We were promised a $2500 decrease in premiums. We’re getting a 41% increase.
It’s like the whole thing was some sort of scam.
30 thoughts on “ObamaCare Costs”
Comments are closed.
We were promised a $2500 decrease in premiums. We’re getting a 41% increase.
It’s like the whole thing was some sort of scam.
Comments are closed.
This may not tell the whole story. Not only did my premium rise sharply, my deductible (which I previously merely approached and never quite reached) nearly doubled. Interesting how that works.
I *could* have avoided much of the increase if I agreed to change doctors (they tried to force me into an HMO).
There are enough differences between the old plan (no longer available) and the new ones to make an apples-to-apples comparison impossible.
My employee (in Maryland) told me that the rough equivalent of my current coverage in Obamacare would go up from about $1600/month to over $4500/month. I’ve never even _heard_ of a health care plan that expensive.
The whole study is an apples-to-oranges comparison; from what I can tell it doesn’t even try to account for differences in actuarial value.
If you ask people who switched from non-ACA to ACA plans, 46% report lower premiums and 39% higher ones. And that’s not even taking into account people who couldn’t get non-ACA coverage at any price.
Meanwhile, Obamacare has gotten significantly more popular since the rollout of its major provisions about a year and a half ago, with favorable views rising from 33% to 43%, and now slightly edging out unfavorable views (42%, down from a high of 53% last year). We just had our first tax season with individual mandate penalties, and subsidy adjustments, and that passed with little fuss.
It’s fun now to look back at the pre-2014 Obamacare doomsday predictions, like this December, 2013 one from Gregg:
Or this one by George Turner:
Instead the rate of uninsurance has fallen dramatically (from 18% to 11.9% in the Gallup survey), Obamacare is costing hundreds of billions less than previously forecast, and health care spending overall has dropped by even more.
You know how they achieve actuarial value? By giving benefits that will never be used. This is why I can get a free abortion, dental and vision for my kids, acupuncture, and numerous other “benefits” that do not contribute to my health or wellbeing. But at least my plan meets the actuarial mandate.
Anyone who saw a premium decrease, saw an increase in deductible or loss of benefits they actually used. So throwing out garbage stats is rather meaningless.
Also, costs are going up and spending down because no one can afford treatment. When you have to shell out $12k before insurance helps pay for anything, it isn’t helping anyone but Obama’s donors in the insurance and medical industries and what ever subgroup Obama wants to redistribute wealth to based on his bigoted social hierarchy.
You know how they achieve actuarial value? By giving benefits that will never be used.
No, actuarial value refers to how much coverage the typical consumer will have for the services they actually use. Covering a service that no one takes advantage of has no effect on the actuarial value calculation.
Jim, what you said is part of the calculation, the other part is that the out of pocket costs (meaning the service was used) is based on a “standard population” which is noted in the ACA law but not defined. Within that standard population, their may be fewer Wodun’s and more women purchasing abortions or pap smears or what have you. To this, the American Academy of Actuaries opined that for ACA “actuarial values are of limited use to individual consumers”.
So Jim, wodun is correct, even if you particular point is also correct, because your point is irrelevant.
He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count of the support of Paul. Those who are getting subsidizes are more likely to be in favor of ObamaCare than those who’re seeing their premiums increase, often mixed with decreased coverage. ObamaCare is yet another instance of wealth redistribution and as such will always be popular with those who like the idea of stealing from others.
Just one question, Jim. How do you feel knowing that millions have gotten more expensive and much more limited insurance because of Obamacare?
That’s a silly question. Jim knows you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
He upped his subsidy. Up yours. /sarc
Your question presumes facts not in evidence.
For example, that Jim is a good-faith interlocutor.
It assumed Jim knows something, which is a mistake. Heck, Jim just used an opinion poll as a fact. Jim is the essence of living in a cocoon.
I have given you many examples of facts. You have ignored them. You always ignore them. That is an attitude of a moocher.
Instead the rate of uninsurance has fallen dramatically (from 18% to 11.9% in the Gallup survey),
This is hilarious. Did you know that when seat belts were required, the rate of unseatbelted people fell dramatically???!!!
Yeah Jim, hold a gun to people’s heads and call your program a success.
Liberals believe their ideas are so good that they must be mandatory.
Yes, it was obvious all along that the ACA would reduce the number of people without insurance. But that didn’t stop top Republicans, or commenters here, from insisting otherwise.
Wow, what a ridiculous comment.
You promised all of the fictitious 30 million would receive insurance, and you can’t even do that. So, by your standards and your promises, it is an utter failure.
I guess the only way to make everyone insured is to increase the punishment.
Actually, the number of uninsured is expected to rise to 31 million with a third being illegal immigrants. These will be the same uninsured clogging hospital ERs because they cannot be denied care, but not paying because they have no insurance, but hey, if they file taxes they may have to pay a penalty for not having insurance.
The whole study is an apples-to-oranges comparison; from what I can tell it doesn’t even try to account for differences in actuarial value.
I notice none of your links support your initial assertion. And it’s worth remembering here that Rand’s linked study went to some effort to do a valid comparison.
The study includes a link to its methodology. They compared the five cheapest plans in each location before and after Obamacare. I don’t see any effort to compare the actuarial value of the plans being compared. The plans being compared could have different deductibles and co-insurance rates, different co-pays, different benefit caps, etc. It’s comparing prices without comparing what those prices are buying.
“like this December, 2013 one from Gregg:
Obama will be impeached for multiple, egregious, violations of the Constitution; abuse of his office; tyrannical overreach; lawless actions that far exceed the powers granted to him by the Constitution…… THAT will be what’s in the articles of impeachment.
The *CATALYST*…….most importantly………the reason it will be politically and socially OK to impeach him will be the scores of dead/dying people because of Obamacare. That will be pressure not even Reid and Pelosi can withstand. ”
Yes I said that. What I didn’t count on was:
1) Obama lawlessly modifying the terms of Obamacare as we went alone. Delaying the bad stuff by lawless executive fiat. Delaying Employee mandate; pushing back sign up end dates; Continuing to give waiver after waiver after waiver.
2) A lying feckless GOP Congress who, after begging to be given control of Congress, got it and did nothing with it to A) force the terms of Obamacare to occur as they are stated by law and
B) Then repeal it.
3) A lying feckless Congress who don’t have the stones to protect their prerogatives and impeach a clearly criminal President.
And the predictions George and I made were true:
Dems lost the House and then the Senate.
if you think Obamacare was irrelevant to that then you continue to remain blind and stupid.
Oh sure you might be saying to yourself that Obamacare is driving increases in premiums, deductibles, and cost of care but think of all the increased benefits you get. Why any blue blooded male from any race can get free abortions on demand. Free on demand abortions! Really when looking at this you need to account for these improved benefits.
Just think how far back we would slide, like all the way to the 80’s when women and blacks couldn’t vote or even drive cars, if men couldn’t get free abortions. Are you some kind of racist misogynist?
I tell you what racist haters, why don’t you go get your free backrub and calm down? Now that backrubs are covered, I get them weekly and that would never have happened under the old system.
Now if you excuse me, I am off to schedule myself an abortion just to see what the fuss is about and to take advantage of all the goodies in my plan that never ever existed before Obamacare.
That is the spirit Wodun! I’m glad you are looking at the actuarial value of the free abortions for males. But keep in mind, that if you don’t like the value, then you are polling as a minority and Democrats won’t give a flip about you, so in those cases shutup about your privileges being trampled. Kiss the ring!
I’ll join you, but I’m going to get my free pap smear.
Men also get greatly expanded maternity care. Don’t forget that!
I’m personally looking forward to my opportunity to finally get that hysterectomy I’ve needed for so long.
“He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count of the support of Paul.” And Baghdad Jim as well!
Yes only a fanatic kook like Jim can view a 41% increase in costs as a positive.
Of course, his response is that more people are insured. Even if that were true – and it ignores the people who were forced to give up the plans they liked and buy ACA plans – it ignores the essential point:
You don’t solve a problem for one alleged group of people by making the lives of multiple times that number miserable.
It’s destroying health care, the economy and people’s lives. It will continue to do so. Jim ignores. He has to.