Shocking News: NC BCBS Asks For Higher Ocare Rates

Another day, another realization that Obama lied when he said rates would come down

(WRAL) Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina has asked state regulators for a 25.7 percent average rate increase on individual insurance plans purchased under the Affordable Care Act for 2016.

Blue Cross Vice President and Chief Actuary Patrick Getzen said more than 325,000 people statewide enrolled in the insurer’s plans offered on the marketplace for 2015. Although the demographics are similar to those who enrolled in 2014, he said, the current group of clients has more chronic health conditions, such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes.

Those conditions drove more consumption of costly medical services, such as hospital admissions, MRIs, CT scans, ultrasounds and specialty prescriptions, Getzen said. Enrollees also are visiting hospital emergency rooms more than expected – the health care law was designed to provide coverage to more people so they wouldn’t resort to an ER visit for routine care.

Great googly moogly, if only someone had brought up the potential for these issues to occur, maybe Democrats would have been a bit more careful in passing the law.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

16 Responses to “Shocking News: NC BCBS Asks For Higher Ocare Rates”

  1. Michael says:

    It’s not unusual that when people get something for free without having to worry about cost that the use will grow significantly.

    In the case of healthcare, if hospital visits or procedures are low to free, you can expect people to go to the emergency room for every little sniffle.

    When people have to spend their own money there are two things that will happen.

    1. As a consumer they are more prone to only go to the doctor or emergency room when absolutely necessary.

    2. As a consumer they are prone to shop around and try to get the best deal, forcing hospitals to lower their prices to compete with the other care providers, or in some cases the option of self treatment.

    Competition breeds excellence and always benefits the poor the most. However, even with competition, there is no benefit of the charges are not made by the consumer but rather a government with the authority to take as much as they need from the sweat, blood and tears of their citizens who produce.

    And as we have seen since 2008, now they don’t even need to tax anymore, they just print the money out of thin air and the cost is realized years later through inflation.

    Just look at the reduction in portions you get at the store with a higher cost of the larger portioned goods. Even I have had to raise my prices for my services to compensate for the devalued currency.

    I wish I could just print money out of my basement as well, but I would go to jail for fraud and counterfeiting, yet it seems perfectly legit for the oh so benevolent government to perform the same action and be the Hero’s at the end of the day according to the generally ignorant public.

    Why do I believe in no government??? Because with government like this, who needs criminals….

  2. Jeffery says:

    US healthcare is not free. There are co-pays and deductibles and premiums to pay.

    Study after study have demonstrated that Americans use healthcare resources LESS than many other advanced nations, but our costs are higher because of the pay to professionals and drug costs.

    You’re right that competition would lower costs. Making it easier for foreign doctors to practice in the US would lower doctor pay by increasing the number of doctors and the number in general practice. Finding a better way to pay for drug innovation, away from our antiquated patent system, would lower drug costs. Of course, reducing doctor pay by competition and reducing drug costs by weakening the government enforced monopolies of drug companies are not politically possible in our Citizens United America. In addition, fixing the patent system would greatly reduce the money spent on patent attorneys. These factors cost Americans billions over a free market approach, all the while rewarding highly paid professionals.

    The Fed greatly “increased the money supply” by buying Treasuries to the consternation of freshwater economists who predicted hyperinflation just around the corner. This kept interest rates low and did not lead to inflation.

  3. Michael says:

    You know I could have sworn I said LOW TO NO COPAY.

    And yep, there it is… Just as I wrote it.

    Many people have low copays and deductibles, if any. In fact, if you are low income through the state, there is no COPAY or deductible.

    What essentially has occurred is that there is a significant rise in use by those who pay in and those who do not. Simple as that. When it’s damn near free or in some cases is completely free, it gets used ALOT!

    Why do you think businesses give away cheap or free stuff sometimes?? Because people show up in hoards for it and builds their consumer recognition within the market. Look at Black Friday events.

    But when the government gives stuff away, it causes businesses that extra exposure that they themselves didn’t even budget and maybe didn’t even realize was going to happen.

    The government doesn’t pay full price for what they want to give away free either, which creates plenty of shortfalls in the medical industry as well.

    But that’s what happens when you have government administrators running around acting like they are economists and business owners. They mess with markets all the time having no clue what hell they are actually doing and the long term consequences of their decisions.

    It may be a long road to hyperinflation, but it is inevitable if you inject money into a system without any real production supporting it. And swapping one type of paper for another means nothing either. The government treasury bonds are only worth as much as they can tax….. So when are taxes going to go up?

  4. david7134 says:

    Would you please take a course in economics or at least go to some of the classes at the university where you say you are a janitor. Time and again we have brought out the old saying that increasing doctors will decrease the cost of medical care. This is said by people that have no idea of what they are talking about. Certainly, increasing the amount of GOODS decreases the cost but increasing the number of service providers usually increases the cost of that service, especially in medical care. It is called a concept of economic profit, no, don’t look it up on the net as you will not get the proper definition. Take a course and get an explanation. Also, increasing the number of foreign doctors decreases the quality of care, proven time and again. So once again you have no idea of what you are talking about. Also, doctors are only responsible for about 20% of your medical bill and their charge is mandated by the great government that you so want to control our lives. In the near future, you will see doctors forming unions, then the shit is going to hit the fan and you will cry for the cost you see now.

  5. john says:

    If increasing the number of service providers increases costs, David, are you suggesting that decreasing the number of doctors would lower our medical costs ?
    Doctors have the highest median pay in the USA, just under 200,000. Fortunately we are seeing more people becoming doctors who are doing so who are not primarily motivated by money.
    Under ACA the rate of health care increases has gone down for the first time EVAH
    Most people, yes even including Republicans, are happy with with their new plans
    Is there ANY commenter here who actually has signed up for ACA?

  6. Jeffery says:


    Let’s not undersell what you typed:

    when people get something for free without having to worry about cost that the use will grow significantly


    if hospital visits or procedures are low to free

    and subsequently:

    When it’s damn near free or in some cases is completely free, it gets used ALOT!

    But do you have evidence that this applies to basic healthcare? Are healthcare resources being used “ALOT” now, compared to before the ACA? Have deductibles and co-pays and premiums dropped promoting more consumption?

  7. Michael says:

    The cost of medical treatment can be traced all the way back to how much it costs just to be a doctor, with the artificial injection of money into the education system whether through free money or tax payer backed easy to get student loans, the cost to goto collage is ridiculously high… It is, just like the housing market, over inflated and does not reflect what it would cost without all the artificial injections with Monopoly money printed by the government.

    Then of course the next level would be the steep entrance barriers just to be a doctor. God forbid we have people practicing medicine without a license.

    In some cases in my own personal experience my own research and diagnosis was accurate after finding out the “licensed” doctor’s advice was actually killing me.

    This is why government to me is a big joke. Government cannot prevent anything, it cannot protect you from stupid or lazy or greedy people…. Ultimately, your security and happiness is your own responsibility, and government created a false sense of security and happiness.

    And it is sad to see, because I was duped for a long time as well. It’s not easy breaking out of your own conditioning. Questioning everything you know and understanding that you can’t even trust your own information until you understand where you learned it from in the first place.

    We can debate the proper reforms of healthcare all day long, but if we don’t reform ourselves first, everything else is just bandaging up symptoms and not addressing the root cause of the problem, ourselves.

  8. Jeffery says:


    We understand that you wish to maintain your monopoly on healthcare and are afraid of competing with young, well-trained doctors from India. It’s a normal reaction.

    You likely support carmakers using foreign workers overseas to increase their profits at the expense of American workers, yet you don’t want competition in your line of work.

    I’m a well-paid scientist in direct competition with smart scientists from around the world who are not only here, but also in companies overseas, but I happen to think it makes us better. You think recruiting physicians from overseas will increase costs while at the same time reducing quality.

    What do you think about medical tourism? You can fly to Europe or Asia, get knee surgery and save many thousands of dollars compared to the US version. Would you try to squelch that or is that just the market at work?

    Our per capita costs of healthcare are double the global average of advanced OECD nations. Israel takes care of their citizens for less than half what we pay per person.

    Maybe it’s time we stop coddling the insurance, hospital and pharma industries and institute a truly universal system, similar to Medicare for all. Repeal Obamacare; Medicare for all!

  9. Jeffery says:


    So you would support open US borders for “medical” workers to flood what was formerly the US (in your view). You would support eliminating licensing of doctors. When word gets out that Dave the “doctor” killed 7 kids by treating them with prayer and herbs for whooping cough, people would stop going to him; the free market at work. What recourse do the parents of the dead kids have against Dave? Violence?

  10. Michael says:

    First off, the idea that you can be an illegal immigrant baffles my mind.

    On one hand immigration from one state to another has been normalized in the United States and seems to work very good.

    On the other hand we scream and yell about people moving from one state outside of the United States to one of our states here. How has anything changed??

    Why is there no outcry against people immigrating from devistated Detroit into other states and stealing jobs from locals. I don’t see such hatred and disregard for their fellow man when someone travels within the United States in hopes of a better job or laws.

    Again, it goes back to what we have been taught. Immigrants inside USA good, outside USA bad. It’s laughable.

    The next part you ridiculed me on is doctors killing people.

    Here is what you may not understand. When you are a licensed professional through the state, so long as you follow all procedures as prescribed by the license agreement, you are immune to any liability. So you ask how would an unlicensed doctor without government be held accountable? The real question is who holds licensed doctors accountable…. So long as their paperwork is straight… The answer is no one.. And guess what? Your family member dies as a result, that doctor is untouchable. The state has his back. It’s no different than the pharmaceutical industry who makes drugs that are bad for you and are immune to prosecution or liability.

    The same goes for corporations as well. They are also immune, and even if you manage to have standing against one and win in court, you are only attacking a savings account of the corporations… No management or shareholders will ever feel punished or be affected.

    Welcome to your wonderful world of government. Where the rich and powerful make all the rules to protect their interests while duping the rest of society into thinking it was their own idea and run by them.

    Government is a joke…. Unless of course you are in charge… Then it’s the greatest protector of your own interests against the rest of the world.

    Dangerous and foolish invention, invented by rulers.

  11. david7134 says:

    I like the way you hide your ignorance and stupidity. You go off on a tangent that does not make sense and for which you have no knowledge. I am concerned about Indian doctors, hardly. Go to them and then come to me for the complications. American doctors make a good bit on taking care of messes. Now, medical care is so great in the rest of the world that people flock to those areas for care. Or maybe it is the other way around. I live is a very small town in a backward state, yet I have people coming to see me from all over the world. Why, because I am an American doctor and we are damn good. But this is my desire, get rid of drug laws and let people have access to whatever drug they desire. This would allow you to treat yourself like a free person. It was the big spasm of progressives in 1913 that result in the crap we have now. By the way, most doctors I know concur with this opinion. This would also drastically reduce the number of people that I have to see. As to the quality of foreign doctor, I have Indian friends that will tell you that Indians are horrible and do not have principals. In my state, doctors have to sit on panels to determine if another doctor has committed malpractice. I can’t tell you the number of Indians that have done things just to rip people off. But you should most definitely go to one. Are you even aware that it is medicare fraud to not charge a patient?

    Yes, fewer doctors means better medical care. If you would bother to look at socialized systems, the way you reduce medical cost is to some way limit the ability to get to a doctor or keep the doctor form doing what he needs to do.

    I am at the end of my carrier and have heard this crap about health care for 50 years. My answer is to go ahead and socialize it and let the American people get what they deserve.

  12. Jeffery says:


    So the entire concept of “nations” is gone. Like I said earlier, this is fascinating. I’m surprised that the “Patriots” here haven’t attacked you for your anti-Americanism.

    Let’s say you have one area of Earth, let’s say what is now the lower 48, 300 years ago that had mostly indigenous peoples woven together in at best a loose confederation. But mostly just folks living off the land without any governments. But then, another area of the Earth, let’s call them England, did decide to form a government, raise an army and a navy, and decided they would like to have the riches of the land of milk and honey here. Couldn’t they just march in and take whatever they wished, killing those that resisted?

  13. Michael says:

    Yes and they have. Also let’s remember history is always written by the victor so we don’t necessarily know history in any sort of non biased fashion.

    What I can tell you is that I don’t believe the natives lost because of not having violent governments, but rather a lack of technology and information.

    The natives were very welcoming and there were many treaties and agreements made with the old world governments, including the newly established USA. However, as we know, violent governments tend to violate their own agreements since they are typically run by the liars, cheaters and theives.

    The natives lacked technology advanced enough to protect themselves from invasion. Natives also did not understand the concept of property and many of the tribes were nomad in nature. The concept of property being an extension of ones own life and liberty was a new lockean concept even for Europe and the English colonies. It is actually the reason we have developed faster in the last three centuries than mankind has in the last 6,000.

    And that leads me into information. The natives had no means to teach and learn from each other other than story telling. The natives were mostly naive and uneducated in the ways of self defense and security.

    Now mind you over the years of struggling with dishonest Europeans and Americans the natives became much more savage and dangerous to deal with as they started aquiring horses, guns and battle strategies learned during the battles between various European nations in the new world.

    Keep in mind as well, that it wasn’t one nation invading another land that undid the natives in the new world…. It was the massive wars brought from Europe into the new world and many alliances made that pitted natives against each other that ended them.

    So I guess the question you are asking us how is a governmentless society able to defend itself from an invasive force?

    First off let’s keep in mind that people naturally organize for safety and security reasons, but a society that has matured beyond the barbaric notions of violent government would understand that all organizations benefit everyone when force is shunned and consent is worshipped.

    When societies based on consent find themselves having to unite for their very survival, naturally those societies form standing armies called popularly called militias in America.

    To this date we still celebrate the ideas of an all volunteer military and militias are still a part of American society. Americas colonial army, which by the way has been around longer than the USA has, still practices the ideas of the importance of every individual, and the no man left behind policies established by men who fought a revolution to be free from government.

    All the things we have today are new in a world history sense. We can’t assume the American model is the last evolution of mankind organizing itself.

    Even Thomas Jefferson believed that some day far in the future, mankind would mature to the point when government would no longer be necessary.

    The American Revolution and invention of the USA is merely a transition…. It’s not the final product.

  14. david7134 says:

    I don’t desire to be mean, but the Europeans that associated with the natives did kill them, either intentionally or not. It is estimated that after first European contact, the population of the Americas was reduced by about 75% due to disease. Our relations with natives was anything but cordual. After the first few years, the intent of the US was genocide. Even the beloved Lincoln starved and killed natives at the same time that he was killing the innocents in the South. I have read that Hitler was surprised by the reaction of the US and England to his policies as he was very interested in Western history and understood that we practiced a genocidal relationship with natives. He thought that we would go along with his Jewish project, among others, as Chuchill and FDR were both on record as hating Jews (read White Smoke).

    I am actually all for open borders, endorsing the Liberaterian view. Only, we should eliminate the minimum wage, the immigrants will never be allowed to vote and no social programs.

  15. Michael says:

    I don’t think disagreeing is mean at all. I love open debate and we can all learn from each other.

    Sometimes I get annoyed when half of what I type is missed somehow, but that is my problem, hahaha

    I think the biggest problem for the natives was the fact that Europe brought their war with each other over to the new world rather than just leaving all that crap behind in Europe. But with all the vast resources open for the taking, I’m not surprised that over the 400 year time span, Europeans and Americans started being annoyed with the natives who didn’t share in the concept of property. Like I said, the European wars created savages out of just ordinary tribal people.

    No one is a winner when caught in the middle of other people’s war.

    As for Lincoln. He successfully destroyed the independence of the states and subjected them to the power of the federal government, thus violating every aspect of the Declaration of Independence and all the states’ constitutions. And all regarding federal taxes and unapportioned redistribution of that money to the states respectfully. But then again, all wars are started over money and resources, including our own revolution.

    Even right now we are fighting a war with Russia over oil pipelines in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Rather than follow our founders’ advice and ally with none but trade with all, we buy allies and trade only with those who follow our rules…. And those rules are not regarding human rights, but rather our corporate interests around the world.

    A lot of protectionism that has historically started war after war.

    Maybe someday we will just allow free market capitalism and forbid protectionism. If you can’t compete in an open and non violent way, you don’t deserve to be in business.

    I believe in natural order and law… Not religious or government order and law, because it is artificial and does not fall in line with human nature. But a few bad apples always seem to come along and screw it up for the rest of us.

    Like I said, our founders were interested in transitioning us from government control to freedom, but once you establish a monopoly of power through government, it evolves into a organization that over time centralizes all power and control into the hands of a few for their own interests. And taking away that power becomes more and more difficult as time goes on, and society becomes accustomed to it and refuse to change it until it becomes so unbearable that death is better than living with chains.

    We are still far from that point, but we will continue down this road and we will take the whole world with us to this new future hell.

    We may be able to change direction, but we as a society would have to mature beyond where we are at today… We have yet to admit we really have a problem yet.

  16. Dana says:

    How odd it is, apparently, that my dentist is an Indian (India Indian, not American Indian), since the discussion above makes it sound as though there is no foreign competition. And, at least around here, there seem to be a lot of Indians in one type of medical practice or another.

Pirate's Cove