Last night, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services finally began to provide some data on how Americans will fare on Obamacare’s federally-sponsored insurance exchanges....
Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, and quadruple for men...
We look at rates for 27, 40, and 64 year olds; and rates for men and women. (Under Obamacare, rates for men and women are the same, which has the net effect of disproportionately increasing rates for men, who generally paid less under the old system.).. So, we conducted two comparisons between pre-ACA data and post-ACA data, as reported by HHS. The first comparison is between the cheapest plan available to 27-year-olds pre- and post-Obamacare. The second is between the cheapeast plan available to the average exchange participant, and to the typical 40-year-old pre-Obamacare. We would have liked to have compared rates for older individuals, but HHS didn’t report that data.
In both the 27-year-old and 40-year-old comparisons, we adjusted the pre-ACA rates to take into account people who would be charged more for insurance, or denied coverage altogether, due to a pre-existing condition, using the same methodology we’ve used in the past.
If you click on the “Your Decision” tab on our interactive map, you will now find the results, as assembled by Yevgeniy, for the 13 states plus D.C. in our original database. Here’s the bottom line: most people with average incomes will pay more under Obamacare for individually-purchased insurance than they did before.
...In the 13 states plus D.C. (which I will abbreviate as 13+DC), a 27-year-old would have to make 59 percent of the median income of his peers, or less, to come out ahead with regard to Obamacare’s subsidies. A 40-year-old would have to make less than 57 percent of the median income for his peers. On the other hand, older people fare better; the average 64-year-old who makes less than 111 percent of the median income for 64-year-olds will spend less on premiums than he did before.
However, the overall results make clear that most people will not receive enough in subsidies to counteract the degree to which Obamacare drives premiums upward. Remember that nearly two-thirds of the uninsured are under the age of 40. And that young and healthy people are essential to Obamacare; unless these individuals are willing to pay more for health insurance to subsidize everyone else, the exchanges will not serve the goal of providing coverage to the uninsured....
[h=1]As measured by Average Individual-Market Insurance[/h]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
But 0bama said our costs wouldn't go up a dime!
But 0bama said our taxes wouldn't go up a dime!
Look at it this way, someone has to pay for the 40 or 50 or however many million of people who didn't have coverage.
Anyone who believed the hokum about reducing cost and covering millions more people were truly dupes.
Look at this way...
YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING for those who don't have insurance and their emergency care. This way they have to share the cost now and it will be cheaper since they are not waiting till the last minute to end up in the emergency rooms!
Diving Mullah
Look at it this way. Wait. Look at this other way, not that first way. Okay, okay. Obamacare costs more than the previous system, covers more people with less care, costs full time employment, shifts the burden for premium payment to the young, limits coverage as dictated by IPAB, guts Medicare, and grants waivers for participation to selected groups. What's not to like?I suggest I'm paying less with emergency care, vs. adding the federal government into the management, adding new taxes, and factoring in the amount of job loss, loss of job hours (all which is income) with the increase of healthcare coverage. Do you not see the irony in the "affordable" healthcare act costing more?
Look at it this way. Wait. Look at this other way, not that first way. Okay, okay. Obamacare costs more than the previous system, covers more people with less care, costs full time employment, shifts the burden for premium payment to the young, limits coverage as dictated by IPAB, guts Medicare, and grants waivers for participation to selected groups. What's not to like?
It sure is. If an employer decides that they will pay for the employee only, and not even offer a family plan, that leaves the rest of the employee's family without coverage - and it's off to the exchanges for them, for a family policy anyway. There are all kinds of consequences to this law nobody, not even the authors, could foresee. The above may not qualify as an unforeseen consequence, but it is one way people will not be covered now when they were before. It may take a while, but they're all going to come to light. Wait until the first person covered under the ACA dies because of a software glitch. It's gonna happen. It just won't be characterized that way.Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:
The thing that bothers me is the millions that are not being covered! If those are the same millions that weren't being covered before, what was the purpose in upending the health care we all had before? If these are different millions that are not going to be covered now, what the H*** is going on?
Lots of the young are buried under college loans that have to be paid off, and if those are the same ones that are working part time jobs because that's all that is available, where are they supposed to get the money to pay for health care, too?
This is getting more ridiculous by the day!
Look at it this way. Wait. Look at this other way, not that first way. Okay, okay. Obamacare costs more than the previous system, covers more people with less care, costs full time employment, shifts the burden for premium payment to the young, limits coverage as dictated by IPAB, guts Medicare, and grants waivers for participation to selected groups. What's not to like?
I suggest I'm paying less with emergency care, vs. adding the federal government into the management, adding new taxes, and factoring in the amount of job loss, loss of job hours (all which is income) with the increase of healthcare coverage. Do you not see the irony in the "affordable" healthcare act costing more?
No where have I stated anything such as what you just described.Let me get this straight...you want to force a private corporation through federal government to charge less for the services it provides. The very service that is actually not meant as preventative but rather as after the fact and only meant stop loss of life. Then you want to add taxes for all to subsidize this expensive service for the selected few?
My solution is to dive back in the competitive market. Let insurance companies and hospitals compete for their customers and drive down costs. I'm also in favor of HSA's and catastrophic insurance for the young. I do like the requirement that insurance companies cannot deny insurance to those with pre-existing conditions so that would stay. If we have a burning need to cover those who cannot afford insurance then create a self sustaining program that would cover these folks, without requiring everyone else to pay for it with premium increases, new taxes, etc. I'd also push hard for tort reform and the ability to sell insurance across state lines. I'd certainly remove any bureaucratic "board" from making decisions on what will or will not be covered - that would be up to the insurance company and if people don't like the service they get, they can get other services that do it better for less cost. I'd also keep the IRS or any other enforcement out - that's simply inviting disaster.That is your solution as an alternative to Obamacare?...
There's plenty of ideas that have been floated for years - the talking point that there are no alternatives by the other side of the political isle is a lie.Obamacare does suck on many fronts, but it is a first step. Instead of trying to dismiss and destroy it, wouldn't it be better for everyone to come together and figure out ways to make it better?
Then you're not looking.I see no such moves from conservatives and republicans.
No where have I stated anything such as what you just described.
My solution is to dive back in the competitive market. Let insurance companies and hospitals compete for their customers and drive down costs. I'm also in favor of HSA's and catastrophic insurance for the young. I do like the requirement that insurance companies cannot deny insurance to those with pre-existing conditions so that would stay. If we have a burning need to cover those who cannot afford insurance then create a self sustaining program that would cover these folks, without requiring everyone else to pay for it with premium increases, new taxes, etc. I'd also push hard for tort reform and the ability to sell insurance across state lines. I'd certainly remove any bureaucratic "board" from making decisions on what will or will not be covered - that would be up to the insurance company and if people don't like the service they get, they can get other services that do it better for less cost. I'd also keep the IRS or any other enforcement out - that's simply inviting disaster.
Socialized healthcare is just that - the amount of taxes required to do such a thing has effects - either in the quality of care, the ability to have care, the length of time it takes to get that care, etc.
There's plenty of ideas that have been floated for years - the talking point that there are no alternatives by the other side of the political isle is a lie.
Then you're not looking.
I suggest I'm paying less with emergency care, vs. adding the federal government into the management, adding new taxes, and factoring in the amount of job loss, loss of job hours (all which is income) with the increase of healthcare coverage. Do you not see the irony in the "affordable" healthcare act costing more?
[h=1]As measured by Average Individual-Market Insurance[/h]
You go into a shoe store because you like to see what shoes they have - you can shop around healthcare the same way. You can shop around hospitals and doctors the same way.If you go to a shoe store because you see a shoe that you like and then you find out they want $500.00 for it you have an option to walk out. Are saying people should ask the ambulance to drive them from hospital to hospital asking for better pricing while in cardiac arrest?
It's very practical if you don't wait for the cardiac arrest to happen first. Perhaps a little investigation into what healthcare you need, what type of insurance you need and the ability to get insurance not just within your state but across the country is not only financially sound but VERY practical - if such a method existed. What we have right now isn't insurance - it's a misnomer. What we have is a payment plan, that looks like insurance.Not very practical. Right now hospital and insurance companies compete for customers, but how do address the problem of collusion. All hospitals are allowed to charge whatever they want. I paid (well my insurance paid) $250 for pack of ice, and $35 for two Tylenol.
We don't have free market and competitive pricing in healthcare today so your assumption and conclusion are incorrect.That is why 65% of all bankruptcies in this country are the white collar workers with serious illness in the family. This is how the free market and competitive pricing has worked in the health care field so far.
Y You can shop around hospitals and doctors the same way.
We don't have free market and competitive pricing in healthcare today so your assumption and conclusion are incorrect.
Really???...YOu are telling when you are bleeding out of your eyeballs or passing from chocking, you call few hospital around and check to see which one has the best rate available, then you call the 911 and when the ambulance arrives YOU insist to drive you to your hospital of choice?
I think someone is not being honest or have no grasp in reality!
Ockham said:It's very practical if you don't wait for the cardiac arrest to happen first. Perhaps a little investigation into what healthcare you need, what type of insurance you need and the ability to get insurance not just within your state but across the country is not only financially sound but VERY practical,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?