Health Care Law Fails to Lower Prices for Rural Areas

Of the roughly 2,500 counties served by the federal exchanges, more than half, or 58 percent, have plans offered by just one or two insurance carriers, according to an analysis by The Times of county-level data provided by the Department of Health and Human Services. In about 530 counties, only a single insurer is participating.

The analysis suggests that the ambitions of the Affordable Care Act to increase competition have unfolded unevenly, at least in the early going, and have not addressed many of the factors that contribute to high prices. Insurance companies are reluctant to enter challenging new markets, experts say, because medical costs are high, dominant insurers are difficult to unseat, and powerful hospital systems resist efforts to lower rates.

Source: www.nytimes.com...

So we have millions losing healthcare, and in many poor rural areas we can no longer afford health care....

I heard about this earlier this morning while listening to CSPAN radio. This just shows that Obamacare is designed to help out poor urban areas (primarily Democratic voters) as opposed to poor rural areas (primarily Republican voters). Notice which side gets the low healthcare and which side just gets left out in the dust.

NH has been livid about this. Only one provider, hospitals are refusing to accept the plans and all plans from this provider are unaffordable. Still, the local NPR insists on reporting we're all better off with coverage nobody will accept and nobody can afford.

The proud (D) Shaheen is pushing for a delay because the ACA is looking to cost every NH (D) their seat and she's trying anything and everything to cling on.

Krazysh0t
I heard about this earlier this morning while listening to CSPAN radio. This just shows that Obamacare is designed to help out poor urban areas (primarily Democratic voters) as opposed to poor rural areas (primarily Republican voters). Notice which side gets the low healthcare and which side just gets left out in the dust.

Keep in mind that regardless of your party affiliation, you will get subsidies if your income level is low enough.

From the OP's article:

Federal subsidies could significantly reduce monthly premiums for people with low incomes.

kaylaluv


Keep in mind that regardless of your party affiliation, you will get subsidies if your income level is low enough.

That's one of the lines the local NPR hosts keep repeating over and over. Though they never offer any numbers or examples. They just say "dont worry if you cant afford it because subsidies are available."

Here's the calculator: Subsidy calculator

Play with it.

Then when you're looking at that monthly premium dont forget to factor in food, rent/mortgage, gas, utility bills, heating oil is coming up, day care if you have to, etc...

$2500 a year doesn't sound like a lot when it's just an isolated figure. Add it into the weekly budget and it changes things substantially.

Then consider the deductible of that plan you're paying for. What good is paying $2,500 a year for coverage when you have a deductible of $10,000?

kaylaluv

Krazysh0t
I heard about this earlier this morning while listening to CSPAN radio. This just shows that Obamacare is designed to help out poor urban areas (primarily Democratic voters) as opposed to poor rural areas (primarily Republican voters). Notice which side gets the low healthcare and which side just gets left out in the dust.

Keep in mind that regardless of your party affiliation, you will get subsidies if your income level is low enough.

From the OP's article:

Federal subsidies could significantly reduce monthly premiums for people with low incomes.

Many of those in the counties noted aren't necessarily poor enough to get the subsidies. But since the ACA, their costs WILL increase. Subsidies don't mean crap to them.

kaylaluv

Krazysh0t
I heard about this earlier this morning while listening to CSPAN radio. This just shows that Obamacare is designed to help out poor urban areas (primarily Democratic voters) as opposed to poor rural areas (primarily Republican voters). Notice which side gets the low healthcare and which side just gets left out in the dust.

Keep in mind that regardless of your party affiliation, you will get subsidies if your income level is low enough.

From the OP's article:

Federal subsidies could significantly reduce monthly premiums for people with low incomes.

The 2010 law says the tax credits go to help Americans enrolled in exchanges “established by the state.” But about three dozen states declined to create their own exchanges, leaving it to the federal government to step in — and opening up the question of whether residents in those states can still get the subsidies. Read more: www.washingtontimes.com...

Don't count on federal subsidies that is not technically part of the law....

reply to post by kaylaluv


The subsidy is a joke. How are the poor suppose to pay for it during the year, just so they can get a tax credit at the end of the year?

amazing that the few states that actually embraced this have the least amount of problems....now let me see...why would that be??...hmm, could it possibly be the political make-up of the state government??...nah..no way would state political leaders sabotage their own people?? ....I mean this isn't like throwing people off the voter rolls

Less coverage for rural areas may have something to do with hospital emergency transport. Most people live in suburbia. Long ways into the sticks for a 911 call.

intrptr
Less coverage for rural areas may have something to do with hospital emergency transport. Most people live in suburbia. Long ways into the sticks for a 911 call.

Wouldnt that lower rates?

It's far cheaper to bury somebody than it is to treat for stroke or heart failure.

A longer ride increases the likelihood of those lights and sirens being turned off during transport.

jimmyx
amazing that the few states that actually embraced this have the least amount of problems....now let me see...why would that be??...hmm, could it possibly be the political make-up of the state government??...nah..no way would state political leaders sabotage their own people?? ....I mean this isn't like throwing people off the voter rolls

If it shuch a great plan, then why did the White House and Democrats....

As close observers of history and human nature, James Madison and the other Founders of the U.S. Constitution knew that the equal and unbiased application of the law to all people, especially elected officials, is essential to freedom and justice and one of the primary safeguards from authoritarianism and oppression by a ruling class. And so, referring to the members of Congress, James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 57: "[T]hey can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society." Today, elected officials need to be reminded of these truths. Under pressure from Congress, the White House has carved out a special exemption for Congress and its staffers from ObamaCare—the law it recently deemed necessary for the entire country. No Republicans voted for ObamaCare. Yet it appears that some of them support the exemption President Obama approved on his own—so they would not have to go on record with a vote for or against it.

This is the height of hypocrisy, and worse, a trampling of the Founders' code of equal application of the law. Having forced a health law on the American people, the White House and Democrats now seek to insulate themselves from the noxious portions of the law, and from the implementation struggles, indecision and uncertainty that many other Americans face today.

In other words, Congress's health-care premiums will not rise, but yours may. Members of Congress will be able to afford to keep their health-insurance plan, but you may be kicked off yours. They will be able to afford to keep their doctors, but you may have to find a new one.

Rep. Ron DeSantis, a Republican from Florida, recently put forward legislation—aptly named the James Madison Congressional Accountability Act—which would end the special exemption. In the Senate, Republicans David Vitter of Louisiana and Mike Enzi of Wyoming have also introduced legislation to end the exemption.

In response, several Democratic senators have reacted by drafting legislation that would punish anyone who votes for Sen. Vitter's plan by permanently blocking an exemption from them and their staff, even if Mr. Vitter's law doesn't pass. It doesn't get more vindictive and petty than that.

Source: online.wsj.com...

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


My point was more about party affiliation. To say that "Obamacare" deliberately leaves Republicans in the dust, while helping only Democrats is really an untruth.

kaylaluv
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

My point was more about party affiliation. To say that "Obamacare" deliberately leaves Republicans in the dust, while helping only Democrats is really an untruth.

Oh okay. Yes, the ACA will hurt for everyone regardless of party affiliation.

Ok, I stand slightly corrected on the subsidy part of this.
How it works

If this page is correct, you do have the option of applying for an Advance on your credit amount.
A: Good luck, I wonder how long it will take for them to send the money to your healthcare provider. You could be dropped while waiting.

B: You better not underestimate your income, they will nail you at the end of the year.

Still, not going to help much, in the short term, when you have to come up with the money to get started.
I think I'm going to bow at my bosses feet today, in appreciation of our continued coverage.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Something has to be wrong with that calculator because the numbers I was given cannot be correct. I just threw numbers in there to play with it, they do not reflect my real information at all.

With an $80,000 annual income, 340% over poverty level, 2 adults and 2 kids, that gives a premium of $10,805 with a $3200 subsidy, for a premium of $7600 after subsidies.

Same family information above but with an annual income of $10,000, 42% of poverty level, it tells me my state isn't expanding Medicare, gives me NO subsidies, and I can get the Bronze plan for a mere $8955.

Or I can buy catastrophic insurance for a $12,000 deductible.

What am I missing here? is it assuming that if I am dirt poor, I would have government assistance so I wouldn't need this insurance?

I thought this was supposed to be affordable? Boy, the insurance company CEOs and stockholders must be just so giddy because this isn't helping anyone but them. How on earth is a dirt poor family supposed to be paying more than someone making 80K a year?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Wouldnt that lower rates?

It's far cheaper to bury somebody than it is to treat for stroke or heart failure.

A longer ride increases the likelihood of those lights and sirens being turned off during transport.

Maybe you're right. The rates are higher then because... they want people to move to the cities?

Rural people tend to be poorer, get sicker more often and insurance companies would rather insure healthy ones that don't. Profit margin is higher with healthy people?

Let see. Life insurance is like gambling. We hope we lose the gamble though.

You pay money to the insurance company . You are betting with them that you will get sick. They are betting you won't. You hope they win.

"Health Care Law Fails to Lower Prices....Anywhere."

I fixed your title....

reply to post by intrptr

Rural people tend to be poorer, get sicker more often and insurance companies would rather insure healthy ones that don't. Profit margin is higher with healthy people?

According to the theory of the ACA, the increased numbers of people in the 'pool' is what will supposedly cause prices to drop for exactly this group of people.... the poorer, sicker more often groups.

WTF happened to that theory?

reply to post by butcherguy

According to the theory of the ACA, the increased numbers of people in the 'pool' is what will supposedly cause prices to drop for exactly this group of people.... the poorer, sicker more often groups.

WTF happened to that theory?

That sounds like BS. To me, insurance is extortion. It is "protection". You pay money to people that then "protect" you from bad things happening. Which really isn't true, they don't prevent anything from happening. They are just supposed to bail you out if it does. But like the mob and their "protection" the insurance companies historically try to bilk their way out of it when the time comes.

Their "contracts" are notorious full of loop holes, co payments, deductibles, denial of coverage for so many reasons. Thats why the contract and forms are so thick, they want to know how to get out of paying you off when the time comes. That hasn't changed with "Obama cares", I'm guessing.

I think they plan to operate as cheap as they have always been. This "new" plan is lighting up their profit board like a christmas tree, the more members the more cha ching comin in. With the system already broken, too. Stay tuned.