Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why can't the insurance companies be the exchange? For years I have had to furnish Schedule C tax forms to my insurance company to show I had sole proprietor income. Why can't people furnish 1040s or W2s directly to the insurance company?
Why can't the insurance companies be the exchange? For years I have had to furnish Schedule C tax forms to my insurance company to show I had sole proprietor income. Why can't people furnish 1040s or W2s directly to the insurance company?
Probably because the state and federal exchanges would need access to the IRS income and other databases to verify that documentation in order to calculate subsidies. Giving that access to a private company I presume would violate all manner of privacy laws.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 03-18-2015 at 07:09 PM..
Probably because the state and federal exchanges would need access to the IRS income and other databases to verify that documentation in order to calculate subsidies. Giving that access to a private company I presume would violate all manner of privacy laws.
But the insurance companies get that same info given to them by the exchanges, so the insurance companies wind up with the info anyway.
Funny we force a mandate to make people buy something from private companies, then don't allow that private company the resource to make the mandated service possible. Instead, we require a costly middleman (the exchanges) which actually is a collection of private computer companies that share that private info between servers.
The money spent on all the exchanges could have paid for all the subsidies for years.
Maybe instead of wasting time complaining about minor policy increases, maybe you should petition your congresspeople to require health insurance companies to be not-for-profit???
It looks as if someone else is addressing that issue.
"Michael Johnson, who resigned as public policy director last week after 12 years at Blue Shield, plans to launch a public campaign calling on executives to convert the insurer into a for-profit company and return billions of dollars to the public that could be used to bolster the state's healthcare safety net. He estimates the company could be worth as much as $10 billion."
It looks as if someone else is addressing that issue.
"Michael Johnson, who resigned as public policy director last week after 12 years at Blue Shield, plans to launch a public campaign calling on executives to convert the insurer into a for-profit company and return billions of dollars to the public that could be used to bolster the state's healthcare safety net. He estimates the company could be worth as much as $10 billion."
Not to defend Blue Shield, but California is most assuredly acting on behalf of it's cash strapped state. As to that money being properly directed to fund Medi-Cal doctors and hospital rates etc, the added tax revenue from changing their status and effective tax rate will only increase costs ultimately for the insured as I do not feel confident that the state has it's citizens long term interests in mind by their actions, nor do I feel they are operating with the intent of cleaning up the insurance industry.
Though admittedly it would be nice to see a national movement in that direction, I am cynical of any altruistic motives on their part. Purley $$$$. Perhaps I'm wrong. It would be nice to think so.
Last edited by modhatter; 03-19-2015 at 03:07 AM..
California is most assuredly acting on behalf of it's cash strapped state.
You mean the state insurance commissioner is acting on behalf of the people he represents. That's his job. The public, as well as the enrollees of Blue Shield, expect to know what to get as a return on the investment that the state has made by granting Blue Shield tax-exempt status.
"One of the biggest health insurers loses its tax exemption while it's marketing itself aggressively as a not-for-profit. The public deserved to know this before open enrollment" in the state's Obamacare exchange and when employees were choosing coverage at work, Jamie Court, president of Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog, said.
"Is this the beginning of a harder look at nonprofits in healthcare? In a lot of cases, nonprofit status is exploited."
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,334 posts, read 26,079,724 times
Reputation: 3995
I get insurance through my employer. From 2014 to 2015, my rates have gone up maybe 7-8%, but that's just the specific HMO I chose. One of the options my employer provides was REDUCED in cost for 2015.
It's really hard to tell what impact Obamacare has had, however, since things have been creeping up at about the same rate (for me) for the past decade.
Obamacare has been excellent for me so far! Low cost with low copay since I currently (although not always) have a low income.
I'm still not necessarily FOR the ACA as it is since it's primary purpose is to make insurance companies money and secondary purpose is to get people healthcare.
Not sure it if it actually started out like that (i don't think that was the true intention) but that is what it is today.
Thankfully, not a jot or a tittle! We have full coverage between Medicare and our supplement plan, to include full prescription coverage, provided to us with no premium through our state retirement pension and benefits plan. We are even reimbursed for the monthly Medicare Part B premium. If I was granted a wish or two it would be that all retirees were so fortunate. Obamacare sounds like a freaking nightmare.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.