Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Merc14

CA health insur. rates to rise 64%-146%

115 posts in this topic

As reported by Forbes, after carefully parsing teh data and shovelling away the BS sees sticker shock comingto the good democrats of CA.

Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare to Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums by 64-146%

Avik Roy, Contributor

Whole article here: http://www.forbes.co...iums-by-64-146/

One of the most serious flaws with Obamacare is that its blizzard of regulations and mandates drives up the cost of insurance for people who buy it on their own. This problem will be especially acute when the law’s main provisions kick in on January 1, 2014, leading many to worry about health insurance “rate shock.”

Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange.

But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.

Lee’s claims that there won’t be rate shock in California were repeated uncritically in some quarters. “Despite the political naysayers,” writes my Forbes colleague Rick Ungar, “the healthcare exchange concept appears to be working very well indeed in states like California.” A bit more analysis would have prevented Rick from falling for California’s sleight-of-hand.

Here’s what happened. Last week, Covered California—the name for the state’s Obamacare-compatible insurance exchange—released the rates that Californians will have to pay to enroll in the exchange. “The rates submitted to Covered California for the 2014 individual market,” the state said in a press release, “ranged from two percent above to 29 percent below the 2013 average premium for small employer plans in California’s most populous regions.”

That’s the sentence that led to all of the triumphant commentary from the left. “This is a home run for consumers in every region of California,” exulted Peter Lee.

Except that Lee was making a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples—the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market—and oranges—the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical.

Obamacare to double individual-market premiums

If you’re a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month. (That’s the median monthly premium across California’s 19 insurance rating regions.)

The next cheapest plan, the “bronze” comprehensive plan, costs $205 a month. But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com (NASDAQ:EHTH), the average cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92. In other words, for the average 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.

Under Obamacare, only people under the age of 30 can participate in the slightly cheaper catastrophic plan. So if you’re 40, your cheapest option is the bronze plan. In California, the median price of a bronze plan for a 40-year-old male non-smoker will be $261. But on eHealthInsurance, the average cost of the five cheapest plans was $121. That is, Obamacare will increase individual-market premiums by an average of 116 percent.

More here:http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they honestly trying to bankrupt people? I don't understand the thinking behind the Obamacare plan...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As reported by Forbes, after carefully parsing teh data and shovelling away the BS sees sticker shock comingto the good democrats of CA.

Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare to Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums by 64-146%

Avik Roy, Contributor

Whole article here: http://www.forbes.co...iums-by-64-146/

One of the most serious flaws with Obamacare is that its blizzard of regulations and mandates drives up the cost of insurance for people who buy it on their own. This problem will be especially acute when the law’s main provisions kick in on January 1, 2014, leading many to worry about health insurance “rate shock.”

Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange.

But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.

Lee’s claims that there won’t be rate shock in California were repeated uncritically in some quarters. “Despite the political naysayers,” writes my Forbes colleague Rick Ungar, “the healthcare exchange concept appears to be working very well indeed in states like California.” A bit more analysis would have prevented Rick from falling for California’s sleight-of-hand.

Here’s what happened. Last week, Covered California—the name for the state’s Obamacare-compatible insurance exchange—released the rates that Californians will have to pay to enroll in the exchange. “The rates submitted to Covered California for the 2014 individual market,” the state said in a press release, “ranged from two percent above to 29 percent below the 2013 average premium for small employer plans in California’s most populous regions.”

That’s the sentence that led to all of the triumphant commentary from the left. “This is a home run for consumers in every region of California,” exulted Peter Lee.

Except that Lee was making a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples—the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market—and oranges—the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical.

Obamacare to double individual-market premiums

If you’re a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month. (That’s the median monthly premium across California’s 19 insurance rating regions.)

The next cheapest plan, the “bronze” comprehensive plan, costs $205 a month. But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com (NASDAQ:EHTH), the average cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92. In other words, for the average 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.

Under Obamacare, only people under the age of 30 can participate in the slightly cheaper catastrophic plan. So if you’re 40, your cheapest option is the bronze plan. In California, the median price of a bronze plan for a 40-year-old male non-smoker will be $261. But on eHealthInsurance, the average cost of the five cheapest plans was $121. That is, Obamacare will increase individual-market premiums by an average of 116 percent.

More here:http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

After checking out a couple of other stories on Forbes such as this one:

Aetna CEO Bertolini: Get Ready for 'Rate Shock' as Some Health Insurance Premiums to Double in 2014

Check out: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/12/18/aetna-ceo-bertolini-get-ready-for-rate-shock-as-some-health-insurance-premiums-to-double-in-2014/

And this one....

How Obamacare Dramatically Increases The Cost of Insurance for Young Workers

Check out: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/03/22/how-obamacare-dramatically-increases-the-cost-of-insurance-for-young-workers/

Makes me sick to my stomach....What are people going to do??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What that article failed to mention was that only a tiny fraction of people are getting the "perfect health" premium coverage price now. The majority of people are paying much much more already depending on age, health history etc, and those that won't get coverage if they have pre existing conditions. The Obama initiative seeks to include those who previously would have been turned down by insurance. There is also better coverage for those who already have insurance, if you read the comments some people have seen their policies now covering wellness care that never did before. You also have to realize that a Forbes article is driven by the big business side of HMO's and other large health insurance corporations who will do anything to get rid of Obamacare. Look at the car insurance coverage when it was required you carry coverage in California. I used to live there and I read similar articles that it would skyrocket premiums but instead it brought down the prices.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they honestly trying to bankrupt people? I don't understand the thinking behind the Obamacare plan...

I don't know, but I'm concerned. I don't know what people are going to do, especially those who are living paycheck to paycheck (like most people in America). This is going to get bad, if it doesn't get repealed....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When hospitals, insurance companies and doctors are making millions of course they are going to go up. They always have went up. I'm not sure if Obamacare hasn't just been an excuse.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57586783/non-profit-hospital-makes-billions-should-it-get-a-tax-break/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone break this down for me? I'm assuming a lot of Americans won't be able to (comfortably) afford Obamacare. Given that the administration must have known this, why drive another nail into the financial coffin? Are there legitimately good intentions behind this?? :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone break this down for me? I'm assuming a lot of Americans won't be able to (comfortably) afford Obamacare. Given that the administration must have known this, why drive another nail into the financial coffin? Are there legitimately good intentions behind this?? :no:

I could be wrong about this...but isn't Obamacare supposed to be the American equivalent of the British NHS? So everybody has access to healthcare...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they honestly trying to bankrupt people? I don't understand the thinking behind the Obamacare plan...

It was sold as a panacea and people screamed bloody murder but it passed anyway. I believe that Obama accepted this particular plan KNOWING that it would collapse under it's own bureau weight and then government backed single payer would be the only option for the average man.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong about this...but isn't Obamacare supposed to be the American equivalent of the British NHS? So everybody has access to healthcare...

Actually, Spike, the "single payer" option that was defeated was the equivalent of NHS - or so I'm told. This kind of plan is what Obama wants and by accepting this monstrously complex health care deal he knew he could guarantee it's failure and then have "single payer". I worked as a MRI technologist for a decade so I know a little about the field. The system definitely needs radical change but forcing middle class people into bankruptcy so that poor people can have (substandard) coverage makes no sense to me. And no offense intended to our British friends here at UM but didn't I see Eldorado posting a story about 11 hundred people STARVING TO DEATH in government hospitals? This seems to say that your system is massively understaffed at the least. I cannot believe that UK healthcare workers are less competent or compassionate than American healthcare workers. So the only other option I see is that they simply have too large a patient load. It boggles the mind that a hospital bound person could be so ignored for long enough to die of starvation - there must be more to the story...
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was sold as a panacea and people screamed bloody murder but it passed anyway. I believe that Obama accepted this particular plan KNOWING that it would collapse under it's own bureau weight and then government backed single payer would be the only option for the average man.

Being dependent on government handouts is a scary position to be in..

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Actually, Spike, the "single payer" option that was defeated was the equivalent of NHS - or so I'm told. This kind of plan is what Obama wants and by accepting this monstrously complex health care deal he knew he could guarantee it's failure and then have "single payer". I worked as a MRI technologist for a decade so I know a little about the field. The system definitely needs radical change but forcing middle class people into bankruptcy so that poor people can have (substandard) coverage makes no sense to me. And no offense intended to our British friends here at UM but didn't I see Eldorado posting a story about 11 hundred people STARVING TO DEATH in government hospitals? This seems to say that your system is massively understaffed at the least. I cannot believe that UK healthcare workers are less competent or compassionate than American healthcare workers. So the only other option I see is that they simply have too large a patient load. It boggles the mind that a hospital bound person could be so ignored for long enough to die of starvation - there must be more to the story...

Britain's healthcare system is ranked (vastly) above America's by the World Health Organisation. There's good and bad in everything but sorry to say British healthcare does rank above American. That's a cold hard fact.

I highly doubt Obamacare would bankrupt anyone. Are you trying to say poor people shouldn't be entitled to healthcare so your middle class families can have the swimming pool and 3 cars in the drive?

Edited by Heaven Is A Halfpipe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the govt says that every single person WILL buy insurance, where is the incentive for the insurance companies to lower their premiums?

My rates have already increased $60, not a lot in the big scheme of things but it increased none the less.

Thought it was supposed to bring costs down?

Now, my costs are about to climb again and we havent even started officially allowing people to use "Obamacare"

So i have effectively paid extra for services i havent even needed.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you trying to say poor people shouldn't be entitled to healthcare so your middle class families can have the swimming pool and 3 cars in the drive?

Yes!

As a matter of fact i am!

Why should i forfeit my earnings to give to people who couldnt be bothered to get an education and or a skill and go forth and earn their own way through life?

why should i have sat through 4 years of college to help support a person who decided High School wasnt worth the time or effort?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong about this...but isn't Obamacare supposed to be the American equivalent of the British NHS? So everybody has access to healthcare...

Everybody does have access to healthcare.

They just need to make it a point to buy it.

Maybe shut off the cable TV and the $120 a month data plans for their phones.

Sometimes you have to make choices.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes!

As a matter of fact i am!

Why should i forfeit my earnings to give to people who couldnt be bothered to get an education and or a skill and go forth and earn their own way through life?

why should i have sat through 4 years of college to help support a person who decided High School wasnt worth the time or effort?

Education doesn't = your wealth. If it did, we wouldn't have people coming out of degrees in UK to go into dead end, low paid jobs.

Poor people pay taxes too. Or are you one of these people who think that you support everybody on benefits?

I don't fancy paying taxes for wars I don't believe in but I don't get to pick and choose...neither should you be able to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Britain's healthcare system is ranked (vastly) above America's by the World Health Organisation. There's good and bad in everything but sorry to say British healthcare does rank above American. That's a cold hard fact.

Really? Cold hard fact or just your opinion?

"So, how is it that the population most confident that it will receive treatment of the highest possible standard, featuring the latest medical advances, actually has the worst survival rates in precisely those diseases that require the most up-to-date treatments?

One explanation is ignorance. The average Briton or Swede is unlikely to know that the five-year survival rate for colorectal cancer is 51.6% in Britain but 59.8% in Sweden, or that the 30-day fatality rates for myocardial infarction in those two countries are 6.3% and 2.9%, respectively. (The figures for the United States are 65.5% and 5.1%.) By contrast, the average Briton knows that if he suffers a heart attack, he will be taken to the hospital and connected to a lot of machines, from which he concludes that he is having the best possible treatment.

In my youth, I often heard the refrain that the NHS was "the envy of the world," and people in Britain are still inclined to believe that, even though they probably have never met anyone who envied the NHS and, indeed, probably know Continental Europeans residing in Britain who hurry home as soon as they require medical treatment, horrified by the prospect of subjecting themselves to a British hospital."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/08/opinion/la-oe-dalrymple-british-health-system-20120808

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Education doesn't = your wealth. If it did, we wouldn't have people coming out of degrees in UK to go into dead end, low paid jobs.

Poor people pay taxes too. Or are you one of these people who think that you support everybody on benefits?

I don't fancy paying taxes for wars I don't believe in but I don't get to pick and choose...neither should you be able to.

IN America more than 40% of the "poor" dont pay a single red cent towards Federal or State income taxes.

They get every bit of it back.

So tell me how the middle class and upper class are NOT the ones paying their way?

So that doesnt wash with me as them paying their fair share towards medical coverage too.

And as far as education, unless youre one of the folks who gets their degree in "Liberal Arts or Basket weaving", the degree pays off.

I was one of the lower middle class folks that went back to school and got a degree one and two classes at a time while i worked and i doubled my annual income by doing so.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

IN America more than 40% of the "poor" dont pay a single red cent towards Federal or State income taxes.

They get every bit of it back.

So tell me how the middle class and upper class are NOT the ones paying their way?

So that doesnt wash with me as them paying their fair share towards medical coverage too.

And as far as education, unless youre one of the folks who gets their degree in "Liberal Arts or Basket weaving", the degree pays off.

I was one of the lower middle class folks that went back to school and got a degree one and two classes at a time while i worked and i doubled my annual income by doing so.

To get every bit of it back would suggest they do pay tax but get it back to help them live. Is this correct? Or have you botched? Because if they're getting back what they already paid in, they're funding themselves, not you, and you'd only be mad that you don't get your taxes back. I suspect you wrongly made a statement though, since it doesn't make sense...

I know plenty of people who took highly scientific/technological degrees and found it hard to find work when they came out of their degree. How old are you? You seem to be under the impression it's all rosy in the world and anybody who is poor, has only themselves to blame. The poor didn't run the banks into the ground. The poor didn't cut thousands of jobs. The poor didn't tell your Presidents to invade every country they could, running up more and more debt.

If you want your say on what tax goes on, run for President. That's why we elect officials, is it not? So they make decisions based on what they think is best for us. I have no problem knowing that I am helping the poor get the healthcare they need but then again...I'm not a selfish **** nor do I assume everybody in poverty put themselves there. Yeah...everyone just decides to be poor. Man, you're brainwashed with conservative propaganda.

Go Obamacare. Go anti-guns while we're at it. The middle ages are over, America...time to join the rest of the world in the modern day and age.

Edited by Heaven Is A Halfpipe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

To get every bit of it back would suggest they do pay tax but get it back to help them live. Is this correct? Or have you botched? Because if they're getting back what they already paid in, they're funding themselves, not you, and you'd only be mad that you don't get your taxes back. I suspect you wrongly made a statement though, since it doesn't make sense...

I know plenty of people who took highly scientific/technological degrees and found it hard to find work when they came out of their degree. How old are you? You seem to be under the impression it's all rosy in the world and anybody who is poor, has only themselves to blame. The poor didn't run the banks into the ground. The poor didn't cut thousands of jobs. The poor didn't tell your Presidents to invade every country they could, running up more and more debt.

If you want your say on what tax goes on, run for President. That's why we elect officials, is it not? So they make decisions based on what they think is best for us. I have no problem knowing that I am helping the poor get the healthcare they need but then again...I'm not a selfish **** nor do I assume everybody in poverty put themselves there. Yeah...everyone just decides to be poor. Man, you're brainwashed with conservative propaganda.

Go Obamacare. Go anti-guns while we're at it. The middle ages are over, America...time to join the rest of the world in the modern day and age.

Keep your socialistic views in England and all will be well.

Which actually brings up an even better point. Why is it even any of your business what we do in America?

Why do you feel you should have any say in our country or how its run?

I never saw anyone chastising your nation for having to wait 20 minutes for cops with guns to show up at a place where a soldier was being hacked to death.

you deal with your mess we will deal with ours.

Edited by Capt Amerika
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Spike, the "single payer" option that was defeated was the equivalent of NHS - or so I'm told. This kind of plan is what Obama wants and by accepting this monstrously complex health care deal he knew he could guarantee it's failure and then have "single payer". I worked as a MRI technologist for a decade so I know a little about the field. The system definitely needs radical change but forcing middle class people into bankruptcy so that poor people can have (substandard) coverage makes no sense to me. And no offense intended to our British friends here at UM but didn't I see Eldorado posting a story about 11 hundred people STARVING TO DEATH in government hospitals? This seems to say that your system is massively understaffed at the least. I cannot believe that UK healthcare workers are less competent or compassionate than American healthcare workers. So the only other option I see is that they simply have too large a patient load. It boggles the mind that a hospital bound person could be so ignored for long enough to die of starvation - there must be more to the story...

Yep. That's exactly it.....

Being dependent on government handouts is a scary position to be in..

Because most people aren't gonna bite the hand that feeds them.....

"You bit the hand Marty! YOU BIT THE HAND!"

LOL. :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Keep your socialistic views in England and all will be well.

Which actually brings up an even better point. Why is it even any of your business what we do in America?

Why do you feel you should have any say in our country or how its run?

I never saw anyone chastising your nation for having to wait 20 minutes for cops with guns to show up at a place where a soldier was being hacked to death.

you deal with your mess we will deal with ours.

LOL! This is funny because an American friend called Britain a socialist state to me recently and I just found it hilarious! They clearly had been fed propaganda and didn't understand what socialism actually is. Americans tend to be the most brain washed people on the planet. If your favourite party tells you left is right, you believe it.

I wasn't aware I wasn't allowed to comment on other countries and their (imo) ****ed up way of life? Where were your airforce when "men in caves" were flying planes into buildings? Cheap shots go both ways my friend...

Edited by Heaven Is A Halfpipe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where were your airforce when "men in caves" were flying planes into buildings?

Oh God, please don't read this, skyeagle.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Britain's healthcare system is ranked (vastly) above America's by the World Health Organisation. There's good and bad in everything but sorry to say British healthcare does rank above American. That's a cold hard fact.

I highly doubt Obamacare would bankrupt anyone. Are you trying to say poor people shouldn't be entitled to healthcare so your middle class families can have the swimming pool and 3 cars in the drive?

Man I was middle class all my life until I became disabled from back, neck surgeries and pulmonary embolisms. I NEVER could afford the stuff you are talking about. I paid the basic bills - insurances for health, car home and the mortgage (one) and tried to save for the future. The vast number of Americans live from one pay check to the next and know little security. The addition of even a few hundred dollars in extra insurance costs will cause them to fail. I realize you have a vision of my country that fits your worldview and you have no intention of being dissuaded so I won't bother. But black and white thinking will get you into trouble in time. The poor get healthcare in this country. The biggest problem for them is the loss of dignity that goes with that provision. I know about THAT...too. What Obama care attempts to do is codify the rules so that everyone seems the same and can maintain their dignity -I have no problem with that at all. But from the real world the lesson is that when 500 people need services and the government is only going to pay an amount that enables services for 50...well...someone is going to go wanting ... PERIOD. Every service a hospital provides has costs attached on multiple levels. As with most things, labor (human element) is the most expensive, so the first place to cut costs is with payroll. Now you've got fewer people working longer, sometimes MUCH longer hours to handle the numbers of patients that need services. Mistakes go up, disaffection with the work goes up and eventually the only people who will do the healthcare work is the "least common denominator".

My congratulations on the success of NHS. I'm 52 and I have NEVER......EVER... heard of a patient in a US hospital, not a SINGLE patient...starving to death. So take your statistics with a grain of salt, friend. My intention was not to insult Britain or her healthcare workers but to point out that conditions dictate the level of care that is possible to provide.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.