Medical expenditures and growth rates have slowed in 2010-2013 but AFAIK, not insurance premiums - which have continued to increase. That certainly has been true for my private coverage. Would love to see cites to the contrary.
ACA plans are more expensive for me since the Bronze minimum actuarial value is 60% rather than the 40% or so that I had with my HDHP. No yearly or lifetime max or cancellation worries either. Perhaps I had something “tailored to my needs” or just a cheap plan that would pay out little, who knows.
Having less is not such a good approach when you get unlucky and need more…
Instead of the typical risk based insurance approach to premiums, the ACA only allows premiums set on an adjusted “community rating” so prices can vary only by age, tobacco use and market. Essentially, it places all (without employer coverage) in a single, large group market - so we no longer buy “individual” insurance. I guess some here would like to set premiums by sex, health status or other risks but let’s face it, that just doesn’t work for health insurance. Furthermore it leads to discrimination by insurance companies that any caring human or government should not tolerate - not even so they can pay less.
Yet politics ruled again, even in that case. Why not actually put everyone in the same pool then? Why charge old people 3x more than young people? Because of course young people would shun the exchanges even more than they are now.
And to beat this dead horse again, why not prepare people for what’s coming? The administration spent years slamming anyone who pointed out the tradeoffs as “spreading misinformation”. Now once the tradeoffs are real, supporters switch on a dime to saying, “That’s the way it’s supposed to work!” Well, nice of you to tell us that now.
No conspiracy needed. Insurance companies are very good at writing confusing language to keep customers in the dark as to what they are getting. And doing everything they can to avoid paying out.
And this year, for the first time ever, my employer based insurance premiums didn’t go up a cent. Guess that is Obamacare also. Not a great plan, but it is equivalent to what I would pay (Including subsidies) and get for a Bronze plan where I live. Although, for a few dollars more per month, there is a Silver plan with a lower deductible, lower out of pocket, and much better co-pays. Frankly, unless you are exceptionally healthy as an older person, you should probably get the best insurance you can afford. The premiums are higher, but you will most likely save in the long run.
The suggestion that Republicans might have been capable of sober rational discussion made be burst out laughing.
The opposition loses credibility when you flail out with contradictory charges. Earlier an anti-Obamacarist complained that the young paid too much; now you suggest they pay too little. One thing I’m certain of – there would be no happy middle-ground for your ilk; if $200 was the smallest fee that was too big, it’s certain $199 would be “too small” for you.
So please go back to your smoke-filled rooms and at least make your complaints consistent. While you’re doing that, why don’t you finally agree on whether it’s American slavery or Hitler’s Holocaust that gives the best analogy for Obamacare.
A poor excuse for not telling the public what was coming.
The young do pay too much, but less than they would if everyone was thrown into a single pool. The administration was aware that they could only fleece the young so much, but they overshot anyway, judging by young people’s disinterest in the whole enterprise.
Of course that’s only four states. The administration is guarding that data for the federal exchanges like it’s a state secret. Which is what they do whenever something is unfavorable.
That article is from November 20, long before the bulk of current applicants were able to enroll. We don’t know what the demographic breakdown is since 2 million people enrolled, after the date of that article.
Even as she proudly announced Tuesday that more than 2.1 million people enrolled in Obamacare insurance by the end of 2013, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and her spokeswomen were conspicuously mum on just who those people are—a fact that could push plan prices higher next year.
…
In contrast, the reluctance—or inability—of federal officials to disclose total national demographic data has led to speculation that the “mix” of enrollees to date is disproportionately weighted toward older people, who on average use health insurance benefits more often than younger people. If that is the case—and if it remains so—insurers, when they price plans for 2015, might have to bump up premiums significantly to account for the disparity.
…
California’s enrollment data has exposed the fact that younger adults, so far, have enrolled at a significantly lower rate than their share of the overall state population, according to most recently available numbers. And the state’s exchange also was lagging in signing up Hispanics, who are a sizable minority of residents there
And you are pretty transparent as well. There has been good news to crow about (and it has been crowed), and you’ve consistently ignored it. It’s certainly been a rocky rollout, but for supporters of the law, there’s plenty to be optimistic about.
The Obama administration plans to delay the start of next year’s ObamaCare enrollment period, a move pitched as a way to give consumers and insurance companies more time to study their options – but which also conveniently pushes the second round of enrollment past the 2014 midterm elections.
Open enrollment – which is already causing political headaches for the administration this year – had been set to start Oct. 15, 2014.
That date is now being pushed back a month, a Health and Human Services official told Bloomberg News.
The administration cited technical reasons, saying the date gives insurers “more time to prepare new plans and rates.”
But the new date happens to fall 11 days after the Nov. 4 elections – where Democratic control for the Senate is at stake. Democrats are also hoping to beat back the odds and retake the House.
Any spike in insurance rates would most likely be revealed during the enrollment period — and could infuriate voters.
Shows you how optimistic Obama administration is about the prices for 2015 policies.
The Medicaid portion has been a success. But yeah, we seem to agree on this much: what the administration is willing to reveal is good, what they hide is bad.
As for optimism, that depends on what parts of the law you find important. The mandate and the exchanges aren’t looking too viable right now.
Not enough signups, and the fact that they’ve already had to exempt at least 500,000 from the mandate.
There’s no way in hell they make 20-30 million people pay the penalty. I hope they do try, though, should create quite the reaction at the polling places.
“Damn the public interest if doing so gets one of the nitwits on my team elected.”
Thank you, adaher, for your illuminating posts. They consistently show us a main difference between America’s political poles. It isn’t even left vs right, or choice vs life anymore; it’s public interest vs pure partisanship.
The individual mandate is not in the public interest. No public interest is served by taking 1-2.5% of everyone without health insurance’s income. It makes people worse off.
And justifiably pissed.
But hey, back yourself into a corner. That means if the President suspends enforcement of the mandate, then he is acting out of political interest and against the public interest, by your definition.
Without the mandate, the unpaid emergency room bills problem continues – and that’s a really significant part of high insurance rates.
You and I are already paying for the uninsured – they get care, unpaid, at ERs, and our bills go up to pay for it. With the mandate, everyone is chipping in.
The purpose of the mandate was not so the eevul guvmint could steal from the uninsured. It was to provide a “stick” to go with “carrots” to encourage insurance. You seem to have it backwards.
If by “not in the public interest” you mean that a single-payer scheme would be better, we’re in agreement. OTOH, if your preference is the Social Darwinist pleasure of watching children’s infections fester because their parents were not motiviated to get insurance, then please include me out.
