■ First up, FoIB Jeff M tips us to this breaking news lie:
"Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina requested a 25.7 percent increase to premium rates ... the N.C. Department of Insurance must approve the request ... apply only to ACA plans, meaning those purchased largely through the federally facilitated marketplace"
Why is this a lie? Because we were explicitly promised 3000% rate decreases.
Let's unpack this a bit farther: these plans affect only those bought On-Exchange, meaning that most (if not all) of them will be subsidized (why else risk the 404Care.gov security black hole?). Higher premiums mean higher subsidies, and thus higher taxes for the rest of us.
Gee, thanks!
On and, by the way?
In late-breaking "news," looks like most other Tar Heel State insureds will get to share in the joy noted above:
"Most state residents will see their health insurance costs rise next year under proposed pricing plans from insurers offering health coverage."
You're welcome!
■ Next up, Green Mountain State citizens may have dodged the aforementioned 404Care.gov bullet, but they'd be wrong:
"The online insurance marketplace that Vermont built to enroll people in private coverage under the law had extensive technical failures ... even though its residents’ subsidies appear safe for now, Vermont stands as a cautionary tale."
As readers may recall, the current SCOTUS subsidy cases are about states (like North Carolina) that outsourced their marketplace efforts to the Feds. Since Vermont went the DIY route, their citizens' subsidies should be safe (for the nonce). Still, state leaders had hoped to springboard into single-payer, and now see those plans crumbling.
Gee, darn.
■ And finally (but by no means least): you know all those folks touting the recent "success" of Open Enrollment v2.0? You know, the one where they (allegedly) enrolled an additional 10 millionsuckers folks on ObamaPlans?
Well, aside from the fact that they repeatedly (and conveniently) fail to disclose how many of those folks had been previously insured and then lost their old plans, the results themselves are, in fact, a bitter disappointment:
"A little bit of math shows that sign-ups in 2015 came in 22% below the CBO's earlier forecast."
Ooops.
So it seems that - quelle surprise! - O'Care proponents not only moved the goalpoats, they also failed to score.
Oh well: lose some, lose some.
"Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina requested a 25.7 percent increase to premium rates ... the N.C. Department of Insurance must approve the request ... apply only to ACA plans, meaning those purchased largely through the federally facilitated marketplace"
Why is this a lie? Because we were explicitly promised 3000% rate decreases.
Let's unpack this a bit farther: these plans affect only those bought On-Exchange, meaning that most (if not all) of them will be subsidized (why else risk the 404Care.gov security black hole?). Higher premiums mean higher subsidies, and thus higher taxes for the rest of us.
Gee, thanks!
On and, by the way?
In late-breaking "news," looks like most other Tar Heel State insureds will get to share in the joy noted above:
"Most state residents will see their health insurance costs rise next year under proposed pricing plans from insurers offering health coverage."
You're welcome!
■ Next up, Green Mountain State citizens may have dodged the aforementioned 404Care.gov bullet, but they'd be wrong:
"The online insurance marketplace that Vermont built to enroll people in private coverage under the law had extensive technical failures ... even though its residents’ subsidies appear safe for now, Vermont stands as a cautionary tale."
As readers may recall, the current SCOTUS subsidy cases are about states (like North Carolina) that outsourced their marketplace efforts to the Feds. Since Vermont went the DIY route, their citizens' subsidies should be safe (for the nonce). Still, state leaders had hoped to springboard into single-payer, and now see those plans crumbling.
Gee, darn.
■ And finally (but by no means least): you know all those folks touting the recent "success" of Open Enrollment v2.0? You know, the one where they (allegedly) enrolled an additional 10 million
Well, aside from the fact that they repeatedly (and conveniently) fail to disclose how many of those folks had been previously insured and then lost their old plans, the results themselves are, in fact, a bitter disappointment:
"A little bit of math shows that sign-ups in 2015 came in 22% below the CBO's earlier forecast."
Ooops.
So it seems that - quelle surprise! - O'Care proponents not only moved the goalpoats, they also failed to score.
Oh well: lose some, lose some.
Posts
