It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
An early look at the cost of health insurance in 16 major cities finds that average premiums for the benchmark silver plan – the one upon which federal financial help under the Affordable Care Act to consumers is based – will decrease slightly in 2015. The new study from the Kaiser Family Foundation analyzes premiums in the largest cities in 15 states and the District of Columbia where information from rate filings is available.
Premiums for the second-lowest cost silver plan for individuals will fall by an average of 0.8 percent from current levels in these cities when open enrollment begins on Nov. 15, according to the study. The analysis finds that the premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan is decreasing in 7 of the 16 areas studied – but also that changes in average premiums will vary considerably across areas.
The average increase for Obamacare plans will be 8.2 percent next year in 29 states and the District of Columbia where data about health insurance premiums for 2015 are available, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers, which has conducted the most thorough review to date. That's significant, but it's a little lower than the 10 percent annual rate hikes typical before the Affordable Care Act, according to a recent analysis published by the Commonwealth Fund.
Averages mask a lot of variation between the states, and even within them, because rates typically are set on a local level. Also, these big-picture numbers don't account for individual variables that affect prices, like age, family size and tobacco use. There are multiple health insurance companies operating in nearly all states, and each sells numerous products to individual households, both on and off the exchanges. The plan one consumer has this year could cost 15 percent more, while her next-door neighbor may see his price go down.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: raymundoko
Right, you did give your personal experience.
And from that you're making a general claim about the cost of everyone's premiums. Call it anedotal if you wish.
Cherry picking is when one takes a small number of examples (or one in your case) and leaves out other information.
originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: BrianFlanders
glad to see i'm not the only one who sees this...
with the ACA, they criminalized personal choice....and they can expand upon that in a number of ways...
"well, we made you buy health insurance, because we love you, and want you to be healthy...it's for your own good. nevermind if you can't afford it, and will never be able to use it, because of the obscenely high deductible....what's important is that you have it, and we love you.......NOW!.....we see you're not eating right, or exercising. this could significantly impact your health, and because we love you, and we want you to be healthy, for your own good, we're going to need you to follow this meal program, and we're also going to need you to report to this government-operated gym 5 times a week, so we can ensure you're getting the proper exercise and food, to keep you healthy, because we love you, and we want you to be healthy. sadly, our love, and best wishes DO come with a small financial burden...after all, the money for the gyms and experts that make up the meal programs, has to come from somewhere. with that said, in order to ensure your compliance, we're going to need to impose a penalty on you, if you fail to comply with our directions.....but why would you want to do that? after all, we love you, we want you to be healthy, and this is for your own good."
with a quick perversion/interpretation of the "general welfare" clause, this could become a reality.....the government is no stranger to creating additional authority for itself, outside of the constitution....
originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: SubTruth
Replace liberal with corporatist. Both parties engage in this. Obamacare was a Republican developed plan tested out in MA by Romney. There's a reason Obama came out of nowhere and became president. He's a flawless Patsy for corporate interests. If you think Republicans are the better party you are missing the point. Even more so if you thought McCain or Romney would have been different. All our candidates for president are essentially identical on the stuff that truly matters.
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66
50% over 8 years is a big difference from 40% in 2 years...especially since ACA was supposed to REDUCE premiums...
Wikipedia - Cherry Picking (fallacy)
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
Cherry Picking at Logically Fallacious
(also known as: suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, one-sidedness)
Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.
originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Grovit
In many states you absolutely do HAVE to have a license and plates which take a registered owner who can provide insurance for those plates.