chairman of a consulting firm and professor at Johns Hopkins.). The article basis premise isn't just about the increases (most of us already know medical costs sky rocket every year for a decade or more) but about HOW HUGE of a difference in charges for the same procedure between hospital... (and that it's good that these data are now showing up so we can least know about them and deal with them --- you know, wtf are you charging this when others are charging much less).
