LOS, there is no explanation other than this. 1/3 of the insurance companies that were writing individual insurance prior to Oct 1 elected to not participate in the exchanges due state regulation environments, cost analysis by geographic region and profit potential. After all, as far as business is concerned they are still capitalistic, but operating in a socialist environment.
They have chosen to take a wait and see attitude.
Your individual case may be a result of location or lack of competition or both. For example; living in two different counties within the same state can have different results in premium options, plans available, deductibles and provider options or all of these. Which only makes it less affordable.
This bill was not made for you or me. It was made for those already on the take. The 47%. We, being the 53%, get to pay for the 47%. So suck it buttercup, that's the way it is until such time as this thing gets reversed if ever.
The old way of underwriting, by class, has now gone to this way of underwriting because of regulation to remain profitable.
Truckers get regulated, but have little options. Either do it or find something else to do.
Insurance companies can pick and chose where, what or how they are going to do business under the regulations imposed on them. As with you or me, it's about the bottom line. They currently just have more options available to them.
Now one way to fix that problem, on a state level, is the state says to the insuarance company if you want to do business in our state, you have offer all your lines of product.
Texas did that in the 80s with property and casualty. Farmers and State Farm didn't want to underwrite homeowners or participate in the high risk insurance pool. The country ot Texas said fine. Get out altogether. Either write it all or write none. They changed their tune real fast.
A lot of states now write the polices for the consumers that the insurance companies must use to do business in that state. So the only difference between companies is price and service in reguards to P&C. Carry that over to the health line and I think you could see a big change just with that. Wouldn't need Obama care except for the susidies for the 47%.
Product lines would be the same, competion would be increased thereby driving down premiums. Etna, Blue Cross or United would then have to chose which states they want to operate in or not instead of the current system which allows them to offer employer benefits but not individual if they chose thereby limiting their bottomline.
If anyone of those would lose a customer like IBM, GE, Wholefoods or any company with 5000 plus employees because they can't write in the home state of domicile, they wouldn't be in business very long.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using EO Forums mobile app
As I have said on this from day one, this plan has NOTHING to do with providing health care, it is all about control.
