¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Does an insurance company have to participate in the insurance exchange? Can it set its own rates?

----- Original Message -----
From: Sheila Beaudry?
Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 2:25 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] ACA?is worthwhile
To: "ibmpensionissues@..."

> The cut was primarily to quit paying inflated prices to the
> insurance companies for the Medicare Advantage plans.? The
> government was paying the insurance companies 14% more to
> provide medical care than it cost the government to provide
> Medicare.? (In this case the government was more efficient
> because they didn't have to pay a lot of overhead for things
> like advertising and CEO bonuses). It also made the insurance
> companies give money back to people (or to companies if job-
> based)?if the insurance companies didn't spend at least 80-85%
> of the premium on healthcare?(so overhead couldn't be too
> large).?
>
> From: edward_berkline?
> To: ibmpensionissues@...?
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 11:56 PM
> Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive
> Consequences From Obamacare
>
> ?
> > I am retired and under Medicare. I am against the ACA?because they
> > took $750 billion from Medicare
>
> You really don't understand what is going on at all, do you?
>
> Actually, they didn't actually take anything from Medicare at
> all. What they did is reduce the projected growth of Medicare
> costs in the future.
>
> It's kind of like if your boss projects that he will give you a
> raise next year of $2000, but then comes back and tells you
> things have changed and your raise will only be $1000. You are
> still getting a raise, just not as much. But by your logic, you
> would view that as a pay cut, even though your pay actually
> increased.
>
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
> meter/article/2012/aug/15/checking-facts-700-billion-medicare-cut/
>
> --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, KenSP@... wrote:
> >
> > You are correct. But if it costs a 25 year old less under
> his/her parent's plan then buying on the exchange as an
> individual what do you think he/she will do and what will it do
> to insurance premium cost of others buying on the exchange.
> Remember IBM is self insured so they can charge anything IBM
> likes for adding adult children to IBM employee plan. If I were
> IBM I would make it costly for an employee to add an adult child
> to employee heath insurance policy,Remember if you are retired,
> the retiree health plans such as IBM are exempt from the ACA?and
> you cannot add your adult child to your insurance plan. So why
> would IBM want current employees to add adult children to their
> policy,I am retired and under Medicare. I am against the
> ACA?because they took $750 billion from Medicare. This is the
> reason the elderly population is against the ACA?and want it
> repealed. If treatment is not covered by Medicare, it is not
> covered by any supplement insurance
> policy including IBM's. They will reduce treatments to save
> this $750.? The committee of 15 will do it.----- Original
> Message -----From: Sheila Beaudry?Date: Monday, July 29, 2013
> 9:58 pmSubject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears
> Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo:
> "mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com" > Although parents
> can keep children under their insurance > coverage they don't
> have to if they don't want to.> > ?> > From: "KenSP@..." > To:
> mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com?> Sent: Monday, July
> 29, 2013 9:13 PM> Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union
> Fears Destructive > Consequences From Obamacare> > ? > The FACT
> is that very few people will pay more for > healthcare?coverage
> with Obamacare?as compared to how much they > would have paid
> out before Obamacare.> > How is this a fact. Someone had to pay
> for putting children on a > parent's health insurance policy.?
> Isn't this a result of > Obamacare?and didn't the
> insurance companies increase their > premiums to cover this.?
> So how can you say that this is a fact > very few people will be
> paying more for their insurance.? Tell > it to those people who
> do not have children under the age of 26 > and now have to pay
> more. Everyone paid more because of this change.> > This is
> proof how you make general statements which are opinions > and
> then call the facts.? > > ----- Original Message -----> From:
> "zimowski@..." > Date: Monday, July 29, 2013 8:36 pm> Subject:
> [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive > Consequences
> From Obamacare> To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > In this case, I think the following quote is very appropriate:
> > > "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a >
> duck, > > it must be a duck"> > > > --- In
> mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon > >
> wrote:> > >> > > > > > Show me a post where anyone here has said
> that they admire > > Keith
> Olbermann?or agreed with the way he behaved..... oh, > > that's
> right, you can't, 'cuz?it never happened.> > > > > > His usage
> of that phrase has nothing to do with us.> > > > > > YOUR usage
> of him is an example of a logical fallacy - look > it > > up.
> All of your arguments are bogus and ridiculous, in fact. > You >
> > can't refute a thing we've been writing, and so you choose to
> > > make ludicrous statements that have nothing to do with what
> > > we've been saying.> > > > > > It's undeniably TRUE. One
> can't legitimately demand respect > > for an opinion that's not
> based upon the facts. That's why > > Senator Daniel Patrick
> Moynihan?said that everyone is entitled > > to their own
> opinion, but not their own facts.> > > > > > And there aren't a
> different set of facts upon which we can > > each rely upon.
> There's one set of facts. That's undeniable. > > Your personal
> attacks on me, or Keith Olbermann, don't change > > that FACT
> that there's one set of
> facts that we can all avail > > ourselves of. You can't
> possibly know that your "facts are > > correct", because you
> havent' been relying upon facts! The > FACT > > is that very few
> people will pay more for healthcare coverage > > with Obamacare
> as compared to how much they would have paid > out > > before
> Obamacare.> > > > > > The only people who will pay more without
> getting a > > significant benefit are the wealthiest among us
> and those > > healthy young people who chose to not have
> insurance before > and > > who remain healthy. That's a fact.
> We're getting economies of > > scale, we're getting savings from
> people getting better care > at > > lower costs, and we're
> taxing a few people and bringing more > > people into the
> system. Obamacare actually helps our nation's > > long term
> deficit.> > > > > > All facts.> > > > > > Now, you can hold the
> opinion that you don't WANT anyone to > > pay ANY more in order
> to get millions more people covered by > >
> health insurance. I'm of the opinion that it's a great thing >
> to > > allow more people to live healthier lives. I'm of the
> opinion > > that it's better to stop tons of people every year
> from dying > as > > a result of not having healthcare insurance.
> You can certainly > > hold the opinion that you aren't willing
> to help them out. But > > you can't legitimately claim that your
> opinions are backed up > by > > facts, because they aren't.> > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----> > > From: zimowski > > >
> To: ibmpensionissues > > > Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 12:18 pm> > >
> Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive > >
> Consequences From Obamacare> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The
> statements "You have your right to your own opinions and > >
> beliefs. Not your own facts." have been popping up on this >
> forum > > quite a bit lately. I thought that this was a quote
> from Keith > > Olbermann, but decided to verify and was
> surprised to learn > that > >
> it is in fact a quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan. This fact >
> > was found in a Washington Post opinions article by Ted Koppel
> > > about opinionated well-known personalities. > > > > > > Ted
> notes: "Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted observation > >
> that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own >
> > facts," seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts > >
> opinions as though they were facts."> > > > > > Here's another
> Ted Koppel quote from the article:> > > > > > "We live now in a
> cable news universe that celebrates the > > opinions of
> Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn > > Beck, Sean
> Hannity and Bill O'Reilly - individuals who hold up > > the twin
> pillars of political partisanship and who are > > encouraged to
> do so by their parent organizations because > their > > brand of
> analysis and commentary is highly profitable."> > > > > >
> Finally a Koppel quote about Olbermann, who uses the > "everyone
> > > is entitled"
> quote more than anyone: "To witness Keith > Olbermann > > - the
> most opinionated among MSNBC's left-leaning, Fox-> baiting, > >
> money-generating hosts - suspended even briefly last week for >
> > making financial contributions to Democratic political > >
> candidates seemed like a whimsical, arcane holdover from a >
> long-> > gone era of television journalism, when the networks >
> considered > > the collection and dissemination of substantive
> and unbiased > > news to be a public trust.> > > > > > Back
> then, a policy against political contributions would > have > >
> aimed to avoid even the appearance of partisanship. But today, >
> > when Olbermann draws more than 1 million like-minded viewers >
> to > > his program every night precisely because he is avowedly,
> > > unabashedly and monotonously partisan, it is not clear what
> > > misdemeanor his donations constituted. Consistency?"> > > >
> > > My opinion is that it's hard to trust the arguments of >
> anyone > > who
> thinks that Keith Olbermann's style of debate is one that > >
> should be emulated as being non-partisan and convincing. Gets >
> > more amusing with every re-use of Moynihan's observation.> > >
> > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, "Rick b
> Cool" > > wrote:> > > >> > > > Spoken like a true person who
> doesn't like the facts and > > what they mean or imply. You have
> your right to your own > > opinions and beliefs. Not your own
> facts. You have the right > to > > not believe simple facts.
> That is nothing more than political > > zeal or religious fervor
> in denial of objective reality. A > > common trait among us
> humans, but not a particularly useful > > trait in optimizing
> outcomes.> > > > > > > > --- In
> mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, "Sam Cay" > > wrote:>
> > > > >> > > > > OK no problem , you believe your facts and I'll
> believe > > mine. I know mine are correct but not sure of yours.
> I'd > rather > > choose who/what I give my money
> to but unfortunately the > crooks > > in government don't let
> me do that. I'll leave the charity > > giving to people like
> you. You must not be on twitter based on > > the length of your
> post. Sorry I made you ramble. > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon > >
> wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Facts are facts. If
> your data source isn't correct, > then > > what you get from
> them isn't a fact, so no, it doesn't matter > > what your data
> source is - it matters whether or not what you > > get from them
> is truly a fact.> > > > > > > > > > > > Your OPINION that you
> would rather not pay for the > costs > > of providing health
> care to others is your opinion, and you're > > entitled to it.
> You aren't entitled to your own facts, however.> > > > > > > > >
> > > > And yeah, providing healthcare to those who currently > >
> can't get it will cost the wealthier among us a little bit. > >
> We're already paying for a
> significant portion of the care > they > > DO receive - the
> poorest among us only pay for a small portion > > of their care -
> the rest of us already pay for it via local > > taxes, higher
> insurance premiums, and higher costs for out of > > pocket
> medical expenses. But yeah, it WILL cost the wealthier > > among
> us more to subsidize the healthcare costs of those who > >
> aren't covered now and who have mostly refrained from getting >
> > the healthcare they've needed all along.> > > > > > > > > > >
> > In our nation, we've long ago determined that it's to > > the
> community's benefit to share resources so that we all > >
> benefit. That's why we require the community to all pay school >
> > taxes, whether they have no kids or 12 kids in the school >
> system > > - because it benefits our society to have a well-
> educated > > populace. We ALL pay for the fire department to be
> there, even > > if we never have a fire in our lifetimes and
> we're very > careful > > people.
> We ALL pay SSI, so that *if* we ever become disabled > or > >
> leave dependents without an income source, we can rest assured >
> > that they'll not be out on the street. Those are only a few >
> > examples of how we've behaved over the past century, as a
> country.> > > > > > > > > > > > That's something our nation, as
> a whole, has > determined > > is in our best interests. You
> might not think that way, and > > that's your choice, but the
> nation, as a whole, DOES think > that > > it's a good idea.> > >
> > > > > > > > > > I, myself, don't begrudge anyone else being
> provided > > healthcare. I think that everyone should have
> access to > adequate > > healthcare, and if it costs me a little
> bit, I don't mind that > > at all. The majority of the American
> public doesn't mind it > > either. Your snide remark about
> people who are "unwilling to > > help themselves" is contrary to
> the FACTS about why most > > uninsured people are uninsured.
> Most aren't uninsured due to >
> an > > active choice they've made. And most of those who aren't
> > insured > > through an active choice they've made are those
> who are young > > and healthy, and in their cases, it'll be them
> as a group, NOT > > you, who has a new financial burden to bear.
> They'll be > > subsidizing those who truly have had a need, as a
> group, for > > health insurance. And so will the rest of us be
> subsidizing > that > > group - the group who's had a need for
> better healthcare > > coverage but hasn't been able to get it.>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't have any of *my* data. There's
> data that's > > everyone's to share. > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> that data tells us that it WILL cost those among > us > > who
> can well afford it a small amount to provide coverage to > >
> millions of Americans. I don't begrudge them that service - >
> you > > do. But the data does NOT tell us that, by and large,
> that > extra > > cost will be going to people who aren't willing
> to take care > of >
> > themselves. THAT conclusion that you've leapt to is evidence
> > of > > YOUR beliefs coloring YOUR interpretation of the FACTS.
> The > > FACTS don't change. A tiny percentage of the people who
> will > be > > getting healthcare insurance now are people who
> aren't trying > to > > help themselves. Most of them are too
> poor to help themselves > or > > unable to get coverage at any
> sort of an affordable price due > to > > pre-existing conditions
> or other issues out of their control.> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----> > > > > > From:
> Sam Cay > > > > > > To: ibmpensionissues > > > > > > Sent: Fri,
> Jul 26, 2013 7:20 am> > > > > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re:
> Union Fears > Destructive > > Consequences From Obamacare> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess this
> makes the assumption that your source of > > data is
> correct.It's not just a matter of who's data you > believe > >
> but what data you
> want to believe. I am concerned when the > cost > > of any
> government program reaches in my pocket to pay for > others > >
> who are unwilling to help themselves. Whenever the word >
> subsidy > > comes into a program this is my trigger for taking
> food out of > > my families mouth. So does your data tell us
> that we will or > > will not be paying for someone unwilling to
> make their life > > better. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon > >
> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Facts are facts.
> One can't "believe" something > that's > > demonstrably false.
> One can have opinions that are different > > from another
> person, but we all share the same database of > > factual
> information upon which we should rely upon to come to > >
> differing opinions.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pointing out that
> some people are ignorant of the > > facts isn't insulting if
> they truly are ignorant of relevant > > facts! It's
> honestly portraying them. And pointing out that > some > >
> people are SO politically partisan that, when confronted with >
> > the knowledge that they're pushing a false meme that's been >
> > debunked long ago, they can't/won't acknowledge it, has >
> nothing > > to do with people "believing something different".
> Again, > > everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not
> their own > > facts. What that means is that one cannot demand
> respect and > > reverence for an opinion that's formed based
> upon lies, > > disinformation, and/or partisan beliefs rather
> than upon > facts. > > One is not "entitled" to an opinion that
> one can't support > with > > factual information.> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One of those "opinions" that is unsupportable is the
> > > false meme (see below) that there has been a mad rush to > >
> eliminate full time workers for part time workers. That ONLY > >
> works for companies that are right on the cusp of having 50 > >
> workers! It's not
> relevant for really small companies or any > > businesses with
> over 50 workers - and so, NO, one could NOT > find > > evidence
> of that happening at Macy's, for example! And besides > > that,
> the Affordable Care Act limits the ability of employers > to > >
> avoid paying penalties by hiring only part-time employees. The >
> > ACA treats part-time employees as ???????€????fulltime > >
> equivalents???????€??? by adding up the total number of hours >
> > per month worked by the part-timers. So, if they have an >
> amount > > of work to be done, it doesn't HELP them, not in ANY
> way, to > > hire more part-timers than an equivalent number of
> full-> timers. > > In fact, it'd be detrimental to their cause,
> as there'd then > be > > more workers total who might opt for
> coverage.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original
> Message-----> > > > > > > From: Rick b Cool > > > > > > > To:
> ibmpensionissues > > > > > > > Sent: Thu, Jul 25,
> 2013 7:44 pm> > > > > > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union
> Fears > > Destructive Consequences From Obamacare> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Really, Spreading lies and distoertions is OK,
> but > > revealing sinmple facts is denigrating.> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,
> "Kevin W" > > wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Rick I have
> to agree with zimowski you b > definitely > > not cool. Your
> typical mode of operation here is to denigrate > or > > insult
> those who don't agree with your point of view.> > > > > > > >
> I've watched you call people ignorant, uneducated, > > biased,
> prejudice all because they believe something different > > than
> you.> > > > > > > > If I was a practicing conservative I'd call
> it > > "typical liberal methodology" where they all believe they
> are > > superior to everyone else and have "THE" right answer.
> If you > > don't
> believe me, simply ask one, they will tell you.> > > > > > > >
> As far as the ACA, it is a good idea but a bad > piece > > of
> legislation. It was not thought out and the consequences
> ignored.> > > > > > > > For the past several years companies
> have been > > accelerating the removal of full time job
> positions and > > replacing them with part time, under 29-32
> hours to avoid the > > medical mandate. Go to any retail
> establishment, since you > seem > > to favor all things NY, drop
> by Macy's, talk to any sales > person > > over the age of 40 who
> has a history long enough to know what > is > > going on. Their
> hours are cut, not due to economy but due to > > planning for
> benefits cuts and avoidance of the ACA.> > > > > > > > Our
> current administration does nothing but blame > > the previous
> one for its woes, no responsibility just finger > > pointing,
> but try to play that game with the prior one for the > > one
> before it and you get screams of foul play.
> Obviously what > > is good for the goose isn't good for the
> gander.> > > > > > > > If congress and the administration wanted
> the > people > > to follow them,they would have ensured they
> took up such > > coverage as their only means of medical care
> before imposing > it > > on the people. Using the excuse that it
> has always been done, > > doesn't hold water. Wasn't this
> administration supposed to be > > different? Supposed to work
> "for the people". Yeah, I know, > > those damned evil
> republicans in congress won't let our poor > > president and the
> democrats get anything done. Again nothing > > more than lack of
> taking responsibility. Like the outcome or > > not, at least the
> prior president took responsibility.> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, "Rick b > > Cool"
> wrote:> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > An interesting
> conclusion. Solely based on > > complete circular reasoning, obviously
> starting with the conclusion.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Hint: most legislation is complex. Mostly > because > > of
> industry input to create confusion and loopholes and give > big
> > > corporations competitive advantages and exclusions from
> regulations.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, > > "zimowski@"
> wrote:> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > "The real issue on
> this forum is getting back > on > > topic." Really? Unlike the
> ibmpension group, the moderators of > > this group do not censor
> participant appends. It seems that > your > > style for
> participation is to criticize others that you don't > > agree
> with politically and then to suggest that anybody who > >
> responds to one of your inflammatory appends is off topic. > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regardless of one's political
> persuasion, I > > think it's now becoming quite clear that ACA
> is complicated, > > poorly understood,
> difficult to implement, and that it will be > > more expensive
> for most Americans, providing affordable care > > only to those
> who could not previously obtain/afford health > care > >
> coverage on their own. Everyone else will pay for it out of > >
> pocket while receiving lower quality services due to the added >
> > stain that will be placed on the entire health care system. >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >
>
>
>

No, per:

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, KenSP@... wrote:
>
> Does an insurance company have to participate in the insurance exchange?