• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Forbes: Obamacare Increases Premiums By 99% For Men, 62% for Women

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,488
Reaction score
39,817
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
[h=1]As measured by Average Individual-Market Insurance[/h]

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.
HHS-27-yo-men.png


HHS-27-yo-women.png


HHS-40-yo-men.png


HHS-40-yo-women.png


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.

Rate-shock-breakeven-vs-median-income.png


...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....
 
yes.gif
More bad news for Obama and the Democrats. Very very bad news!
therethere.gif



obama-you-lie-by-joe-wilson.jpg
 
Even though I know the ACA is a disaster for the country, I take great satisfaction when people get what they deserve. Ie the Yin and the Yang, the Scales of Justice etc. And these higher costs is exactly what this nation deserves after the performance of the '08, '10 and '12 elections.

The best thing the Reps can do is allow full funding for ACA, DEMAND that O repeals all the exemptions he has given to his cronies, unions and CJ buddies, and demand that no aspect of ACA is delayed.

Hang ACA around the neck of dems like a 50lb weight and let them sink or swim.
 
[h=1]As measured by Average Individual-Market Insurance[/h]

[/FONT][/COLOR]

If you talk to idiots then yes...That report is very scary....but for those who posses minimum critical thinking skills and actually have read ACA the Obama care is as follows....

The average price for basic health coverage purchased on health insurance exchanges created by President Barack Obama's health care reform law will be $249 a month, not counting subsidies, in 48 states reviewed by the Department of Health and Human Services, according to a government report published Wednesday.

The health insurance exchanges, marketplaces for uninsured people and consumers who don't get health benefits from their employers, are scheduled to launch on Oct. 1 for an enrollment period that runs through the end of March for 2014 coverage. This latest analysis of what the health insurance plans will cost comes just six days before people will be able to find out what they'll actually pay.

"For millions of Americans, these new options will finally make health insurance work within their budget," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said during a conference call with reporters Tuesday. Reporters were provided access to the report prior to its publication.

The figures released by the Department of Health and Human Services represent averages and prices will vary widely by geographic location as well as family size, age, tobacco use and income. Even the average price of a so-called bronze plan, designed to cover 60 percent of medical expenses not counting monthly premiums, masks big variation. The average price of the cheapest bronze plan in Minnesota is $144 while in Wyoming, comparable coverage costs $425 on average, not including subsides.

For people who currently are uninsured and who qualify for financial assistance or enrollment in Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor, the average prices look to be low: 56 percent of uninsured will be able to get coverage for less than $100 a month per person, Gary Cohen, director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, said during the conference call.

The report cited examples of families and individuals who could qualify for subsidized coverage that would greatly reduce its cost, and Cohen said some low-income people will even be able to obtain a bronze plan with no monthly premium because of the subsidies.

A 27-year-old in Dallas who earns $25,000 a year will be able to purchase a bronze plan for $74 a month, including federal tax credits to discount the price. A family of four in Dallas with a $50,000 household income could choose a bronze plan for as little as $26 a month, including the subsidies. A family of four earning $50,000 a year purchasing the least expensive bronze plan would pay $36 a month in Charlotte, N.C., $32 a month in St. Louis and $24 a month in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., including subsidies.

Premiums for the cheapest silver plan on 36 state-based health insurance exchanges the federal government is at least partially managing are 16 percent lower than originally projected by the Congressional Budget Office, Cohen said.

Prices for some people who already buy their own insurance will rise above today's level, however, largely because the health care reform law doesn't allow insurance companies to exclude people with pre-existing conditions, guarantees a minimum benefits package, doesn't allow women to be charged more than men, and limits how much more older people must pay. The current market favors healthier people, but is more challenging for older and sicker people, who often can't find coverage.

Less than 4 percent of people who currently have health insurance are only covered by insurance they buy directly, as opposed to getting it through work or from a government program like Medicare. While some of these people will qualify for financial assistance, some will see higher sticker prices for coverage.

The Obama administration and the states cooperating with implementation of the health law, and some independent analysts, maintain that's why prices on today's individual market for health insurance can't accurately be compared with the cost of plans sold on the exchanges.

"There have been a lot of products on the market where people thought they had health insurance, but then they found out it didn't cover hospital visits, for example," Cohen said. Improved benefits and consumer protections in exchange plans make them more valuable, he said.

"People will have high-quality coverage that will cover essential health benefits, that will be there when they need it, and the rates they will have to pay for those plans are reasonable and good rates, particularly after the application of tax credits, when they are extremely reasonable," Cohen said.

The health care law provides tax credits on a sliding scale based on income. People earning from the federal poverty level, which is $11,490 for a single person this year, to four times that amount, or $45,960, may be eligible for financial assistance. The value of the tax credit is tied to the second-cheapest silver plan where a person lives. People who earn up to 250 percent of poverty can get extra help covering their out-of-pocket expenses. In about half the states, Medicaid benefits will be available to anyone who makes up to 133 percent of poverty, which is $15,282.

Health insurance sold on the exchanges is categorized by metal levels from bronze to silver to gold to platinum, denoting how generous their coverage is. Lower-end plans generally will have lower monthly premiums, but higher out-of-pocket costs, while higher end plans will have higher premiums and less out-of-pocket spending. People younger than 30 or who can't afford insurance even with subsidies can opt for high-deductible catastrophic plans that aren't eligible for tax credits. Nearly all legal U.S. residents are required to obtain health coverage or face a tax penalty under the law's individual mandate.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

But fortunately most people(specially on this forum) are not idiots and do have good critical thinking skills....So naturally ACA doesn't seem So scary....

:=)
 
I took a look through the data -- it doesn't look that bad to me, with a caveat.

The data are based off an average of the five least-expensive plans in the most populous zip code in each county, then weighted for pre-existing condition and sickness surcharges. That's then compared to the five least-expensive plans on the ACA exchanges as reported by HHS.

What isn't compared is how robust the ACA plans are compared to older plans or what percentage of buyers on the individual markets currently purchase the least-expensive plans. As such, there is no comparison of value between pre- and post-Obamacare plans. So the numbers reported here represent the worst-case scenario in terms of rate hikes -- young people on the individual market who don't qualify for subsidies and desire only minimal coverage. The 99% figure is derived by averaging out rate increases among all the states. In Ohio, for example, costs decrease slightly. In North Carolina, costs increase 300%. I can only assume the difference is because North Carolina has lower standards for minimum coverage and has more ground to make up to meet Obamacare's minimums.

Further, when they say most won't qualify for subsidies, that's a bit misleading. More than half of people on the individual markets will qualify for some level of subsidy. However, that's a small percentage of the population as a whole, as most people have access to qualifying employer-based plans and, thus, aren't eligible for the exchanges.

The headline makes it seem scary, but most people won't see nearly as a dramatic a change as is reported here. However, those who make more than the median income will likely pay more on the individual market, assuming they have historically opted for only the barest coverage.
 
But 0bama said our costs wouldn't go up a dime!

But 0bama said our taxes wouldn't go up a dime!
 
Of course rates are going to go up. But that is hardly the end point of increased costs. Don't forget that all of you that will not qualify for the 'benefit' (welfare) of the ACA, will get higher premiums for less quality care AND will have higher federal taxes to pay for all those that do qualify.

Seems to get right to the whole 'fairness' and 'equality' that the Constitution is about eh? It's fair to soak others to provide for others, right? :roll:
 
But 0bama said our costs wouldn't go up a dime!

But 0bama said our taxes wouldn't go up a dime!

Heya VE. :2wave: Costs wouldn't go up.....people wouldn't lose their coverages.....people wont have to change health plans.

All these problems with Obamacara and don't just luv how the Obamatons runs in always stating how it is going to be alright while looking off one word or statement to play on. Rather than note what has been stated by All.

Course like this piece here Right away.....it was they don't have data on Pre Obamacare or after. Except for one slight detail.

So, we conducted two comparisons between pre-ACA data and post-ACA data, as reported by HHS. We would have liked to have compared rates for older individuals, but HHS didn’t report that data.....snip~

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.....snip~

Yeah strangely......Obamacare didn't include any older than 64. But do note how the those Obamatons try and avoid that part about the lies.

obama-you-lie1.jpg
 
I love how libs think the money to pay the subsidies grows on trees.
 
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 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 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

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?
 
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?
 
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?

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! :eek:
 
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! :eek:
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.
 
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?

OMG, there you go, bringing logic to this argument! Honestly, this must stop, because It causes too much confusion, and gives people headaches when they can't muster a counter-attack that doesn't sound suspiciously like lockstep propaganda! In other words, carry on! :mrgreen:
 
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?

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?

That is your solution as an alternative to Obamacare?...

It would be far more cheaper and easier to implement Universal care than what you are suggesting. Other countries have implemented Universal care because it has been proven time and time again the preventative care is always cheaper and easier than emergency care. If people have insurance and a minor problem occurs they are far more likely to deal with and than wait until it gets out of hand and costly. Right now people without insurance don't have that choice...Either they have to pay out of pocket or wait and see if it goes away and if not, then we all pay for it. Hospitals know this so in order for them to cover the cost of unpaid emergency care they overcharge the insurance companies which then insurance companies pass that to the rest of us. So we the american people are left with a double whammy, high cost medical care and high cost of insurance. Obamacare is trying to stop that by forcing those without insurance to pay for their health services which in turn is subsidize by taxes as you suggested.

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?

I see no such moves from conservatives and republicans. All they want is to kill obamacare no matter the cost, even though they realize their action will hurt the economy and the country and costs jobs they are still hell bent on their course of action.

Diving Mullah
 
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?
No where have I stated anything such as what you just described.

That is your solution as an alternative to Obamacare?...
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.


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?
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.


I see no such moves from conservatives and republicans.
Then you're not looking.
 
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.

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?

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. Now of course insurance company will not pay those ridiculous over price amounts and they negotiate the price down, but for those without insurance they have no violable means of negotiation so they are stuck with those charges.

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.

Diving Mullah
 
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?

That's because you can't count. ER treatment is the most expensive way to treat patients. Period.

Due to the failure of our health care system (as a result of GOP obstructionism against universal coverage), we have about 50M Americans who get their primary care at in ERs. That's about as stupid a system as one could devise, so the GOP must have planned it.
 
[h=1]As measured by Average Individual-Market Insurance[/h]

The rightwing disinformation machine in full disinformation mode.

Since ACA is adding millions of people who currently either don't have insurance or who pay virtually nothing because their 20 years old, it will of course increase the average.

This is similar to Bush's claim that his tax cuts for billionaires would result in an average reduction of $1500 per American. Problem was he and Cheney got a $130K reduction and 99% of Americans got a $60 reduction.

Use of averages are easy to manipulate. The real issue is what are most middle and lower income people paying now and what will they be paying under ACA. Those numbers result in a reduction and more importantly, ACA will bend down the inflation curve of insurance policies, which is currently about 12% a year.

Finally the claim compares apples to oranges. ACA has a number of protections (including reviews of increases over 10% and ending of caps) which prior policies never had. So the product is better.
 
Last edited:
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?
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.

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.
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.

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.
We don't have free market and competitive pricing in healthcare today so your assumption and conclusion are incorrect.
 
Y You can shop around hospitals and doctors the same way.

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!

Diving Mullah
 
We don't have free market and competitive pricing in healthcare today so your assumption and conclusion are incorrect.

We had an entirely free market for-profit system until the 1960s. It failed miserably. Which is why we abandoned it. Too many kids dying for lack of medical treatment; too many people going bankrupt over hospital bills.

It hilarious how conservatives think history started yesterday.
 
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!

Ignoring parts of my post that doesn't fit with your narrative doesn't buy you points with me. As I stated in the post above:

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,

That still stands.
 
Back
Top Bottom