I'm just going by what I heard a week ago and they didn't say October but just said in 2014.
Internal cost estimates from 17 of the nation's largest insurance companies indicate that health insurance premiums will grow an average of 100 percent under Obamacare, and that some will soar more than 400 percent, crushing the administration's goal of affordability.
New regulations, policies, taxes, fees and mandates are the reason for the unexpected "rate shock," according to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which released a report Monday based on internal documents provided by the insurance companies. The 17 companies include Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Kaiser Foundation.
the Paul Bedard newsletter! Please enter your email address below to begin receiving the Paul Bedard newsletter.
You must enter a valid email address in the field above!
Thank you for signing up for the Paul Bedard newsletter! You should receive your first newsletter very soon.
We're sorry, there was an error processing your newsletter signup. Please click here to visit our Newsletter Signup Center to register for this newsletter.
The report found that individuals will face "premium increases of nearly 100 percent on average, with potential highs eclipsing 400 percent. Meanwhile, small businesses can expect average premium increases in the small group market of up to 50 percent, with potential highs over 100 percent."
One company said that new participants in the individual market could see a premium increase of 413 percent when new requirements on age rating and required benefits are taken into account, said the report. "The average yearly cost for a new customer in the individual market grows from $1,896 to $3,708 -- a $1,812 cost increase," it added.
The key reasons for the surge in premiums include providing wider services than people are now paying for and adding less healthy people to the rolls of insured, said the report.
It concluded: "Despite promises that the law will lower costs, [Obamacare] will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially. The broken promises are numerous, and the empirical data reveal that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law's higher costs."
Insurers predict 100% to 400% Obamacare rate explosion | WashingtonExaminer.com
At his press conference Tuesday, President Obama assured Americans that, “To the 85-90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance: They’re already experiencing most of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act even if they don’t know it.”
Those benefits apparently include higher premiums. According to the Wall Street Journal, insurers are warning that premiums in the individual and small-group markets could double in the next few years. Already, they are well on their way. For example, California health insurers are proposing increases for some customers of 20 percent or more: 26 percent by Blue Cross, 22 percent by Aetna, and 20 percent by Blue Shield. In Maryland, Care First, the state’s largest insurer, has proposed a 25 percent increase for next year.
Younger and healthier Americans can expect to pay even more. According to a survey by the American Action Forum, healthy young people in the individual or small-group insurance markets can look forward to rate increases averaging as much as 169 percent.
Read more: Obamacare's 'benefits' are gradually becoming apparent | The Daily Caller
Could have had tort reform with one single Republican vote, but Republicans were more interested in seeing he President fail than the bill improve. But the core of he bill is the Republican alternative proposal to Hillarycare, as fleshed out by the Heritage Foundation and embraced by many Republicans as a free market solution to universal health care... Until Obama liked it, then it became StalinHitlerLeninKenyanMuslimCare.
| Moderator's Warning: |
Could have had tort reform with one single Republican vote, but Republicans were more interested in seeing he President fail than the bill improve. But the core of he bill is the Republican alternative proposal to Hillarycare, as fleshed out by the Heritage Foundation and embraced by many Republicans as a free market solution to universal health care... Until Obama liked it, then it became StalinHitlerLeninKenyanMuslimCare.
Defensive medicine + tort costs only around $100B. Of course the savings wouldn't be absolutely enormous, but its an easy cost to reduce right off the bat. Patient noncompliance costs around $200B a year. That's over $300B of pure waste that can be chopped down right from the get go. Mind you If we were to reduce even have of these costs, that would lead more savings in health care costs than every doctor in America working for free for a year.
Please tell me exactly which Republicans were pushing limits on flexible spending accounts, throwing another 30 million people on Medicaid, hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes, fixing premium costs to a % of income (rent control and price setting has NEVER worked in any sector, and it damn sure won't work in healthcare) and further restricting medical underwriting (the fact that I will be paying only 1/3rd in what someone who is old, obese, and has diabetes despite using less then 1/20th the amount of healthcare they use is complete bull****, through and through)?
Yeah, Republicans had the idea of an individual mandate as well as health care exchanges to shop for insurance. By itself, these may have been good ideas. But when you combine an individual mandate with restricting underwriting? That is a radical shifting of costs onto the relatively healthy for the benefit of the extremely unhealthy. When you combine these two policies together, it turns the individual mandate into a completely different animal. So saying it was a "Republican idea" is downright dishonest when you know for a fact that no Republican would support the healthcare law in its present form. Some of healthcare is about life choices, and I am staunchly against any program that attempts to punish those who make all the right choices for the benefit of those who do not.
That's funny that you mention misinformation. Because every time I bring up what is actually in the bill, most Libs want absolutely no part of that debate.
Does this worn out talking point ever get old? The bill was passed 3 years ago, and it is freely available for scrutiny on the merits of it and it alone. The bill is a train wreck, and hiding behind rhetoric and diversion tactics isn't going to save it.
Yes, they crammed the bill through using irregular procedures on the assumption that they could fix all the mistakes later.
Not one Republican voted for it! Not one.
Is this going in the direction of blaming the Republicans for Obamacare? Is that the Dems new strategy?
"Oppose anything Obama" when Obamacare was littered with Republican ideas? Why would that be?
Such things require a way to pay for them. And being opposed to paying for anything has always hurt republican credibility. Tort reform, as I said, would have little effect. As for restricting, isn't this where people go off the deep end and start talking about death panels and other such nonsense?
Because hey hate Obama? Seriously, they said it. Ask the republicans why?
I know facts are talking points, but when you answer a claim, as I did, I must refer to facts no matter when it was, factually.
It might once Obama's not in office any more. After all, it holds a lot of republican ideas.
So you agree that this entire bill is about cost shifting. Forcing people onto the system with individual mandates and limiting flexible spending accounts. The old getting paid for by the young. The obese getting paid for the in-shape. The poor getting paid for by everyone. It is by definition a moral hazard.
Because it is a terrible bill, and you still are avoiding talking about what is actually in it.
Facts would be talking about the bill. Talking points would be talking about Republicans.
And as I recall those ideas were shot down the first time. If those idea's were shot down once then what makes you think that those idea's would be acceptable now?
Oh wait...you're just using a meme....nvm.
Who do we not allow to receive necessary healthcare?As for moral hazard, allowing any segment of the population to not be able to receive necessary healthcare is not only immoral,
Who do we not allow to receive necessary healthcare?
Again, who are we denying necessary healthcare?Who should be denied? Again, denying any group eventually becomes a public health concern.
Again, who are we denying necessary healthcare?
Again, not sure that matters to the point made.
Can you provide an example of a person who could have been treated but was denied and therefore had to get that care at the ER?Many. Sure, emergencies cannot be denied from the ER, but by then it is largely too late on the whole. And quite costly. It is reactive, and not proactive. It also assures pass along costs and has led to emergency room being misused.
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?