What's new
By:
Filters

Obamacare to increase premiums by 304 percent???

The Thriller

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
taxfoundation.org/blog/obamacare-increases-premiums-much-305-percent


“Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, and quadruple for men.”

Some costs are even higher for 40-year-olds. In North Carolina, a 40-year-old man could see an increase of 305 percent and 288 percent in Nebraska. A 40-year-old woman will face increases over 200 percent in both North Carolina and Nebraska as well.
In dollar costs, the state with the lowest weighted average premium with the ACA is Minnesota at $144 and the highest weighted average premium is Wyoming $425.
But the bottom line from Avik Roy: Obamacare makes insurance more expensive.
“For months, we’ve heard about how Obamacare’s trillions in health care subsidies were going to save America from rate shock. It’s not true. If you shop for coverage on your own, you’re likely to see your rates go up, even after accounting for the impact of pre-existing conditions, even after accounting for the impact of subsidies.”
Click to expand...
 
Health care in America is an absolute mess. Someone needs to completely blow up the system and start over. Our litigious culture is to blame for a large part of the problem. Additionally hospital administration costs are out of control. Although i'm certain many people will jump to the defense of Obamacare, there can be no argument that it is not what it was purported to be. They pushed it through by deceiving people about what it was and how it was going to work... or maybe the proponents were somehow incapable of seeing that this is what would happen. Pathetic.
 
The only truly effective way to manage the cost of healthcare is through supply and demand. Right now the demand is too high and the supply is too low. We need to allow Rn's to open offices without direct supervision by a doctor and refer patients that are beyond their care to a P.H.D. As for the demand we need to increase the amount everyone pays out of pocket both those enrolled in medicaid and those who have private plans. We should make both a mandatory minimum deductible and copay based on your income(you would have to pay this before an insurer could pay anything)

I also think that we should have public ambulances ran by municipalities. The fire department does a superb job and I have little doubt that if they ran our ambulances they would do the same. This doesn't have to be done nationwide to have an impact. If Salt Lake county were to begin operating tax payer supported ambulances residents would see a decrease in their insurance premiums because some of the financial risk has been removed.
 
They need to overhaul medical malpractice and make them pay with time (prison) instead of money. Then if you file a malpractice suit it becomes a criminal trial not a civil one and the frivolous lawsuits will decline.


Also, at my POB our insurance premiums for next year are going up about 35% with the company eating another 15% increase, so about 50% total. Obamacare needs to be killed.
 
I like Obamacare. It is such a poor piece of legislation that it's negative impacts are disrupting the status quo and forcing employers to abandon or at least redesign their health insurance offerings. Imo log companies like yours are a major part of the problem. When companies offer an insurance package that is more like a management plan than insurance you are going to have people visiting their physician for cavalier reasons. Premiums have to increase when healthcare cost do. We often have this whole healthcare debate without realizing we are really talking about two industries(healthcare and Insurance). The number one reason that Obamacare can't work is because it pretty much only addresses insurance yet most of the increase in cost is actually coming from the healthcare industry. Furthermore the changes will only increase demand for healthcare without expanding the supply.
 
Companies are dropping insurance, reducing hours and taking other actions as a result of the ACA. Such as Home Depot, Sea World, Walmart, Regal Entertainment (larget movie theater chain in America) and UPS.

But the president said:

""They said this would be a disaster in terms of jobs. There's no widespread evidence that the Affordable Care Act is hurting jobs"

Got to love it.
 
Last edited:
I actually saw a friend post on facebook that he is excited to see the government take over health care. He said that the government has a great history of handling things well like ss, the post office, etc. The sad thing is he was being serious...
 
Surely said:
I actually saw a friend post on facebook that he is excited to see the government take over health care. He said that the government has a great history of handling things well like ss, the post office, etc. The sad thing is he was being serious...
Click to expand...

Are we really going to say because it's not perfect on day one, it'll only get worse?

That's an awfully bleak outlook on anything, but given the track record I can't help but understand your concern.

It's clear something needs to be done. I'll counter your "supply/demand" argument with the "FYGM" argument:

People who rally against something that would help someone else because they wouldn't benefit from it.

Example; https://www.medpagetoday.com/PracticeManagement/PracticeManagement/38013

"I've been doing this for years. I don't need to do this anymore, so lets not change anything or F*** YOU! I GOT MINE! PEACE OUT B****ES!!!!!!!!!!!"

We also being seen currently in the medical field with coding and billing. The really good billers/coders have been using ICD-9 for years, and are quite brilliant with it. Since the adoption of ICD-10, and the federal mandate that it be used by all large hospitals starting XXXX date, retirement in that field is coming up much faster than anticipated. Their take on it; why bother with a change when I can go somewhere else and not deal with it?

It's a huge problem in the MMO world, and I'm amazed that the same attitude spills over into society on so many different levels.
 
ElRoach0 said:
Are we really going to say because it's not perfect on day one, it'll only get worse?

That's an awfully bleak outlook on anything, but given the track record I can't help but understand your concern.

It's clear something needs to be done. I'll counter your "supply/demand" argument with the "FYGM" argument:

People who rally against something that would help someone else because they wouldn't benefit from it.

Example; https://www.medpagetoday.com/PracticeManagement/PracticeManagement/38013

"I've been doing this for years. I don't need to do this anymore, so lets not change anything or F*** YOU! I GOT MINE! PEACE OUT B****ES!!!!!!!!!!!"

We also being seen currently in the medical field with coding and billing. The really good billers/coders have been using ICD-9 for years, and are quite brilliant with it. Since the adoption of ICD-10, and the federal mandate that it be used by all large hospitals starting XXXX date, retirement in that field is coming up much faster than anticipated. Their take on it; why bother with a change when I can go somewhere else and not deal with it?

It's a huge problem in the MMO world, and I'm amazed that the same attitude spills over into society on so many different levels.
Click to expand...

Poor portrayal of all the opposition. Some are actively being hurt by this law. Both in their job and in disposable income.

As for the whole not knowing what the law is. Isn't that part of the problem. No one, including the people that voted for it, knows what it does.
 
Last edited:
ElRoach0 said:
Are we really going to say because it's not perfect on day one, it'll only get worse?

That's an awfully bleak outlook on anything, but given the track record I can't help but understand your concern.

It's clear something needs to be done. I'll counter your "supply/demand" argument with the "FYGM" argument:

People who rally against something that would help someone else because they wouldn't benefit from it.

Example; https://www.medpagetoday.com/PracticeManagement/PracticeManagement/38013

"I've been doing this for years. I don't need to do this anymore, so lets not change anything or F*** YOU! I GOT MINE! PEACE OUT B****ES!!!!!!!!!!!"

We also being seen currently in the medical field with coding and billing. The really good billers/coders have been using ICD-9 for years, and are quite brilliant with it. Since the adoption of ICD-10, and the federal mandate that it be used by all large hospitals starting XXXX date, retirement in that field is coming up much faster than anticipated. Their take on it; why bother with a change when I can go somewhere else and not deal with it?

It's a huge problem in the MMO world, and I'm amazed that the same attitude spills over into society on so many different levels.
Click to expand...

Stoked said:
Poor portrayal of allt he opposition. Some are actively being hurt by this law. Both in their job and in disposable income.

As for the whole not knowing what the law is. Isn't that part of the problem. No one, including the people that voted for it, knows what it does.
Click to expand...

Good answer. I don't expect perfection on day 1, but I do expect something that isn't crippling on day 1. Is it too much to ask that while they iron out the kinks they make it as benign as possible? And if it is already as benign as possible, well it makes no sense to kill the patient to cure the disease.
 
You know, this may all be a result of politicians knowing nothing about business. They think if they make it painful enough on employers they will stop offering any semblance of affordable healthcare, thereby reducing the demand, and since the economic formulas always show a nice straight curve with lower demand = lower prices, well it has to work the same for costs, right? Force the demand lower, e.g. companies taking steps to reduce the cost of providing insurance (like finding ways to avoid offering it in the first place), and you automatically drive the costs lower. Right? Wow, it's a good thing we have a lawyer for a president and not a businessman.
 
bordelais7 said:
Summary of my FaceBook feed

https://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/

SEATTLE—As debate continues in Washington over the funding of President Obama’s health care initiative, sources confirmed Thursday that 39-year-old Daniel Seaver, a man who understands a total of 8 percent of the Affordable Care Act, offered a vehement defense of the legislation to 41-year-old Alex Crawford, who understands 5 percent of it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Stoked said:
Poor portrayal of all the opposition. Some are actively being hurt by this law. Both in their job and in disposable income.

As for the whole not knowing what the law is. Isn't that part of the problem. No one, including the people that voted for it, knows what it does.
Click to expand...

How could we not address bordy's post. While hilarious, it also does address the same point.

I'd rather laugh than cry, this whole thing is frustrating.
 
JazzSpazz said:
How could we not address bordy's post. While hilarious, it also does address the same point.

I'd rather laugh than cry, this whole thing is frustrating.
Click to expand...

We didn't address bordy's post because it was scary as hell. Thanks for reinforcing our nightmares.
 
bordelais7 said:
Summary of my FaceBook feed

https://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/
Click to expand...
SEATTLE—As debate continues in Washington over the funding of President Obama’s health care initiative, sources confirmed Thursday that 52-year-old Barack Obama, a man who understands a total of 8 percent of the Affordable Care Act, offered a vehement defense of the legislation to 42-year-old Mike Lee, who understands 5 percent of it.
Click to expand...
Fixed
 
The Thriller said:
taxfoundation.org/blog/obamacare-increases-premiums-much-305-percent
Click to expand...

Did people really expect this to be anything but another subsidy for the largest voting block Baby Boomers.

Like charging poor young workers 15.3% wasn't enough. And they wonder why unemployment in that demographic is persistently high.
 
franklin said:
Did people really expect this to be anything but another subsidy for the largest voting block Baby Boomers.

Like charging poor young workers 15.3% wasn't enough. And they wonder why unemployment in that demographic is persistently high.
Click to expand...
It is also great for big Pharma.
 
heyhey said:
It is also great for big Pharma.
Click to expand...

You'll have to explain that one. There is a new tax on pharmaceuticals. Not that that necessarily lowers the cost.

What it doesn't do is reduce the amount we subsidize the world for very expensive new drugs. I personally prefer some sort of legislation that forces pharma to sell us drugs at the same price as the lowest agreed upon price outside our borders. No reason we should subsidize their defense and their h.c.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top