Study: Insurance costs to soar under Obamacare

From CBS/Money Watch:

Oh, for the record, the Manhattan Institute (which conducted the study) is a center-left think tank.

Here is the link to the entire article: Study: Insurance costs to soar under Obamacare - CBS News

 

Obamacare is going to screw most Americans. Insurance costs have gone up for many, and will continue to go up for the rest. I got a letter last week from BCBS saying that due to the ACA (Obamacare), my plan premium will be going up from $440/month to $850/month in January. Thanks Obamacare. (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) Obama Administration.

 

>>Dear Nancy Pelosi.....you passed it ...we read it...we HATE IT/.......<<

​

 

Then why does your source say the opposite? (Not that it matters that much, but you wanted to "go on record")

 

These radical right wing America haters will never stop lying. Once they are caught in their treasonous lies, they clam up!

 

I already saw a 300% rise in rates when the state called for unisex rates, back 30 years ago.

Your right wing media cherry picks a couple of rates, they pick states that still allowed rating by gender, and then hammer you with what's happening to the rate for young men. They don't tell you that the rates will fall for other people.
Overall, if more people are paying the average person will pay less, that's just arithmetic.

 

And the former justifies the latter...how, exactly?

The rate increases I have seen are for both the 27-year-old group and the 50-year-old group (the latter hardly qualifying as "young" anymore).

As for the rates that may "fall" for others, in many cases, this is due to the subsidies that amount to the government's picking winners and losers. And, in many other cases, those "fall[ing]" rates may be the result of Medicaid, which is really second-rate (or even third-rate) healthcare insurance; and which pays so little to providers that many physicians do not even accept it...

 

So it would be better if we had 50 million Americans with no health care coverage at all, and medical expenses were the chief cause of bankruptcy.....

I'd rather we had single payer, but that needs a more Liberal congress than we managed to assemble in 2008.
It takes a serendipitous political turn of events to manage a game changing majority with our system.
ObamaCare is the law, and there's no way that is going to change for at least a couple of years, and probably a couple of decades, and when it does change, it will be a Liberal Congress replacing it with single payer.

 

Oh, I can't wait until I don't have to make any decisions, and Uncle Sam will do it all for me.

 

Affordable Care Act as long as you can afford the coverage which for incomes between 100% to 400% of the poverty line is subsidized and capped based of a percentage of income by the law no higher than 9.5% of your income for the basic silver plan so I would say its Affordable.

 

Yeah, subsidized on the backs of those whose premiums are doubling and tripling.

 

Okay lets take a case say health insurance is with costs and you select a good plan say higher silver at $15000 a year and you earn $100,000 for a family of three that is 15% of your impressive income so is affordable you still have $85,000 left you won't be on the street and still be comfortable so its Affordable. If its an issue reduce your income to where you get a subsidy if your better off and work less. I don't see the issue.

 

That is a false alternative (as you are probably aware).

Actually, it would be better if we had healthcare reform sans ObamaCare...

Yes, ObamaCare is currently "the law"; but that does not necessarily imply its irreversibility. (In 1988, for instance, catastrophic coverage for Medicare briefly became "the law"; but that law was repealed just one year later, due to the widespread outrage over it.)

It is my belief that President Obama has designed a system to fail, so that it may (eventually) be replaced with a single-payer system, such as Canada and the UK have. But the belief that this is an inevitability--even within "a couple of decades"--appears to be steeped in the Hegelian view of a historical march to the left (even if only according to the thesis/antithesis/synthesis model). And I thoroughly disagree with that fundamental view of history...

 

You're left with the fact that the US health care system was in a selectivity death spiral, and was unsustainable, something had to be done.
ObamaCare was the best thing that could be done.
There were superior solutions technically, but politically, ObamaCare was the best that could be done.
Single payer, like Medicare in Canada is a superior system, and reduces the cost to the consumer, but it is currently politically unfeasible, due to conservative opposition. Government run health care, like the NationalHealth in Britain is even more efficient, and gives the consumer the most for the money, but entrenched interests own too many legislators to make this feasible in the US for some period of time.

The constitution sets a high bar for getting something into law, but once it's law, there is a high bar to remove it.
ObamaCare just barely passed, but now that it's law, the GOP is nowhere near repealing it, and realistically the conservative version of the GOP, will never be in that position.

 

It be great to have $85,000 left, but unfortunately, taxes and other deductions would be made. Not so affordable. Premiums are going up all over the country. So are deductibles. The ACA is making health insurance anything but affordable for those that have already had health insurance, which is most of America.

 

Excuse me but insurance practice and rates are more largely a state matter so in your case what did INDIANA do to add medical providers, work with insurance companies on lower cost plans that met the demands of the ACA, expand Medicaid so the low income get insurance and tort reforms etc. Some states did add to the law California is one where they projected a budget surplus by the Medicaid expansion and people uninsured getting coverage. New York has in NYC many plans and there a relative self-employed premiums went down 22% and his family gets better coverage the state worked to add to the law.

I would argue in my example just reduce income $8000 and then the annual cap on premiums is 9.5% of your income if you save more doing that just cut your hours in the household and fall under the ACA subsidy system if its a better deal.

 

Are you asking people to cut income?

 

Actually if you try to go into a single payer system based on existing left sing US ideology you will be bankrupt in 20 years.

The US is in the dark ages on medical economics, even the most advanced thinkers there cannot see the financial benefits when the employer is removed from the equation, lifting a burden off that employer and enabling higher profits.

But it only works that way if it is a not for profit health care system. So long as the insurance companies are absolute assured of between 22% + profit etc., it will fail as it almost has in Canada, Britain etc.

There is a reason the current Conservative government is the strongest proponent of out system in history - its good for business. With no burden of health care to worry about I was able to offer my bets people extended benefits like dental and so forth.

 

That would presume that Mr. Obama is more ideologue than egotist, which is clearly not the case. Obama wants this as his "signature" more than when he came into office. What else does he have? His foreign policy is a shambles, the war on terror is not being won, the economy is gasping and won't be taking a full breath until after he's long gone, and most of his "hope and change" promises like closing Gitmo, "the most open and transparent administration in history" and now "if you like your plan you can keep it" are late night one liners for mediocre comedians.


No, his galaxy sized ego needs this and he needs it as it was written for him by his campaign contributors in the insurance industry.

 

the bill now seems to have the signatures of a number of un-note-abels.... attached to it doesnt it...

​

 

I have more self respect that to do what you suggest. The fact of the matter is that insurance companies are raising premiums on plan holders to cover the new folks. Many people are signing up for Medicaid in order to avoid the mandate. The cost of Obamacare will certainly be revised upward...yet again.

 

Decide if you need subsidies to afford an ACA plan you likely have to consider cutting your income to move to that level, so yes, but if the insurance is $20,000 and if you drop your income it becomes a lost of $15,000 saving some of the hit it may make sense. Its not ideal but if states opted not to use their authority to take the Medicaid Expansion, set up their own exchanges and then use their authority to work with insurance companies to get costs down why is it the laws fault or an issue with the law the states put people in these messes.

 

I understand. Shame the Government makes citizens jump lake that....

 

To reiterate, you are proposing a false alternative: either ObamaCare or a return to the status quo ante.

Why should one be required to embrace either?

(By the way, it now appears that ObamaCare may be about to enter this "death spiral," since the overwhelming majority of new enrolees, according to all the reports that I have seen, are enrolees in Medicaid--not private healthcare insurance--and most new enrolees in the latter are older and sicker than average...)

If you really wish to reduce the cost to the consumer, you might want to advocate managed-care plans (such as HMOs and PPOs); their insurance adjustments (based upon contractual agreements with the individual providers) can be enormous--just as they can be with Medicare, also.

I thoroughly oppose the sort of statist approach to which you appear quite congenial; but I oppose ObamaCare to an even greater degree. Contrary to what some appear to believe, ObamaCare does not represent a compromise between the two systems; but a corruption of either, that is simply indefensible.

So we should have a serious national discussion as concerning the matter of whether we would prefer a European-style system of UHC or something else--but definitely not ObamaCare (which I find much less defensible--both morally and intellectually--than European-style UHC).

I already offered one example of our "remov[ing]" a law that was widely opposed--the catastrophic coverage that was briefly offered under Medicare--and you have simply ignored it...

Yes, entirely with Democratic votes, in both chambers of Congress...

Repeal would require both a Republican-controlled Senate and a Republican president. (The House is already heavily Republican; and no serious analyst, to the best of my knowledge, thinks that this is likely to change with the 2014 midterms.)

The latter part of the equation should be much easier to accomplish, in my opinion. I was born in 1948; and only once, within my lifetime, has the same party controlled the White House for three consecutive terms. So Hillary (or any other Democrat, for that matter) starts out with some difficulty in 2016, from a historical perspective.

Control of the Senate should prove to be a bit more difficult for the GOP--though not at all impossible. Larry Sabato (whom I deeply respect) recently projected 50 seats for the Democrats versus 48 for the Republicans, with tossups in both Alaska and Arkansas. Republicans would need to win both of those tossup elections, and take the White House in 2016; or failing that, they would need to get to at least 50 Senate seats over the period of the next two elections, in addition to the presidency.

And if ObamaCare proves as vastly unpopular as I believe it will be once it is fully implemented--and there is the resulting uproar, demanding its repeal--then yes, I certainly believe that this may be accomplished.

 

I think he is both, to a very great extent. (To which would I assign the description, "more"? Dunno. It is a very close call, I think.)

This is certainly true.

Very good points, again.