Are you able to articulate the point, or are you just mindlessly repeating this same allegation? Because the issue is clear to me.
I pointed out what the average premium was. Why are you bringing in average spending per capita? Have you heard of deductibles, copays, coinsurance etc?
I am asserting that you saw “16% lower” and didn’t bother to wonder “16% lower than what?”.
Are you not capable of reading what I wrote when I linked to the story in the first place?
I am. You apparently are not capable of understanding what you’re reading. Hence your silly statement of:
“Your link says that premiums went up on average 41%. Mine says they have gone down 16%.”
When one link’s base was existing premiums and the other link’s base was projected ones.
“Premiums are less than expected” is a way of shrouding the truth. People aren’t interested in what the CBO projected, they want to know if their premiums are going up. Period.
Well, that certainly settles that!
I haven’t read the whole thread so I couldn’t say if my point about actuarial pooling of healthy and unhealthy was new. Nobody forced you to respond to it.
Lol, you are the one who jumped in with the “grandfathered” distinction presumably so you could argue that Obama was technically telling the truth even though many peoples’ plans may have been changed in the manner I described.
So it’s completely reasonable for me to point out that (apparently) Obama’s statement was untrue even using your excessively charitable and unreasonable reading of it.
Umm, thanks for a concession which is more graceful than what is typical on internet messageboards.
The big test will be whether the President signs the Let People Keep Their Insurance Act or whatever it’s called. If he was being honest and just didn’t know, it’s a no-brainer that he’ll sign.
Since “copays” was the last word of the post you quote, I’m thinking – yes. I’m also thinking that the billed amount for my wife’s bilateral knee replacement was well over $100,000, and the copays under than $2,000. Your ratio may vary, but you still cannot get real unsubsidized health insurance for a middle aged American (no annual/lifetime maximum, no picking and choosing for the healthy) for $2,800 a year.*
Same thing applies to repeal and replace. Tens of millions will see their premiums go up and coverage go down.
Fortunately, Republicans are honest enough to highlight unpleasant truths, so the Affordable Care Act is safe 
- Or maybe you can with true and pure catastrophic insurance combined with a health savings account, as allowed by the Affordable Care Act, but not may have that.
Darn five minutes limit.
Last four words of my last post should read “few have that.”
I think it’s called “Let People Keep their CRAPPY Insurance Act”.
Does it have a chance of passing in the Senate?
Please read your own link before implying other people are stupid.
The study in my link is about buyers in the individual market. Your link asserts that overall premiums are 16% lower than the CBO’s projections.
I voted for Obama and think the ACA is a step in the right direction. However, I can easily acknowledge that some people got screwed.
The people in this thread arguing that Obama didn’t lie about everyone being able to keep their plans (which is the subject of the thread) are being ridiculous. He did. At best, it’s similar to arguing the fall didn’t kill the guy; it was the ground.
look again at the cite. That’s the average for all. Not only middle aged. Same with CBO projections. average for all.
But if I am healthy, there is no direct benefit to me (and a huge downside) by no longer “picking and choosing for the healthy.” That kept my premium costs down, much like State Farm denying auto insurance to those with 5 DUIs.
I understand that we need a mechanism to insure those with pre-existing conditions but if the ACA had been sold as “your premiums increase to subsidize those with pre-existing conditions” it never would have passed.
It goes back to my point that seems to get lost in this thread that an insurance policy is not “crappy” to a healthy 25 year old male which denies coverage for pre-existing conditions and fails to provide maternity care. It is beneficial to that person when his policy has these exclusions. Now, you may say that he’s a selfish bastard for thinking that way and needs to pay more to cover those with pre-existing conditions, but the ACA was sold as a law that would reduce premiums and reduce the deficit, not as a redistribution of wealth that takes from largely the middle class.
Warren Buffett’s hypothetical daughter who has stage IV breast cancer can get a lesser premium because rates have increased for our 25 year old working stiff. I can’t blame some for thinking they were lied to by a system that claims “affordability” while increasing their premiums.
No, this is what we are seeing with the ACA. Not tens on millions yet give it a few more months.
Well, there are a few red state dems who are looking for cover from the fallout over the ACA debacle. They will probably support it. Mary Landrieu from LA is one who has stated support for such an act.
The real problem is that ACA can’t work without all these people losing their plans and being forced onto the exchanges. That’s not a bug of the system…it’s a primary function. Otherwise the exchanges will be filled with the sick and those that require subsidies. I’m curious to see how the dems, who know this, will act. They voted in a party-line vote to shoot down a similar bill by Mike Enzi in 2010.
I did articulate the point. Terr did a much better job of articulating the point shortly after my attempt. I think it’s been articulated no less than three times so far. Are you able to understand the point or are you just mindlessly reading headlines of stories you post? Because the issue is clear to everyone but you
This type of subterfuge in promoting government plans is atrocious. It’s not just the ACA, but every government plan likes to project high costs and then claim savings when the plan comes in under those self-projected costs.
It would be similar to a home invader who declared that he would murder your four kids before he left, and when he leaves, he only murders 3 of the 4 and then claims that he reduced, through his own actions, the projected homicide rate in your family due to home invasions by 25%.
It’s an outlandish example, but it illustrates the method.