Obamacare Will Boost Individual-Market Premiums 41% on Average

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Obamacare Will Boost Individual-Market Premiums 41% on Average

Based on a report study by the Manhattan Institute, health insurance rates will be going up on average 41% nationwide.

The report shows wide variations from state to state.

Some states actually show a good decrease.

The story has a map and links to other sources.

Worth a look as millions of people are now affected by insurance "changes" supposedly for the better so we are Told by our friends in Watchington D.C.

These "changes" in policies reflect the law and regulations created by PPACA.



A new 49-state analysis by the Manhattan Institute finds that Obamacare will increase individual-market insurance premiums by an average 41%.

Of the 49 states studied, 41 will experience average premium increases and eight will see reductions.

Avik Roy, writing for Forbes, says "the steepest hikes will be imposed on the healthy, the young, and the male. And Obamacare's taxpayer-funded subsidies will primarily benefit those nearing retirement--people who, unlike the young, have had their whole lives to save for their health-care needs."

So far, 3.5 million Americans have received health insurance cancellation notices because of Obamacare.


Obamacare Will Boost Individual-Market Premiums 41% on Average





posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


There's a simple reason for this. Currently, non-group customers can be treated like trash by the insurance companies: denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, dumped from the plans when they actually get sick, and have annual deductibles so high that actual expenditures on the part of the insurance company will be rare.

Under Obamacare, they will be forced to end such practices, and must charge prices in line with this.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


The plans get additional costs because of Obamacare mandates. Ones such as everyone, even the elderly and "fixed", must carry pregnancy insurance. Unnecessary items such as these contribute to the rising costs.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   
The individual mandate is nothing but a license to steal for the insurance companies. It's the greed of the insurance companies that is the reason the rates are going up not the ACA the same thing happened when Romney started his health plan when he was Governor.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
It's all the mandated things that must be included in the new plans. You can no longer carry a bare bones plan that essentially only covers you in a catastrophic situation. You now must be ensured against every imaginable disease or ailment, including things not for your gender or age. You must have coverage for mental health and substance abuse and chiropracty even if you never use these things.

There are no policies allowed that will tailor to fit your exclusive needs anymore. They are all one-size-fits all with one price that is necessarily very expensive to pay for it. In addition, the terms are very bad to offset the usage of these policies by all the people who will be using them.

Insurance, true insurance is a gamble in which the company sells you a product that they bet you will never need. Under Obamacare, the product is one they will be selling to people who will almost certainly need them and use them heavily. So the rules must be written to try to offset these heavy costs. This makes the prices and deductibles impossible. They have to try to prevent as many of the rest of us as possible from using our policies to try to offset the people who will get sick and then opt to by in because they can no longer be denied.

Obamacare has turned insurance into a lose/lose for everyone by design. In the end, no one will win. Not the companies, not the customers. They did this one purpose to make us all want them to rescue us.

Don't fall for it. A government who can't be honest about what they want and hurts you instead is no more than an abusive partner in a relationship and should not be trusted to institute a single-payer system.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


So, it is the greed of the insurance company.
Do Progressives ever take any responsibility for their actions?


With the ACA coming into play, rates are going up by 41%.
If it weren't for the ACA, this would not be happening.

Simple cause and effect seems to have escaped you and every other 0bama cheerleader.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Briebart?...citing the Right Wing Policy group Manhattan Institute? Sorry...I don't trust the math.

en.wikipedia.org...

The rates cited don't take into account subsidies.

And reading through "Methodology" they appear to have applied radically different standards and protocol to the before and after calculations.

www.manhattan-institute.org...



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   


Avik Roy, writing for Forbes, says "the steepest hikes will be imposed on the healthy, the young, and the male


eh... So me basically... Of course I already knew this.


Indigo5
reply to post by xuenchen
 

The rates cited don't take into account subsidies.


You do know someone has to pay for those subsidies right? Subsidy money has to come from somewhere, and the answer to that is taxes. Also not everyone qualifies for subsidies. I don't. Explain to me how I'm supposed to pay for a $5000 deductible as a young, single male. I'd really like to know, because $5000 is 14% of my gross pay of $36000. But I guess according to you, I should be happy because I get to pay for insurance that I can't use all so that I can help subsidize someone else. So now that person gets insurance and I'm even broker than before. F that!



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Indigo5
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Briebart?...citing the Right Wing Policy group Manhattan Institute? Sorry...I don't trust the math.

en.wikipedia.org...

The rates cited don't take into account subsidies.

And reading through "Methodology" they appear to have applied radically different standards and protocol to the before and after calculations.

www.manhattan-institute.org...



Just because you choose not to believe it doesn't mean it isn't true. I have family and friends all over the U.S. and so far none of them that I have talked to in the last month have had insurance premiums go down. They have all been cancelled and the replacement policies are WAY more expensive.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Most people won't qualify for subsidies, and if you mess up and succeed enough to make one dollar more than the threshold, you lose the subsidy and are on the hook for the full amount.

We won't qualify for a subsidy and we're looking at having to fork over around $200-$300/person (not counting my chronic condition) for three people, so roughly $900 per month for insurance for our family. That works out to $10,800 per year or about 15% of our income. We're squeezed enough as it is and barely making it, but we can afford to suddenly figure out how to set aside 15% of our annual income because the government says so?!

That's not taking into account that we'll be paying for all the medical out of pocket because the deductible will be high enough that we'll never actually touch the insurance itself unless one of us contracts cancer or gets in a car wreck or similar trauma.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Krazysh0t


You do know someone has to pay for those subsidies right? Subsidy money has to come from somewhere, and the answer to that is taxes. Also not everyone qualifies for subsidies. I don't. Explain to me how I'm supposed to pay for a $5000 deductible as a young, single male. I'd really like to know, because $5000 is 14% of my gross pay of $36000. But I guess according to you, I should be happy because I get to pay for insurance that I can't use all so that I can help subsidize someone else. So now that person gets insurance and I'm even broker than before. F that!


Why does every Progressive and 0bama cheerleader always gloss over this or think this is a good thing?

I am sure the response will be that it is the right thing to do, it's for the children, it's only fair and so on.......


You are becoming the Forgotten Man. Welcome to the club.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Haha I did my quote last night. I pay 181 a month now and the " affordable healthcare act" would be 715 a month! got to love it how American's bent over and got it from Obama and just took it.
edit on 5-11-2013 by SkipperJohn because: wrong price!



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Indigo5
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Briebart?...citing the Right Wing Policy group Manhattan Institute? Sorry...I don't trust the math.

en.wikipedia.org...

The rates cited don't take into account subsidies.

And reading through "Methodology" they appear to have applied radically different standards and protocol to the before and after calculations.

www.manhattan-institute.org...



Well it's kind of impossible to gauge anything based on what somebody *might* be getting in subsidies and credits because that info isn't necessarily available is it?

And maybe the "Right Wing" sources are better than "Left Wing" sources.

Given the historical track records, I would say probably so.

Especially when the "Left Wing" sources are running the country lately, and are proven liars time and time again.

Remember this "good 'ol" *Promise* ?......


President Obama repeatedly promised that his signature health law, the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, would reduce insurance premiums by $2,500 for the typical family. Instead, premiums have increased by a comparable amount. Video compilation by Naked Emperor News of TheBlaze.com. For more on how Obama came up with this faulty projection, read this account in the New York Times

edit on Nov-05-2013 by xuenchen because:




posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
This only better underscores what I've been saying for a while now and is there in the words of left wing policy makers:

Obamacare is a Trojan Horse designed to destroy private insurance and leave us with single payer.

We are now seeing it happening, but it wasn't supposed to be collapsing this quickly.

Here's Hacker at Tides Foundation talking about Obamacare in the early going. Of course, they lost the private option, but the regulatory push to "grandfather" plans and then mandate those plans must change so you lose them is the how they're taking people off their private plans and employer plans.
edit on 5-11-2013 by ketsuko because: to add Tides vid link



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

buster2010
the same thing happened when Romney started his health plan when he was Governor.


Then Obama et al were pretty Goddamned stupid to pattern the ACA after Romneycare, weren't they?



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


What better way to inspire widespread trust in the people and manipulate them?

Oh see? It can't be single payer or even a gateway to single payer because the GOP did it, but we all know who the GOP really are, especially the "safe" establishment ones like Romney, right?

Not to mention, constitutionally speaking, the individual states are more or less free to screw themselves over within limits. I don't like what Romney did in Massachusetts, but I don't have to live in Massachusetts, either.
edit on 5-11-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   

macman
reply to post by buster2010
 


So, it is the greed of the insurance company.
Do Progressives ever take any responsibility for their actions?


With the ACA coming into play, rates are going up by 41%.
If it weren't for the ACA, this would not be happening.

Simple cause and effect seems to have escaped you and every other 0bama cheerleader.




Do the progressives own the insurance companies? If so then they should take responsibility. There was no good reason for the insurance companies to raise their rates. Because whatever changes the ACA made to the system the companies would more than make up the difference with all the new policies they would be getting. Maybe if you weren't so lazy and did some research then you would know why these things happen.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   

burdman30ott6

buster2010
the same thing happened when Romney started his health plan when he was Governor.


Then Obama et al were pretty Goddamned stupid to pattern the ACA after Romneycare, weren't they?


Yes they were. The individual mandate was an ignorant idea. But it was dreamed by the Heritage Foundation so everyone should have known it was going to be a failure.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010


Do the progressives own the insurance companies? If so then they should take responsibility. There was no good reason for the insurance companies to raise their rates. Because whatever changes the ACA made to the system the companies would more than make up the difference with all the new policies they would be getting. Maybe if you weren't so lazy and did some research then you would know why these things happen.

 


The insurance companies have that 80% rule.

That means they must spend 80% of the income on actual expenditures.

If they don't, they must issue rebates back.



80/20 Rule

The 80/20 Rule generally requires insurance companies to spend at least 80% of the money they take in on premiums on your health care and quality improvement activities instead of administrative, overhead, and marketing costs.

The 80/20 rule is sometimes known as Medical Loss Ratio, or MLR. If an insurance company uses 80 cents out of every premium dollar to pay for your medical claims and activities that improve the quality of care, the company has a Medical Loss Ratio of 80%.

Insurance companies selling to large groups (usually more than 50 employees) must spend at least 85% of premiums on care and quality improvement.

If your insurance company doesn’t meet these requirements, you’ll get a rebate from your premiums.

Rate Review & the 80/20 Rule


If they don't raise rates based on estimated costs, they will go bankrupt and then nobody gets "Covered".



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010




Yes they were. The individual mandate was an ignorant idea. But it was dreamed by the Heritage Foundation so everyone should have known it was going to be a failure.


That old study was actually an indication of what NOT to do ...

as we can clearly see.

edit on Nov-05-2013 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join