9 companies exit Nebraska’s health insurance market

Nine insurance companies are pulling out of Nebraska's major medical insurance market, and some of them cite Obamacare as the reason for their departure.

Seven of the nine companies have notified the state of their plans to leave since August. Most of them have a minor piece of the major medical market in Nebraska, and likely don't think it's worth it to make the changes necessary to comply with the federal health care law.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/11/obamacare-effect-companies-exit-nebraskas-health-insurance-market/

going down faster than I expected.

Yay! Sayonara greedy bastards!

going down faster than I expected.



Yep, what is going down is the cost of health care in America. Those insurance companies which were padding profit can no longer get away with it, and those who come in with policies which actually provide benefits to folks, will have the spoils of good old fashion American competition. Sorry, you can wish it away, but this baby is a work in progress......keep your eye on the ball....health care costs are going to be going down after two decades of run away inflation.

Dreamsglore wrote:Yay! Sayonara greedy bastards!

yep, less and less choices.....

Chrissy wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Yay! Sayonara greedy bastards!

yep, less and less choices.....

If lower premiums for everyone in the future means a few large corporations might make less profit, I am cool with that.

Chrissy's crying-at-the-sky is normal given her intelligence level. It will subside in time. Hopefully.
Thanks.

CarlSagan wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Yay! Sayonara greedy bastards!

yep, less and less choices.....

If lower premiums for everyone in the future means a few large corporations might make less profit, I am cool with that.

Chrissy's crying-at-the-sky is normal given her intelligence level. It will subside in time. Hopefully.
Thanks.

well as long as you understand that fewer choices in carriers result in fewer choices of providers which increases wait times for care, I have no issue with that. The people might though.

we may just be headed to another federally subsidized insurance program by way of federally run co opts. the next Medicaid program. The full picture hasn't panned out yet, we will have to wait and see. If this sounds appealing to you then your obvious uneducated knowledge of how the health system works is showing. Because when few docs sign up to take those plans, don't come a bitchin.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

It must suck to be forced into such extremes to make your point. Informed people know that the poor will be assisted with the healthcare premiums.
You must be soooo proud of yourself trying to mislead the ignorant and the elderly with your misinformation.
Lie, cheat, whatever it takes to try to denigrate the sitting President in any way possible from any angle.
So must be soooo proud.
Thanks.

I rarely agree with most posts to some extent, but being on both sides of this each one of you have said things that apply. I really hate agreeing with pdog, but his sign has hit the nail on the head depending on which state you live in. In Florida anyone making under 100% of FPL will not be penalized because we did not expand Medicaid this still leave's many without insurance unless they can scrape money together to purchase a plan off exchange and pay full price and let's face it many can't. Then there are people making just above 100% that don't file taxes, yep you guessed it, have to file taxes to receive a subsidy, so they are left out and they would have to pay penalty. One such woman this week would have ended up with about $75.00 premium for a decent plan, but she is over 60 and drawing wndow's ss and 135% of FPL, H & R Block told her two years ago she didn't have to file taxes because she would owe none. Well she might be able to get in to project her 2014 income but it's going to be hard. IRS is going to want to know why she hasn't filed.

Premium's will not be lower but higher. Subsidy + what you pay equals premium, which is quite a bit higher except for a few company's that won't make it in Florida.

The company's that pulled out of Nebraska except for Aetna and Humana are smaller player's and two of them have been cited by different state's over the years for their tactics. Aetna, Humana and UHC are public company's and it's hard to figure out what they have done in different state's. Aetna and UHC pulled out of California because of the state exchange's, but then went into other state's with them. Aetna is in our state playing on the Fed exchange and also Humana, but UHC is not, but UHC individual plan is golden rule and not a big share in Florida. I suppose the actuary's made these decisions.

I saw where UHC fired all those doc's in Ct I believe, that's a lot of doc's. Usually you will see a hospital or provider dump an insurance company for slow paying or contract purposes or an insurance company doing the firing for one's who are not living up to their contract by not accepting the monies agreed upon. I wonder if that was an HMO in CT, that would make a difference.

While I have stated that I believed this was good for people with uninsurable conditions or pre existing conditions, this was the only part I agree with. I can never see with this system the cost of health insurance or treatment going down. People with good subsidy's might see it this way today, but what about 3 year's down the road? I wrote a 28 yr old female the other day off exchange, best platinum all copay plan no deductible and max out of pocket $2000. Premium $345 per month. She paid about $100 more a month for maternity a benefit now mandated and all the copay's. Yep, $1200 more a year doesn't sound like much for all this now but I have a feeling if she keep's this plan her premium will be $500 per month when she turns 30. She did qualify for a subsidy, but could not use it because her husband is offered insurance at work for under 9.5% of HIS income. Yep, family glitch.

ppaca wrote:I rarely agree with most posts to some extent, but being on both sides of this each one of you have said things that apply. I really hate agreeing with pdog, but his sign has hit the nail on the head depending on which state you live in. In Florida anyone making under 100% of FPL will not be penalized because we did not expand Medicaid this still leave's many without insurance unless they can scrape money together to purchase a plan off exchange and pay full price and let's face it many can't. Then there are people making just above 100% that don't file taxes, yep you guessed it, have to file taxes to receive a subsidy, so they are left out and they would have to pay penalty. One such woman this week would have ended up with about $75.00 premium for a decent plan, but she is over 60 and drawing wndow's ss and 135% of FPL, H & R Block told her two years ago she didn't have to file taxes because she would owe none. Well she might be able to get in to project her 2014 income but it's going to be hard. IRS is going to want to know why she hasn't filed.

Premium's will not be lower but higher. Subsidy + what you pay equals premium, which is quite a bit higher except for a few company's that won't make it in Florida.

The company's that pulled out of Nebraska except for Aetna and Humana are smaller player's and two of them have been cited by different state's over the years for their tactics. Aetna, Humana and UHC are public company's and it's hard to figure out what they have done in different state's. Aetna and UHC pulled out of California because of the state exchange's, but then went into other state's with them. Aetna is in our state playing on the Fed exchange and also Humana, but UHC is not, but UHC individual plan is golden rule and not a big share in Florida. I suppose the actuary's made these decisions.

I saw where UHC fired all those doc's in Ct I believe, that's a lot of doc's. Usually you will see a hospital or provider dump an insurance company for slow paying or contract purposes or an insurance company doing the firing for one's who are not living up to their contract by not accepting the monies agreed upon. I wonder if that was an HMO in CT, that would make a difference.

While I have stated that I believed this was good for people with uninsurable conditions or pre existing conditions, this was the only part I agree with. I can never see with this system the cost of health insurance or treatment going down. People with good subsidy's might see it this way today, but what about 3 year's down the road? I wrote a 28 yr old female the other day off exchange, best platinum all copay plan no deductible and max out of pocket $2000. Premium $345 per month. She paid about $100 more a month for maternity a benefit now mandated and all the copay's. Yep, $1200 more a year doesn't sound like much for all this now but I have a feeling if she keep's this plan her premium will be $500 per month when she turns 30. She did qualify for a subsidy, but could not use it because her husband is offered insurance at work for under 9.5% of HIS income. Yep, family glitch.

 

You know what you are talking about.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/13/3685595/obamacare-enrollees-become-urban.html

2seaoat wrote:going down faster than I expected.



Yep, what is going down is the cost of health care in America.  Those insurance companies which were padding profit can no longer get away with it, and those who come in with policies which actually provide benefits to folks, will have the spoils of good old fashion American competition.   Sorry, you can wish it away, but this baby is a work in progress......keep your eye on the ball....health care costs are going to be going down after two decades of run away inflation.

How do you then explain the massive increases in premiums along with increases in the deductibles and co-pays.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyPvfEVS5R4

ppaca wrote:I rarely agree with most posts to some extent, but being on both sides of this each one of you have said things that apply. I really hate agreeing with pdog, but his sign has hit the nail on the head depending on which state you live in. In Florida anyone making under 100% of FPL will not be penalized because we did not expand Medicaid this still leave's many without insurance unless they can scrape money together to purchase a plan off exchange and pay full price and let's face it many can't. Then there are people making just above 100% that don't file taxes, yep you guessed it, have to file taxes to receive a subsidy, so they are left out and they would have to pay penalty. One such woman this week would have ended up with about $75.00 premium for a decent plan, but she is over 60 and drawing wndow's ss and 135% of FPL, H & R Block told her two years ago she didn't have to file taxes because she would owe none. Well she might be able to get in to project her 2014 income but it's going to be hard. IRS is going to want to know why she hasn't filed.

Premium's will not be lower but higher. Subsidy + what you pay equals premium, which is quite a bit higher except for a few company's that won't make it in Florida.

The company's that pulled out of Nebraska except for Aetna and Humana are smaller player's and two of them have been cited by different state's over the years for their tactics. Aetna, Humana and UHC are public company's and it's hard to figure out what they have done in different state's. Aetna and UHC pulled out of California because of the state exchange's, but then went into other state's with them. Aetna is in our state playing on the Fed exchange and also Humana, but UHC is not, but UHC individual plan is golden rule and not a big share in Florida. I suppose the actuary's made these decisions.

I saw where UHC fired all those doc's in Ct I believe, that's a lot of doc's. Usually you will see a hospital or provider dump an insurance company for slow paying or contract purposes or an insurance company doing the firing for one's who are not living up to their contract by not accepting the monies agreed upon. I wonder if that was an HMO in CT, that would make a difference.

While I have stated that I believed this was good for people with uninsurable conditions or pre existing conditions, this was the only part I agree with. I can never see with this system the cost of health insurance or treatment going down. People with good subsidy's might see it this way today, but what about 3 year's down the road? I wrote a 28 yr old female the other day off exchange, best platinum all copay plan no deductible and max out of pocket $2000. Premium $345 per month. She paid about $100 more a month for maternity a benefit now mandated and all the copay's. Yep, $1200 more a year doesn't sound like much for all this now but I have a feeling if she keep's this plan her premium will be $500 per month when she turns 30. She did qualify for a subsidy, but could not use it because her husband is offered insurance at work for under 9.5% of HIS income. Yep, family glitch.

The 60 yr. old woman has three yrs. to file back taxes. She can file at any time and be eligible.

Dreamsglore wrote:

ppaca wrote:I rarely agree with most posts to some extent, but being on both sides of this each one of you have said things that apply. I really hate agreeing with pdog, but his sign has hit the nail on the head depending on which state you live in. In Florida anyone making under 100% of FPL will not be penalized because we did not expand Medicaid this still leave's many without insurance unless they can scrape money together to purchase a plan off exchange and pay full price and let's face it many can't. Then there are people making just above 100% that don't file taxes, yep you guessed it, have to file taxes to receive a subsidy, so they are left out and they would have to pay penalty. One such woman this week would have ended up with about $75.00 premium for a decent plan, but she is over 60 and drawing wndow's ss and 135% of FPL, H & R Block told her two years ago she didn't have to file taxes because she would owe none. Well she might be able to get in to project her 2014 income but it's going to be hard. IRS is going to want to know why she hasn't filed.

Premium's will not be lower but higher. Subsidy + what you pay equals premium, which is quite a bit higher except for a few company's that won't make it in Florida.

The company's that pulled out of Nebraska except for Aetna and Humana are smaller player's and two of them have been cited by different state's over the years for their tactics. Aetna, Humana and UHC are public company's and it's hard to figure out what they have done in different state's. Aetna and UHC pulled out of California because of the state exchange's, but then went into other state's with them. Aetna is in our state playing on the Fed exchange and also Humana, but UHC is not, but UHC individual plan is golden rule and not a big share in Florida. I suppose the actuary's made these decisions.

I saw where UHC fired all those doc's in Ct I believe, that's a lot of doc's. Usually you will see a hospital or provider dump an insurance company for slow paying or contract purposes or an insurance company doing the firing for one's who are not living up to their contract by not accepting the monies agreed upon. I wonder if that was an HMO in CT, that would make a difference.

While I have stated that I believed this was good for people with uninsurable conditions or pre existing conditions, this was the only part I agree with. I can never see with this system the cost of health insurance or treatment going down. People with good subsidy's might see it this way today, but what about 3 year's down the road? I wrote a 28 yr old female the other day off exchange, best platinum all copay plan no deductible and max out of pocket $2000. Premium $345 per month. She paid about $100 more a month for maternity a benefit now mandated and all the copay's. Yep, $1200 more a year doesn't sound like much for all this now but I have a feeling if she keep's this plan her premium will be $500 per month when she turns 30. She did qualify for a subsidy, but could not use it because her husband is offered insurance at work for under 9.5% of HIS income. Yep, family glitch.

The 60 yr. old woman has three yrs. to file back taxes. She can file at any time and be eligible.

Thanks did not know that.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
“
See the image


”
It must suck to be forced into such extremes to make your point. Informed people know that the poor will be assisted with the healthcare premiums.
You must be soooo proud of yourself trying to mislead the ignorant and the elderly with your misinformation.
Lie, cheat, whatever it takes to try to denigrate the sitting President in any way possible from any angle.
So must be soooo proud.
Thanks.
------
Facts are facts even if you choose to ignore them.

ppaca wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

ppaca wrote:I rarely agree with most posts to some extent, but being on both sides of this each one of you have said things that apply. I really hate agreeing with pdog, but his sign has hit the nail on the head depending on which state you live in. In Florida anyone making under 100% of FPL will not be penalized because we did not expand Medicaid this still leave's many without insurance unless they can scrape money together to purchase a plan off exchange and pay full price and let's face it many can't. Then there are people making just above 100% that don't file taxes, yep you guessed it, have to file taxes to receive a subsidy, so they are left out and they would have to pay penalty. One such woman this week would have ended up with about $75.00 premium for a decent plan, but she is over 60 and drawing wndow's ss and 135% of FPL, H & R Block told her two years ago she didn't have to file taxes because she would owe none. Well she might be able to get in to project her 2014 income but it's going to be hard. IRS is going to want to know why she hasn't filed.

Premium's will not be lower but higher. Subsidy + what you pay equals premium, which is quite a bit higher except for a few company's that won't make it in Florida.

The company's that pulled out of Nebraska except for Aetna and Humana are smaller player's and two of them have been cited by different state's over the years for their tactics. Aetna, Humana and UHC are public company's and it's hard to figure out what they have done in different state's. Aetna and UHC pulled out of California because of the state exchange's, but then went into other state's with them. Aetna is in our state playing on the Fed exchange and also Humana, but UHC is not, but UHC individual plan is golden rule and not a big share in Florida. I suppose the actuary's made these decisions.

I saw where UHC fired all those doc's in Ct I believe, that's a lot of doc's. Usually you will see a hospital or provider dump an insurance company for slow paying or contract purposes or an insurance company doing the firing for one's who are not living up to their contract by not accepting the monies agreed upon. I wonder if that was an HMO in CT, that would make a difference.

While I have stated that I believed this was good for people with uninsurable conditions or pre existing conditions, this was the only part I agree with. I can never see with this system the cost of health insurance or treatment going down. People with good subsidy's might see it this way today, but what about 3 year's down the road? I wrote a 28 yr old female the other day off exchange, best platinum all copay plan no deductible and max out of pocket $2000. Premium $345 per month. She paid about $100 more a month for maternity a benefit now mandated and all the copay's. Yep, $1200 more a year doesn't sound like much for all this now but I have a feeling if she keep's this plan her premium will be $500 per month when she turns 30. She did qualify for a subsidy, but could not use it because her husband is offered insurance at work for under 9.5% of HIS income. Yep, family glitch.

The 60 yr. old woman has three yrs. to file back taxes. She can file at any time and be eligible.

Thanks did not know that.

There won't be a penalty if she doesn't owe anything.

CarlSagan wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Yay! Sayonara greedy bastards!

yep, less and less choices.....

If lower premiums for everyone in the future means a few large corporations might make less profit, I am cool with that.

Chrissy's crying-at-the-sky is normal given her intelligence level. It will subside in time. Hopefully.
Thanks.

It gives me so much comfort that you support having companies drop out of the industry so there'll be just a few companies who will be..... to big to fail... and that their CEO's would never line their pockets with even bigger bonuses than before... and after any bailout they might need in the future.

*****SARCASTIC SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqyFwVHhNDU

Damaged Eagle wrote:

CarlSagan wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Yay! Sayonara greedy bastards!

yep, less and less choices.....

If lower premiums for everyone in the future means a few large corporations might make less profit, I am cool with that.

Chrissy's crying-at-the-sky is normal given her intelligence level. It will subside in time. Hopefully.
Thanks.

It gives me so much comfort that you support having companies drop out of the industry so there'll be just a few companies who will be..... to big to fail... and that their CEO's would never line their pockets with even bigger bonuses than before... and after any bailout they might need in the future.

*****SARCASTIC SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqyFwVHhNDU

FYI, I disagreed with many of the corporate bailouts that went on; especially AIG. So sad your feeble attempts to stereotype me are for naught. I do not agree with your ever pessimistic view that most health insurance companies will drop out of the market. It is the law; give it a chance. If it crashes and burns, then you can laugh at the black dummy for the rest of your life. What could complete your life more than that?
Thanks.

ACA has been inflicting irreparable damage to the country for 3 years.

Hospitals have been closing, people are being laid off or put to part time work. ins co's are pulling out offering less choices which means fewer providers to provide services.

Gov is now trying to bail out some dying hospitals. rejoice!

These are just the facts.

Chrissy wrote:ACA has been inflicting irreparable damage to the country for 3 years.

Hospitals have been closing, people are being laid off or put to part time work. ins co's are pulling out offering less choices which means fewer providers to provide services.

Gov is now trying to bail out some dying hospitals. rejoice!

These are just the facts.

Wrong, again. Please stop confusing your opinion with facts.
It is impossible for the PPACA to have done what you said. What has hurt hospitals, especially not-for-profit ones, is the cuts in medicaid reimbursements that has happened over the last 3 years.
Part of the PPACA is helping hospitals modernize their infrastructure. Every hospital in the U.S. has received money to do this. This will reduce future costs, and streamline the electronic medical record system.  This is not a bailout, notwithstanding what Hannity told you. This is investing in the future.
I know, all this future talk confuses you.
Ultra-conservatives are not known for future thinking, are they?
Thanks.

In the future... please refer to cuts as "savings"... thank you for your cooperation.

CarlSagan wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

CarlSagan wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Yay! Sayonara greedy bastards!

yep, less and less choices.....

If lower premiums for everyone in the future means a few large corporations might make less profit, I am cool with that.

Chrissy's crying-at-the-sky is normal given her intelligence level. It will subside in time. Hopefully.
Thanks.

It gives me so much comfort that you support having companies drop out of the industry so there'll be just a few companies who will be..... to big to fail... and that their CEO's would never line their pockets with even bigger bonuses than before... and after any bailout they might need in the future.

*****SARCASTIC SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqyFwVHhNDU

FYI, I disagreed with many of the corporate bailouts that went on; especially AIG. So sad your feeble attempts to stereotype me are for naught. I do not agree with your ever pessimistic view that most health insurance companies will drop out of the market. It is the law; give it a chance. If it crashes and burns, then you can laugh at the black dummy for the rest of your life. What could complete your life more than that?
Thanks.

I think my evaluation of you is right on. I doubt that you had any misgivings about those bailouts. Your only desire is to satisfy your own selfish wants and needs regardless of the cost. To achieve these things you'd enslave others to accomplish your narcissistic desires while shrugging off the disastrous repercussions that ripple through the country. All this simply for your own self indulgence and narrow-minded inability to do anything other than be another lemming running towards the cliff.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SgDS-16UFA

Damaged Eagle wrote:

CarlSagan wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

CarlSagan wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Yay! Sayonara greedy bastards!

yep, less and less choices.....

If lower premiums for everyone in the future means a few large corporations might make less profit, I am cool with that.

Chrissy's crying-at-the-sky is normal given her intelligence level. It will subside in time. Hopefully.
Thanks.

It gives me so much comfort that you support having companies drop out of the industry so there'll be just a few companies who will be..... to big to fail... and that their CEO's would never line their pockets with even bigger bonuses than before... and after any bailout they might need in the future.

*****SARCASTIC SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqyFwVHhNDU

FYI, I disagreed with many of the corporate bailouts that went on; especially AIG. So sad your feeble attempts to stereotype me are for naught. I do not agree with your ever pessimistic view that most health insurance companies will drop out of the market. It is the law; give it a chance. If it crashes and burns, then you can laugh at the black dummy for the rest of your life. What could complete your life more than that?
Thanks.

I think my evaluation of you is right on. I doubt that whether you had any misgivings about those bailouts. Your only desire is to satisfy your own selfish wants and needs regardless of the cost. To achieve these things you'd enslave others to accomplish your narcissistic desires while shrugging off the disastrous repercussions that ripple through the country. All this simply for your own self indulgence and narrow-minded inability to do anything other than be another lemming running towards the cliff.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SgDS-16UFA

 

  narcissism is hard to hide.

Joanimaroni wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

CarlSagan wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

CarlSagan wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Yay! Sayonara greedy bastards!

yep, less and less choices.....

If lower premiums for everyone in the future means a few large corporations might make less profit, I am cool with that.

Chrissy's crying-at-the-sky is normal given her intelligence level. It will subside in time. Hopefully.
Thanks.

It gives me so much comfort that you support having companies drop out of the industry so there'll be just a few companies who will be..... to big to fail... and that their CEO's would never line their pockets with even bigger bonuses than before... and after any bailout they might need in the future.

*****SARCASTIC SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqyFwVHhNDU

FYI, I disagreed with many of the corporate bailouts that went on; especially AIG. So sad your feeble attempts to stereotype me are for naught. I do not agree with your ever pessimistic view that most health insurance companies will drop out of the market. It is the law; give it a chance. If it crashes and burns, then you can laugh at the black dummy for the rest of your life. What could complete your life more than that?
Thanks.

I think my evaluation of you is right on. I doubt that whether you had any misgivings about those bailouts. Your only desire is to satisfy your own selfish wants and needs regardless of the cost. To achieve these things you'd enslave others to accomplish your narcissistic desires while shrugging off the disastrous repercussions that ripple through the country. All this simply for your own self indulgence and narrow-minded inability to do anything other than be another lemming running towards the cliff.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SgDS-16UFA

 

   narcissism is hard to hide.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWf5BLUOhNM