Failure of the Software Industry

[mpm]

About 3 million in the individual market have lost their plans so far, and tens of millions are in the works.

I want to know three things:

1) How many of those policies were sold/renewed after ACA was enacted, but before it went into effect? In other words, did insurance companies stack the deck?

2) How many of those policies were actually "insurance". I submit that a plan with a $25k deductible isn't really insurance at all, even for young, healthy people. They will still find it necessary to suck off the EmergencyRoom, or pay out of pocket, for nearly all treatment.

3) How many policies got cancelled, on average, in the years proceeding ACA? Maybe the so-called ACA-related cancellations are well within historicalindustry trends?

 

[josephkk]

It was doomed from the start - there is no way to built something that
big and complex in so little time.

The clock starts only when the final rules are available. The
2,700-page law lacks the necessary details, depending on HHS to do the
work to flesh out the law into rules that can be programmed.

The final rules were only promulgated and released after the
presidential election. Then the detail programming began.

The decision to remove the ability to browse (and price) without
registering was made very late in the game, throwing a wrench into the
works.

Here is some information on software blob sizes:

<http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/11/11/chart-a-car-has-more-lines-of-co
de-than-vista/>

Think about how long it took to get these various things to work
reasonably well.

Joe Gwinn

By the way, I made my living for 20 or 30 years as a programmer (later
called a software engineer), eventually becoming a software architect.

I hear you. Unfortunatly the management made several critical decisions
way too late to be implemented in a timely manner (given the current
structure of the system). I bet you have seen this kind of thing before.

?-/

 

[[email protected]]

I want to know three things:

1) How many of those policies were sold/renewed after ACA was enacted, but before it went into effect? In other words, did insurance companies stack the deck?

???

Last year, when these policies were sold, ACA wasn't in effect. The
insurance companies certainly knew that they would have to cancel them
this year and that those people would have to join the exchanges. IOW,
these people were already baked into the rates for the exchanges.

2) How many of those policies were actually "insurance". I submit that a plan with a $25k deductible isn't really insurance at all, even for young, healthy people. They will still find it necessary to suck off the Emergency Room, or pay out of pocket, for nearly all treatment.

How many had a $25K deductible. Zero? OTOH, $10 is rather common and
*is* insurance. I would submit that an "insurance" plan that covers
everything is not.

3) How many policies got cancelled, on average, in the years proceeding ACA? Maybe the so-called ACA-related cancellations are well within historical industry trends?

Why don't you do the research, but I would be *very* surprised if it
were more than 1% of that number (cancellations for reasons other than
non-payment). Insurance companies don't make money from people who
they cancel.

 

[mpm]

I'm snipping the reply text here only to prevent Google from line spacing it to death...

OK. Understood.
Allow me to change the questions a little bit:

1) What percentage of the policies being canceled have provisions that disallow pre-existing conditions (for example), and therefore cannot comply with ACA? Ia that the underlying reason for all the cancellations?

2) Co-pay, or deductible? $10 sounds like a co-pay number to me.
So, question remains as-is. High deductible plans are great for catastrophic care, and I agree those plans are very appealing to young healthy types.But one serious (or even not so serious) illness or accident and then what? Emergency room? Hardly "insurance".

3) I could not find numbers on pre-ACA annual cancellations. But maybe that's not the right question. How many policies CHANGED pre ACA? And by change, I mean material changes in covered services, etc... Maybe that number is in the millions? I don't know. The difference now of course is that a "change" could not leave the policy short of ACA mandates. So yesterday's "change" is today's "cancellation", if you follow that reasoning.

That said, even as an Obama supporter, I think it was really stupid of him to hammer away that folks could keep their insurance policies without really fact-checking that eventuality first!! Wow! It is downright stunning. (Note that this is not to say all those old policies "should" remain - whichis a separate issue.)

 

[[email protected]]

I'm snipping the reply text here only to prevent Google from line spacing it to death...

So don't use Google!!!

OK. Understood.

....but no one else will because you've snipped it to death. ...and
haven't done a damned thing about line lengths.

Allow me to change the questions a little bit:

1) What percentage of the policies being canceled have provisions that disallow pre-existing conditions (for example), and therefore cannot comply with ACA? Ia that the underlying reason for all the cancellations?

Pre-existing conditions aren't an issue for renewals. It's a red
herring.

2) Co-pay, or deductible?

Since you snipped it to death, I have no clue what you're asking.

$10 sounds like a co-pay number to me.

$10K deductible.

So, question remains as-is. High deductible plans are great for catastrophic care, and I agree those plans are very appealing to young healthy types. But one serious (or even not so serious) illness or accident and then what? Emergency room? Hardly "insurance".

They *are* insurance plans. A plan that pays for everything is just
pre-paid medical care. Do you buy "insurance" on oil changes for your
car? Would it make sense to you to do so?

3) I could not find numbers on pre-ACA annual cancellations. But maybe that's not the right question. How many policies CHANGED pre ACA? And by change, I mean material changes in covered services, etc... Maybe that number is in the millions? I don't know. The difference now of course is that a "change" could not leave the policy short of ACA mandates. So yesterday's "change" is today's "cancellation", if you follow that reasoning.

It's a red herring.

That said, even as an Obama supporter, I think it was really stupid of him to hammer away that folks could keep their insurance policies without really fact-checking that eventuality first!! Wow! It is downright stunning. (Note that this is not to say all those old policies "should" remain - which is a separate issue.)

He lied. People called him on it at the time but you refused to
listen, like the good little sheep you are.

 

[Greegor]

Why was it a good idea to insure higher
risk people by overcharging lower risk people?

The plan was to make young people pay
a rate that was jacked up to offset the
costs of payouts to older high risk people.

People who would have obtained a very
low rate because of their low risk
of payout should be punished and made
to pay a higher rate so that older
and high risk people get a cheaper premium?

Why was this "Robin Hood" approach to
insurance supposed to get anybody
a lower rate??

Calling "Affordable CARE" when it has
a high deductible so it would really be
"Catastrophic Medical Insurance" seems odd, too.

Catastrophic medical coverage is about
the opposite of "health care".

If Obama would have left insured people
alone and just amped up medicaid for
the working poor, it might have helped
people on the bottom end, and probably
cheaper than the Obamacare fiasco has been.

 

[RobertMacy]

...snip....all excellent observations
If Obama would have left insured people
alone and just amped up medicaid for
the working poor, it might have helped
people on the bottom end, and probably
cheaper than the Obamacare fiasco has been.

because that action would NOT have enriched the insurance industry?

The banking industry got theirs; is it possible that now the insurance
industry wants theirs? Who's next?

 

[[email protected]]

Why was it a good idea to insure higher
risk people by overcharging lower risk people?

Because it's "fair"?
Because it's possible.
But mostly because it's "for the children".

The plan was to make young people pay
a rate that was jacked up to offset the
costs of payouts to older high risk people.

Because they can. It's a "tax", you know. A "tax" can do anything.

People who would have obtained a very
low rate because of their low risk
of payout should be punished and made
to pay a higher rate so that older
and high risk people get a cheaper premium?

Why was this "Robin Hood" approach to
insurance supposed to get anybody
a lower rate??

It wasn't. It was an obvious lie. You saw it. I saw it. ...the
Slowmans and miso's of the world *STILL* don't see it. They're
impervious to the obvious.

Calling "Affordable CARE" when it has
a high deductible so it would really be
"Catastrophic Medical Insurance" seems odd, too.

Have you ever read "1984"?

Catastrophic medical coverage is about
the opposite of "health care".

It is, however, *insurance*. Health care is not.

If Obama would have left insured people
alone and just amped up medicaid for
the working poor, it might have helped
people on the bottom end, and probably
cheaper than the Obamacare fiasco has been.

Certainly cheaper, maybe even possible, but it wouldn't be "fair". It
would have relegated the "poor" into second-class healthcare (instead
of dropping everyone down six notches).

 

[[email protected]]

because that action would NOT have enriched the insurance industry?

They're not going to be enriched. They're going to go broke.

The banking industry got theirs; is it possible that now the insurance
industry wants theirs? Who's next?

Me! Me! Me!

 

[hamilton]

That said, even as an Obama supporter, I think it was really stupid of him to hammer away that folks could keep their insurance policies without really fact-checking that eventuality first!! Wow! It is downright stunning. (Note that this is not to say all those old policies "should" remain - which is a separate issue.)

Think of this another way:

The insurance companies were needing to raise rates, but could not find
an easy to cancel all those policies that did not "pay their own way",
read "not enough profit".

So, Obama asks the insurance companies how to convince the public to pay
more.

ACA was born.

 

[josephkk]

because that action would NOT have enriched the insurance industry?

The banking industry got theirs; is it possible that now the insurance
industry wants theirs? Who's next?

Well Big manufacturing got a bit (Government Motors), so maybe big oil is
next? Wall Street has been cashing in all along the line. What else is
that big and that badly mis-managed (besides big Pharma who also cashes in
with PPACA)?

?-)