Health Insurance Rates Could 'Double Or Even Triple' For Healthy Consumers In Obamaca

[koalabear]

Where's StinkyMORON to deny this.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...or-healthy-consumers-in-obamacares-exchanges/

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

We showed you why the last WSJ analysis was flawed: it compared apples to sail boats - and you had no rebuttal. And then we told you that the analysis didn't include people's savings from getting exchange subsidies - and you had no rebuttal.

So here you are posting another critically flawed piece of fake analysis that compares apples to sail boards and doesn't factor in subsidies. Every time you post this stuff it's all about filtering out the bits of reality that don't support what you want to hear.

 

[koalabear]

We showed you why the last WSJ analysis was flawed: it compared apples to sail boats - and you had no rebuttal. And then we told you that the analysis didn't include people's savings from getting exchange subsidies - and you had no rebuttal.

So here you are posting another critically flawed piece of fake analysis that compares apples to sail boards and doesn't factor in subsidies. Every time you post this stuff it's all about filtering out the bits of reality that don't support what you want to hear.

Another critically flawed reply for StinyMORON. Bottom line is healthy people will pay more, not less. Subsidies are cool and free right StinkyMORON.

 

[YANCEY]

Here's the bottom line. Health care is a moral issue. Either you believe everyone has a right to it or you don't...period. Many industrialized nations believe that all of its citizens do but in America where capitalism trumps everything sadly most of or institutions don't. The President is attempting to appeal to the nations sense of morality...

 

[BotanyBoy]

Here's the bottom line. Health care is a moral issue. Either you believe everyone has a right to it or you don't...period.

It's not that black and white and you know it.

I think they do have it, I just don't think the government has the right to make us buy 500 dollar aspirins in order to have it....fucking thing should cost a buck. Actually we should be getting bulk buy DISCOUNTS.

Many industrialized nations believe that all of its citizens do but in America where capitalism trumps everything sadly most of or institutions don't.

Because people like to keep their money and spend it how they see fit, not have some fuck in a suit spend it for them.

The President is attempting to appeal to the nations sense of morality...

No he's not...not even fucking CLOSE!!!! He's appealing to the HC industry who is going to make HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in the next few years off Bummer care (500 aspirins that cost a buck at 711, gee....no one is skimming cream on that shit are they ).

Follow the money...ACA is as much about protecting DNC financial interest as GOP gunning for/passing more defense spending is protecting their financial interest.

If it were really about getting as many US citizens HC we would be paying discount prices, or even just plain ol' MSRP to the HC cronies and have UHC.

Instead we got a hand full of very very very wealthy, hapy DNC supporters

 

[Ramone45]

Here's the bottom line. Health care is a moral issue. Either you believe everyone has a right to it or you don't...period. Many industrialized nations believe that all of its citizens do but in America where capitalism trumps everything sadly most of or institutions don't. The President is attempting to appeal to the nations sense of morality...

Morality?!? Holy shit, you have GOT to be kidding me

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

It's not that black and white and you know it.

I think they do have it, I just don't think the government has the right to make us buy 500 dollar aspirins in order to have it....fucking thing should cost a buck. Actually we should be getting bulk buy DISCOUNTS.

Where in the system does the $500 aspirin thing occur?

 

[mercury14]

In America freedom trumps.

Unless you're a homosexual. Or a woman. Isn't that right Mr. Republican?

Open and universal access to health care means freedom. A system where only folks with money get care is not freedom. You're on Medicare and therefore you get your drugs and medical devices paid for. Those things allow you to be free.

So yeah, you're free because of socialism. You just deny reality.

 

[koalabear]

The flaws are all in his head.

You can hear them rattle around.

 

[unregistered]

 

[jeninflorida]

We showed you why the last WSJ analysis was flawed: it compared apples to sail boats - and you had no rebuttal. And then we told you that the analysis didn't include people's savings from getting exchange subsidies - and you had no rebuttal.

So here you are posting another critically flawed piece of fake analysis that compares apples to sail boards and doesn't factor in subsidies. Every time you post this stuff it's all about filtering out the bits of reality that don't support what you want to hear.

but obamamwamma care is free!

those that believe in government, are fucking idiots

 

[lovecraft68]

Here's what I know.

I pay $182 A WEEK for medical in the seriously corrupt state of RI. Its that way because BC had a sweetheart deal for years as the only health care provider so they did what they wanted.

Then tufts and United begged to get in and they let them only to watch them raise their rates as high as BC and they are again asking to be able to raise their rates.

That is where it starts the medical field itself. Like Botany Boy said, explain why an aspirin is $500? They bill BC that much for an aspirin and they in turn raise the rates.

When RI and other stated made car insurance mandatory the first thing they did was tell the companies you have to provide affordable options, but if you do it everyone has to take it and you're making out.

When Romney made medical mandatory in Mass he did the same thing the health care providers had to base things on sliding scales and other options.

That is what needs to be done nation wide. medical is not cable, it is not a luxury and people should not have to pay so much for healthcare they can't afford to get sick because then they can't pay for their health care.

The reason of course is the same reason tobacco is still legal while the government spends millions on the evil of tobacco campaigns, because the lobbyists bribe the asshats in Washington repub and dem alike.

But if my wife and I went and got a couple of $8 an hour jobs we could get it for free!

really promotes the American dream of hard work, no?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

From what I see a 1/2 cent sales tax covers 95% of what medical services most people need. Where we lose our asses is with inpatient psychiatric care, folks with chronic addictions, gunshot-knife wounds, premies, and babies with serious birth defects.

We'd be millions ahead if we made deals with ghetto girls to trade them, say, 250K tax free cash, for their ovens.

 

[tactful]

If Health Care is a right, it should be a free right, get rid of Health Insurance Companies, why should they benefit, why should they make a profit, why the fuck should they even exist, if Health Care is a right, just curious.

 

[YANCEY]

but obamamwamma care is free!

those that believe in government, are fucking idiots

Why do you hate the government so much?

 

[coastal-boy]

In America freedom trumps. If we had a right to it, I wouldn't had to spend a lifetime working my ass off to pay for it.

You didn't earn it by yourself...the Union Work Force you managed earned it for you just as much as you did. But I'm confident you still smile when you talk of creamed corn as well.

 

[jeninnflorida]

Where's StinkyMORON to deny this.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...or-healthy-consumers-in-obamacares-exchanges/

You might be the stupidest sonofabitch I know.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If Health Care is a right, it should be a free right, get rid of Health Insurance Companies, why should they benefit, why should they make a profit, why the fuck should they even exist, if Health Care is a right, just curious.

How do you come to this conclusion?

 

[imalickin]

Here's the bottom line. Health care is a moral issue. Either you believe everyone has a right to it or you don't...period. Many industrialized nations believe that all of its citizens do but in America where capitalism trumps everything sadly most of or institutions don't. The President is attempting to appeal to the nations sense of morality...

Yo dumbass, everyone does have access to healthcare...you moron. It the medical payment plans that not everyone has that is what the battle is about. I still don't understand why they call it insurance...it's medical payment plans.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yo dumbass, everyone does have access to healthcare...you moron. It the medical payment plans that not everyone has that is what the battle is about. I still don't understand why they call it insurance...it's medical payment plans.

They call it insurance because it's insurance and not a medical payment plan. A medical payment plan would be like credit, you'd pay it all just over a stretch of time unlike insurance where you pay your deductible and the company covers the rest.

 

[landslider2000]

Obamacare remains quite "affordable" for illegal immigrants who will get it free in the many rural and urban clinics.

 

[dan_c00000]

The real reason why healthcare is expensive is because the healthcare companies are basically scum:

Some experts say Kaiser intentionally bid high to avoid drawing too many customers next year who are sick or who have been uninsured for years and may be costlier to treat.

And not treating people like crap:

Part of these cost increases are due to Obamacare's requirements that health insurance companies provide better benefits including maternity care and prescription drugs, accept any customer regardless of pre-existing conditions, and not charge older people more than three times what younger people pay.


Obamacare Is Already Working: Three Things You Need To Know About The Future Of Health Care
by Evan McMurry | 5:20 pm, June 2nd, 2013Column» 59 comments












So is it a train wreck?

That was the dire warning of Max Baucus (D-Don’t Let The Door Hit You), when he lamented the challenge of implementing a bill as big and unwieldy as Obamacare the Affordable Care Act.

But as the ACA nears its official 2014 implementation deadline, the emerging data suggest the bill is actually over-performing. (And with Republicans lowering expectations by pushing the #trainwreck line, “better than expected” is actually covering the spread.)

In assessing the ACA’s success or failure, it helps to remember the aims of the bill when it was passed in 2009, goals that were various and mutually reinforcing: to expand coverage, especially to those who couldn’t afford health insurance on the current market; to lower health care costs (aka “bending the cost curve”); to improve Americans’ health overall; and to shrink deficits by reducing the amount spent by both the federal government and individuals on health care. Obviously, these goals overlap: lower costs help reduce deficits; getting more people on insurance plans earlier keeps them healthier, which reduces costs down the line, and so forth.

With all that in mind, here are three areas where we have preliminary data:

1. State Exchanges

The ACA requires states to set up insurance exchanges for people who don’t have employer-offered plans. One of the primary legitimate (a.k.a. sub-”Death Panel”) concerns was that the ACA’s regulations would scare insurers from the exchanges.

This isn’t happening. Here’s the New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn, who will be the Robert Caro of this bill by the time he’s done:


On Thursday, the administration announced it expects the FFMs [federally facilitated mandates] to have more than sufficient competition. At least one new insurer will be offering plans in about three-fourths of the FFMs, according to the administration, and 90 percent of “target enrollees” (people the administration is hoping will use the exchanges) will be able to choose from at least five different insurers. Given the poor state of competition that exists in many states today, the administration says, that’s a big improvement.

Cohn points out that initial participation in exchanges also forms a baseline that encourages others to join. He quotes Jon Kingsdale, who ran a similar exchange under Mitt Romney’s health care reform in Massachusetts and is helping with implementation on the national level. “If the Massachusetts experience is any guide,” Kingsdale said, “initially robust competition will actually spur even more entrants and competition in succeeding years.”

2. Insurance premiums

So insurers are participating in the exchanges, which helps toward the goal of insuring more people. The more insurers participating, the more competitively priced the offers. California provides a model for the reaction, and the numbers coming from Sunshine State surpass expectations. Via Ezra Klein:


The California exchange will have 13 insurance options, and the heavy competition appears to be driving down prices. The most affordable silver-level plan is charging $276-a-month. The second-most affordable plan is charging $294. And all this is before subsidies. Someone making twice the poverty line, say, will only pay $104-a-month.

[...] if California can make the law work, it shows that others can, too. And perhaps others will. We’re beginning to see competition drive down proposed rates in some exchanges around the country.

In Oregon, Klein points out, two insurers offering $400 monthly premiums refiled to offer cheaper rates after facing competition from a third company offering premiums at less than half that. “The Obama administration was ecstatic to see this,” Klein wrote. “It’s exactly what they’re hoping will happen across the country.”

3. Cadillac plans

In addition to lowering costs through additional competition, the ACA induces a heavier tax on so-called Cadillac plans, high-end insurance plans that encourage extra and more expensive health coverage. The excessive expenditures are considered one of the main drivers of health care costs.

Cadillac plans are usually offered through employers, who are now finding ways to reduce their offerings to avoid the tax. This is the most equivocal result of the early days of Obamacare, as the New York Times reported last week. The pros: companies are offering leaner packages that will decrease health care spending on the whole, leading to leaner and more affordable care, and to compensate, employers are paying more attention to health education and prevention among employees, another action that will decrease long-term costs.

The con: employer plans will become less generous and more expensive for employees, offering fewer services for higher deductibles. Quoting the Times:


The hospital where Abbey Bruce, a nursing assistant in Olympia, Wash., worked, for example, stopped offering the traditional plan that she and her husband, Casey, who has cystic fibrosis, had chosen.

Starting this year, they have a combined deductible of $2,300, compared with just $500 before. And while she was eligible for a $1,400 hospital contribution to a savings account linked to the plan, the couple is now responsible for $6,600 a year in medical expenses, in contrast to a $3,000 limit on medical bills and $2,000 limit on pharmacy costs last year. She has had to drop out of school and take on additional jobs to pay for her husband’s medicine.

In short, the Cadillac plan tax will cause lower health care costs overall in exchange for higher out-of-pocket spending. Whether that’s a fair trade-off will depend on your circumstances (or whichever PAC is bankrolling your ad). Still, families like the one profiled above will have a legitimate argument when they say that their insurance is not cheaper thanks to the ACA.

It should be noted that these are early and tentative numbers, and that there’s a certain amount of forecasting involved; the Affordable Care Act doesn’t officially roll out until January 1, 2014. But all of the above data indicate that the program will have an immediate, appreciable, and positive effect on the quality and accessibility of health care, as well as a substantive impact on health care spending over the next decade. Unless you’re running for the House of Representatives, that’s good news.