Well, Isn't This Interesting

[tskeeter]

According to an article in Forbes, www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/07/14/the-white-house-is-bribing-health-insurance-companies/ , the Department of Health and Human Services is asking insurance companies to limit expected medical insurance premium increases that would normally be announced shortly before the next elections.  (Large premium increases look more and more likely, as participation by young, healthy people is way below the projections that made the ACA sound practical.)  Given the level of regulation in the insurance industry (and the opportunity for bureaucratic arm twisting), and the CBO estimate that the Affordable Care Act would increase the number of insurance premium payers by 25 million people, the writer considers this request to be more of a directive than a voluntary accommodation.

While I take this article with some skepticism, other administration maneuvers to insulate voters from the real long term impacts of the ACA until after upcoming elections makes the writer's claims appear to have some merit.

Hold on to your hat, Gert!  It's gonna be a bumpy ride!    

[Abby Normal]

The link didn't work for me.   I tried to go to the Forbes main site to find, but I got distracted by the article about season 5 of Downton Abbey. Yes, I'm easily distracted by shiny objects.

But I guess it wouldn't surprise me that any administration would try and hold information about increases just before elections.

[tskeeter]

Jul 17, 2014 15:35:21 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

The link didn't work for me.   I tried to go to the Forbes main site to find, but I got distracted by the article about season 5 of Downton Abbey. Yes, I'm easily distracted by shiny objects.

But I guess it wouldn't surprise me that any administration would try and hold information about increases just before elections.

But, but, didn't the President tell the voters that his administration would provide a new level of transparency in government





On second thought, maybe the Adminstration is setting a new standard for transparency.  Even less.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Jul 17, 2014 15:55:16 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Jul 17, 2014 15:35:21 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

The link didn't work for me.   I tried to go to the Forbes main site to find, but I got distracted by the article about season 5 of Downton Abbey. Yes, I'm easily distracted by shiny objects.

But I guess it wouldn't surprise me that any administration would try and hold information about increases just before elections.

But, but, didn't the President tell the voters that his administration would provide a new level of transparency in government





On second thought, maybe the Adminstration is setting a new standard for transparency.  Even less.

Yeah, again, I think this is something many people promise and fail to deliver.

[buystoys]

Well, I was told I wouldn't have to change my doctor.

I forgive this administration for that fallacy because I moved 1500 miles in order to be closer to my family while taking advantage of the subsidized health care premiums. 

Strangely enough, even though I'm paying for insurance, I have to pay about $600 for DH's specialist visit next week. 

While I was working and we lived in NY, that same visit cost us about $60.

[zibazinski]

Any politician will promise anything to get elected. Big surprise.

[kittensaver]

A political machine in bed with industry giants asks for teeeeeeeeny favors in advance of an election?

I'm shocked, I tell ya, SHOCKED

[sesfw]

his administration would provide a new level of transparency

It has ............ muddier.  I don't remember anyone saying anything about clearer.

This insurance move doesn't surprise me.  Nor do the stock market increases.  I fully expect insurance rates to go up and the stock market to go down after the elections.

Politics.