is your health insurance going up? (1 Viewer)

[uwftbl]

After minimal increases (wife is a teacher and we have the group plan) in years, our deductible went from $100 to $1,000 if in plan. If out of plan from $200 to $2,000. Thanks Obama. I can't wait until the employee mandate kicks in to see what happens. That takes place pretty soon doesn't it? Oh wait...he changed it to after the elections.

 

[Koya]

Serious question (unlikely to get serious, unbiased answers, granted):

I've been pretty mixed on Obamacare. We need to so SOMEthing about our soaring health care costs. From both a social justice and pure business economics point of view, the future would be a lot worse if our current system went on unchecked, creating more and more uninsured, which in the end will cost our nation's taxpayers far more than taxing them for a more universal system.

That said, I've been completely against how this has all transpired - from not knowing wtf the law really IS, to the disingenuous political marketing and PR bull####, to not just calling it as it is (a health care tax) and most of all, the foolish tactical decisions to push health care through when our economy and civil rights are still, imo, more important and more winnable issues.

THAT SAID, isn't the idea here that many americans will pay somewhat more (it IS a tax after all), to ensure better care for all? Especially those who have been left hanging by the old system? Folks too poor to afford care, people who had pre-existing conditions etc?

Basically, I see a lot of selfishness in those who's main concern is that their personal rates went up. If this will, in the end (at least theoretically), lower the total cost burden to the nation, isn't that increased tax you are paying supposed to not only help those who were left out of the old system, while in the end lowering the overall cost burden to the nation (and therefore you, the taxpayer?).

It reminds me of local land use politics where people huff and puff about how wrong it is that a development will happen, even those that development will help out about 90% plus of the population... it's just that they happen to be neighbors and dont want to selfishly lose a view, or deal with a couple years of construction.

 

[MaxThreshold]

After minimal increases (wife is a teacher and we have the group plan) in years, our deductible went from $100 to $1,000 if in plan. If out of plan from $200 to $2,000. Thanks Obama. I can't wait until the employee mandate kicks in to see what happens. That takes place pretty soon doesn't it? Oh wait...he changed it to after the elections.

according to guys like TGunz, BottomFeederSports and Harry Reid you're a liar. No one is seeing increases and all these stories are nothing but lies to make ObamaCare look bad.

 

[Quez]

Basically, I see a lot of selfishness in those who's main concern is that their personal rates went up. If this will, in the end (at least theoretically), lower the total cost burden to the nation, isn't that increased tax you are paying supposed to not only help those who were left out of the old system, while in the end lowering the overall cost burden to the nation (and therefore you, the taxpayer?).

So by this theory we should expect insurance rates to start dropping 10% a year once everyone is insured.

 

[Koya]

Basically, I see a lot of selfishness in those who's main concern is that their personal rates went up. If this will, in the end (at least theoretically), lower the total cost burden to the nation, isn't that increased tax you are paying supposed to not only help those who were left out of the old system, while in the end lowering the overall cost burden to the nation (and therefore you, the taxpayer?).

So by this theory we should expect insurance rates to start dropping 10% a year once everyone is insured.

Not sure you understand how taxation works... when I say a lower cost to the nation, that takes into account the burden on tax payers from uninsured going to the ER, getting sick and perhaps getting others sick, lost productivity, crime and other social forces that have hard costs associated with them from lack of treatment and/or preventative care... I could go on.

Insurance could go up for many people, but the overall tax burden "could" (theoretically) go down because the costs associated with the issues above would not (again, theoretically) be nearly as high with wider access to health care.

My main point is the ideology aside, it seems that so many of us think from a selfish perspective on this and many issues, without even taking into context the whole picture. Heck, let's stop funding the highway system (it's going to go broke without new legislation late this summer anyway). That will lower your taxes... think that will, in the end, lessen the burden on you and the nation as a whole, or is that a public investment, paid through taxation, that provides some return on that investment?

 

[IC FBGCav]

I have been in charge of insurance at my company since 1997. IT ALWAYS GOES UP! NO MATTER WHAT! If you stay with the same provider. The only relief you get in price has to do with two things. Changing providers or changing what your insurance covers.

What sucks is for the last 16 years the coverage offered has either stayed the same or dimished while the price constantly increases. 15 out of the 16 years the price increase has been double digits if we decided to stay with the same provider.

You're couching the ACA increases with the "well, rates always go up" shtick. That way, the ACA NEVER gets any blame when rates go up.

It gives the left excuses to massively increase everyone's premiums and deductibles and still blame it on "market forces" and/or the insurers without taking any blame themselves. Convenient.

Our company signed an early renewal (@10.7% increase) so we would not have to deal with the ACA yet. My statement has NOTHING TO do with ACA.

 

[matttyl]

I have been in charge of insurance at my company since 1997. IT ALWAYS GOES UP! NO MATTER WHAT! If you stay with the same provider. The only relief you get in price has to do with two things. Changing providers or changing what your insurance covers.

What sucks is for the last 16 years the coverage offered has either stayed the same or dimished while the price constantly increases. 15 out of the 16 years the price increase has been double digits if we decided to stay with the same provider.

You're couching the ACA increases with the "well, rates always go up" shtick. That way, the ACA NEVER gets any blame when rates go up.

It gives the left excuses to massively increase everyone's premiums and deductibles and still blame it on "market forces" and/or the insurers without taking any blame themselves. Convenient.

Our company signed an early renewal (@10.7% increase) so we would not have to deal with the ACA yet. My statement has NOTHING TO do with ACA.

Funny how a 10.7% increase was actually better than the alternative (not dealing with the ACA).

 

[urbanhack]

mine have stayed the same.

IL - BCBS PPO - single

 

[Josie Maran]

I have been in charge of insurance at my company since 1997. IT ALWAYS GOES UP! NO MATTER WHAT! If you stay with the same provider. The only relief you get in price has to do with two things. Changing providers or changing what your insurance covers.

What sucks is for the last 16 years the coverage offered has either stayed the same or dimished while the price constantly increases. 15 out of the 16 years the price increase has been double digits if we decided to stay with the same provider.

You're couching the ACA increases with the "well, rates always go up" shtick. That way, the ACA NEVER gets any blame when rates go up.

It gives the left excuses to massively increase everyone's premiums and deductibles and still blame it on "market forces" and/or the insurers without taking any blame themselves. Convenient.

Oh, it's very convenient.

 

[IC FBGCav]

I have been in charge of insurance at my company since 1997. IT ALWAYS GOES UP! NO MATTER WHAT! If you stay with the same provider. The only relief you get in price has to do with two things. Changing providers or changing what your insurance covers.

What sucks is for the last 16 years the coverage offered has either stayed the same or dimished while the price constantly increases. 15 out of the 16 years the price increase has been double digits if we decided to stay with the same provider.

You're couching the ACA increases with the "well, rates always go up" shtick. That way, the ACA NEVER gets any blame when rates go up.

It gives the left excuses to massively increase everyone's premiums and deductibles and still blame it on "market forces" and/or the insurers without taking any blame themselves. Convenient.

Our company signed an early renewal (@10.7% increase) so we would not have to deal with the ACA yet. My statement has NOTHING TO do with ACA.

Funny how a 10.7% increase was actually better than the alternative (not dealing with the ACA).

That was the advice our insurance consultant gave me. He said he would almost guarentee me that prices would be higher through the ACA for the same/similar coverage.

 

[Koya]

I have been in charge of insurance at my company since 1997. IT ALWAYS GOES UP! NO MATTER WHAT! If you stay with the same provider. The only relief you get in price has to do with two things. Changing providers or changing what your insurance covers.

What sucks is for the last 16 years the coverage offered has either stayed the same or dimished while the price constantly increases. 15 out of the 16 years the price increase has been double digits if we decided to stay with the same provider.

You're couching the ACA increases with the "well, rates always go up" shtick. That way, the ACA NEVER gets any blame when rates go up.

It gives the left excuses to massively increase everyone's premiums and deductibles and still blame it on "market forces" and/or the insurers without taking any blame themselves. Convenient.

Oh, it's very convenient.

God I hate how disingenuous our political dialogue has gotten.

You may not believe in the ideology but the idea is not that everyone's rates go up and that's it. The idea is that there is a tax were by healthcare is paid for, in this using the private sector to price and deliver those services rather than the govt direct, and through this tax you pay for at least some basic level of care and prevention for those who did not have insurance before.

Let's at least have an honest discussion - the ACA is not all good nor all bad. Stop with the piddly partisan bull#### from both sides of the aisle already. It's base and brings us all down.

Honeslty, as disfunctional as our govt is, we truly deserve the govt we elect.

 

[Balance]

Basically, I see a lot of selfishness in those who's main concern is that their personal rates went up. If this will, in the end (at least theoretically), lower the total cost burden to the nation, isn't that increased tax you are paying supposed to not only help those who were left out of the old system, while in the end lowering the overall cost burden to the nation (and therefore you, the taxpayer?).

So by this theory we should expect insurance rates to start dropping 10% a year once everyone is insured.

No, by this theory the costs will be lower relative to having done nothing.

Color me shocked people don't/can't/won't get this.

 

[matttyl]

I have been in charge of insurance at my company since 1997. IT ALWAYS GOES UP! NO MATTER WHAT! If you stay with the same provider. The only relief you get in price has to do with two things. Changing providers or changing what your insurance covers.

What sucks is for the last 16 years the coverage offered has either stayed the same or dimished while the price constantly increases. 15 out of the 16 years the price increase has been double digits if we decided to stay with the same provider.

You're couching the ACA increases with the "well, rates always go up" shtick. That way, the ACA NEVER gets any blame when rates go up.

It gives the left excuses to massively increase everyone's premiums and deductibles and still blame it on "market forces" and/or the insurers without taking any blame themselves. Convenient.

Our company signed an early renewal (@10.7% increase) so we would not have to deal with the ACA yet. My statement has NOTHING TO do with ACA.

Funny how a 10.7% increase was actually better than the alternative (not dealing with the ACA).

That was the advice our insurance consultant gave me. He said he would almost guarentee me that prices would be higher through the ACA for the same/similar coverage.

And I fully agree with him. That's why I think that an off anniversary 10.7% increase (meaning less than a year removed from a previous double digit increase) was the better choice than the plan that was going to "save the average American family $2,500 a year."

 

[IC FBGCav]

I have been in charge of insurance at my company since 1997. IT ALWAYS GOES UP! NO MATTER WHAT! If you stay with the same provider. The only relief you get in price has to do with two things. Changing providers or changing what your insurance covers.

What sucks is for the last 16 years the coverage offered has either stayed the same or dimished while the price constantly increases. 15 out of the 16 years the price increase has been double digits if we decided to stay with the same provider.

You're couching the ACA increases with the "well, rates always go up" shtick. That way, the ACA NEVER gets any blame when rates go up.

It gives the left excuses to massively increase everyone's premiums and deductibles and still blame it on "market forces" and/or the insurers without taking any blame themselves. Convenient.

Oh, it's very convenient.

God I hate how disingenuous our political dialogue has gotten.

You may not believe in the ideology but the idea is not that everyone's rates go up and that's it. The idea is that there is a tax were by healthcare is paid for, in this using the private sector to price and deliver those services rather than the govt direct, and through this tax you pay for at least some basic level of care and prevention for those who did not have insurance before.

Let's at least have an honest discussion - the ACA is not all good nor all bad. Stop with the piddly partisan bull#### from both sides of the aisle already. It's base and brings us all down.

Honeslty, as disfunctional as our govt is, we truly deserve the govt we elect.

This is true. I have 14 employees range from ages 23-68. Let say our average cost for an employee is 400 (and this is what everyone is charged in group coverage.) Now the company pays 80% of that so all employess pay 80 per month. The employees aged 23-29 males on costs us 254 dollars a month but employees 60+ costs us 800 per month. I am sure the 60+ employees could find a better rate on ACA if they had to get it on their own but not so sure about the younger employees.

Costs going up have to do with care but also the ages of your employees, gender of your employees and coverage. I know one of the highest rates are seniors and females in their childbearing years. Everyone one wants young males because they cost the least. Your company's employee demographics has much to do with price.

 

[matttyl]

Basically, I see a lot of selfishness in those who's main concern is that their personal rates went up. If this will, in the end (at least theoretically), lower the total cost burden to the nation, isn't that increased tax you are paying supposed to not only help those who were left out of the old system, while in the end lowering the overall cost burden to the nation (and therefore you, the taxpayer?).

So by this theory we should expect insurance rates to start dropping 10% a year once everyone is insured.

No, by this theory the costs will be lower relative to having done nothing.

Color me shocked people don't/can't/won't get this.

What costs? Insurance premium costs? Taxation costs? Or the most important of all, overall healthcare costs? The first two haven't (yet) been the case, and I've seen nothing showing me the 3rd is being reduced, either.

 

[matttyl]

Everyone one wants young males because they cost the least. Your company's employee demographics has much to do with price.

And all of that is changing with the ACA. In your example, the young males cost 254 and the oldest employees cost 800, which is just slightly over a 1:3 ratio - which is now the max. Previously that could easily be 1:5, or more. The young will now have to cost more so that the older can potentially cost less. Also, male and female rates will be the same on ACA group (and individual) plans. Young (childbearing) women will no longer pay more than men of the same age.

Because of these change alone, I've seen young mostly male (and healthy) groups have over a 100% increase in rates. I've also seen older mostly female groups (not so healthy) have reductions of over a third. Depending on your company's employee demographics, you may want to either jump into an ACA plan as soon as you can, or stay out as long as you can.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Serious question (unlikely to get serious, unbiased answers, granted):

I've been pretty mixed on Obamacare. We need to so SOMEthing about our soaring health care costs. From both a social justice and pure business economics point of view, the future would be a lot worse if our current system went on unchecked, creating more and more uninsured, which in the end will cost our nation's taxpayers far more than taxing them for a more universal system.

That said, I've been completely against how this has all transpired - from not knowing wtf the law really IS, to the disingenuous political marketing and PR bull####, to not just calling it as it is (a health care tax) and most of all, the foolish tactical decisions to push health care through when our economy and civil rights are still, imo, more important and more winnable issues.

THAT SAID, isn't the idea here that many americans will pay somewhat more (it IS a tax after all), to ensure better care for all? Especially those who have been left hanging by the old system? Folks too poor to afford care, people who had pre-existing conditions etc?

Basically, I see a lot of selfishness in those who's main concern is that their personal rates went up. If this will, in the end (at least theoretically), lower the total cost burden to the nation, isn't that increased tax you are paying supposed to not only help those who were left out of the old system, while in the end lowering the overall cost burden to the nation (and therefore you, the taxpayer?).

It reminds me of local land use politics where people huff and puff about how wrong it is that a development will happen, even those that development will help out about 90% plus of the population... it's just that they happen to be neighbors and dont want to selfishly lose a view, or deal with a couple years of construction.

I think the ACA is best viewed as a law to expand coverage, and in particular to make insurance more accessible for people who previously couldn't afford it. To accomplish this it changes the way costs are distributed, and puts insurers potentially on the hook for substantial costs they were able to avoid in the past by not insuring people. If everyone joining the system was high risk/high cost, by definition it would increase rates substantially on everyone else, so the law also attempts to get people into the system that will be cost beneficial.

In and of itself, that principle mechanism probably won't affect long-term cost too much one way or the other. There are arguments to be made that it will reduce the cost associated with free-riders, but many of the other areas that economists look at as adding to the excessive growth rate of health care costs - moral hazard, the cost of technology, end of life care in an aging population, etc. - are either untouched or potentially amplified. Although there is some evidence that the insurance industry itself is moving back towards more managed care style models, possibly as a proactive response to manage moral hazard concerns with more (and potentially higher cost) people gaining coverage. This has been successful in the past, but by and large the market rejected that model in the old system.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

yep

thanks obama!

 

[Balance]

Basically, I see a lot of selfishness in those who's main concern is that their personal rates went up. If this will, in the end (at least theoretically), lower the total cost burden to the nation, isn't that increased tax you are paying supposed to not only help those who were left out of the old system, while in the end lowering the overall cost burden to the nation (and therefore you, the taxpayer?).

So by this theory we should expect insurance rates to start dropping 10% a year once everyone is insured.

No, by this theory the costs will be lower relative to having done nothing.

Color me shocked people don't/can't/won't get this.

What costs? Insurance premium costs? Taxation costs? Or the most important of all, overall healthcare costs? The first two haven't (yet) been the case, and I've seen nothing showing me the 3rd is being reduced, either.

More people insured, in theory reduces costs relative to spreading the cost among fewer.. In theory, which is what was being argued.

Unless you have a crystal ball that says the insurance companies weren't going to raise their premiums, I'm not sure how you can argue the first two. If my notebook is correct I'm thinking you may be a tad biased here.

The other awesome thing about this thread is everyone pretending like healthcare costs weren't skyrocketing, and/or weren't going to skyrocket prior to ACA.

 

[matttyl]

Basically, I see a lot of selfishness in those who's main concern is that their personal rates went up. If this will, in the end (at least theoretically), lower the total cost burden to the nation, isn't that increased tax you are paying supposed to not only help those who were left out of the old system, while in the end lowering the overall cost burden to the nation (and therefore you, the taxpayer?).

So by this theory we should expect insurance rates to start dropping 10% a year once everyone is insured.

No, by this theory the costs will be lower relative to having done nothing.

Color me shocked people don't/can't/won't get this.

What costs? Insurance premium costs? Taxation costs? Or the most important of all, overall healthcare costs? The first two haven't (yet) been the case, and I've seen nothing showing me the 3rd is being reduced, either.

More people insured, in theory reduces costs relative to spreading the cost among fewer.. In theory, which is what was being argued.

Unless you have a crystal ball that says the insurance companies weren't going to raise their premiums, I'm not sure how you can argue the first two. If my notebook is correct I'm thinking you may be a tad biased here.

The other awesome thing about this thread is everyone pretending like healthcare costs weren't skyrocketing, and/or weren't going to skyrocket prior to ACA.

But if those people are expensive to insure (because of their pre-existing conditions) you're spreading a much larger number among more people - so no real reduction per person, and very likely an increase (which is what most people have seen in the individual market, not counting subsidies).

Insurance company premiums are based on whatever their risk is. If they make too much, they have to pay it back to their policyholders. Their risk has increased greatly, due to no longer being able to deny those with serious pre-exisiting conditions, and having to cover everything for everyone from day 1. So I'm arguing that premiums (unsubsidized), on average, have gone up (in the individual market - which thus far is all that the ACA has touched).

As for taxes, of course on average they have gone up - they have to in order to meet the demand of the new subsidies being paid out. They don't affect everyone, of course, but they do affect quite a few people who will have to pay more in taxes.

Of course costs were going up before, I'm not sure anyone here is saying they weren't. The costs for everything has gone up as well - cars, houses, gas, groceries......

 

[Balance]

Basically, I see a lot of selfishness in those who's main concern is that their personal rates went up. If this will, in the end (at least theoretically), lower the total cost burden to the nation, isn't that increased tax you are paying supposed to not only help those who were left out of the old system, while in the end lowering the overall cost burden to the nation (and therefore you, the taxpayer?).

So by this theory we should expect insurance rates to start dropping 10% a year once everyone is insured.

No, by this theory the costs will be lower relative to having done nothing.

Color me shocked people don't/can't/won't get this.

What costs? Insurance premium costs? Taxation costs? Or the most important of all, overall healthcare costs? The first two haven't (yet) been the case, and I've seen nothing showing me the 3rd is being reduced, either.

More people insured, in theory reduces costs relative to spreading the cost among fewer.. In theory, which is what was being argued.

Unless you have a crystal ball that says the insurance companies weren't going to raise their premiums, I'm not sure how you can argue the first two. If my notebook is correct I'm thinking you may be a tad biased here.

The other awesome thing about this thread is everyone pretending like healthcare costs weren't skyrocketing, and/or weren't going to skyrocket prior to ACA.

But if those people are expensive to insure (because of their pre-existing conditions) you're spreading a much larger number among more people - so no real reduction per person, and very likely an increase (which is what most people have seen in the individual market, not counting subsidies).

Insurance company premiums are based on whatever their risk is. If they make too much, they have to pay it back to their policyholders. Their risk has increased greatly, due to no longer being able to deny those with serious pre-exisiting conditions, and having to cover everything for everyone from day 1. So I'm arguing that premiums (unsubsidized), on average, have gone up (in the individual market - which thus far is all that the ACA has touched).

As for taxes, of course on average they have gone up - they have to in order to meet the demand of the new subsidies being paid out. They don't affect everyone, of course, but they do affect quite a few people who will have to pay more in taxes.

Of course costs were going up before, I'm not sure anyone here is saying they weren't. The costs for everything has gone up as well - cars, houses, gas, groceries......

So you acknowledge everything goes up in cost (including taxes, healthcare, and insurance premiums), but are here to complain about about these things going up in cost?

I'm confused.

 

[matttyl]

So you acknowledge everything goes up in cost (including taxes, healthcare, and insurance premiums), but are here to complain about about these things going up in cost?

I'm confused.

I'm here saying I don't think you're correct in saying "costs will be lower" relative to doing nothing. Not sure what confused you about that.

 

[BassNBrew]

Technically mine have gone down.

1. Haven't been able to insure my son due to ACA so I've been saving the cost of that monthly premium.

2. The taxpayers are footing a nice subsidy for me.

3. I won't have to make insurance payments for the last two months of the year with the new rules.

 

[Koya]

Technically mine have gone down.

1. Haven't been able to insure my son due to ACA so I've been saving the cost of that monthly premium.

2. The taxpayers are footing a nice subsidy for me.

3. I won't have to make insurance payments for the last two months of the year with the new rules.

Why can't you insure your son? (If you don't wish to go into detail, understood)

 

[Balance]

So you acknowledge everything goes up in cost (including taxes, healthcare, and insurance premiums), but are here to complain about about these things going up in cost?

I'm confused.

I'm here saying I don't think you're correct in saying "costs will be lower" relative to doing nothing. Not sure what confused you about that.

You are complaining about things being the way they were and would be without the ACA, while trying to attribute it to the ACA.

And I never said costs would be lower. I said that is the theory behind trying to get everyone insured. I would agree with this theory.

.

 

[MaxThreshold]

So you acknowledge everything goes up in cost (including taxes, healthcare, and insurance premiums), but are here to complain about about these things going up in cost?

I'm confused.

I'm here saying I don't think you're correct in saying "costs will be lower" relative to doing nothing. Not sure what confused you about that.

You are complaining about things being the way they were and would be without the ACA, while trying to attribute it to the ACA.

And I never said costs would be lower. I said that is the theory behind trying to get everyone insured. I would agree with this theory.

.

So if getting everyone insured was the goal, why was the whole "average family will save $2500 per year" constantly repeated?

 

[Fennis]

stayed the same

 

[urbanhack]

stayed the same

somebody's paying for it!!!

 

[Koya]

So you acknowledge everything goes up in cost (including taxes, healthcare, and insurance premiums), but are here to complain about about these things going up in cost?

I'm confused.

I'm here saying I don't think you're correct in saying "costs will be lower" relative to doing nothing. Not sure what confused you about that.

You are complaining about things being the way they were and would be without the ACA, while trying to attribute it to the ACA.

And I never said costs would be lower. I said that is the theory behind trying to get everyone insured. I would agree with this theory.

.

So if getting everyone insured was the goal, why was the whole "average family will save $2500 per year" constantly repeated?

Because the messaging was bull#### at best and truthfully and dishonest. Of course, considering there was the same level of lying and IMO even worse from the other side of the aisle, it's hard to really pin point who is to blame. If the republicans actually cared more about governing and doing right by the nation rather than making Obama look bad (he's done that just fine on his own, mind you), we could have worked toward a law that had more buy in and more general understanding.

Unfortunately elections are more important than the electorate , and while all are guilty, I can't recall a cut your nose off to spite your face obstructionist approach of scorched earth as we've seen with the Republican Party since Obama entered office.

That said, it's no excuse for a president to purposefully mislead and then give away the store to certain interests, again at the total expense of the welfare of the American people. Perhaps had Obama been a better leader rather than petty political orator he would shine through this as opposed to become mired in his own ####.

 

[humpback]

Serious question (unlikely to get serious, unbiased answers, granted):

I've been pretty mixed on Obamacare. We need to so SOMEthing about our soaring health care costs. From both a social justice and pure business economics point of view, the future would be a lot worse if our current system went on unchecked, creating more and more uninsured, which in the end will cost our nation's taxpayers far more than taxing them for a more universal system.

That said, I've been completely against how this has all transpired - from not knowing wtf the law really IS, to the disingenuous political marketing and PR bull####, to not just calling it as it is (a health care tax) and most of all, the foolish tactical decisions to push health care through when our economy and civil rights are still, imo, more important and more winnable issues.

THAT SAID, isn't the idea here that many americans will pay somewhat more (it IS a tax after all), to ensure better care for all? Especially those who have been left hanging by the old system? Folks too poor to afford care, people who had pre-existing conditions etc?

Basically, I see a lot of selfishness in those who's main concern is that their personal rates went up. If this will, in the end (at least theoretically), lower the total cost burden to the nation, isn't that increased tax you are paying supposed to not only help those who were left out of the old system, while in the end lowering the overall cost burden to the nation (and therefore you, the taxpayer?).

It reminds me of local land use politics where people huff and puff about how wrong it is that a development will happen, even those that development will help out about 90% plus of the population... it's just that they happen to be neighbors and dont want to selfishly lose a view, or deal with a couple years of construction.

I agree with much of this, but I think a big issue is how it was sold- people were on board with the good things regarding more people getting coverage, no pre-ex, etc., but they were told that would all be done along with saving themselves a bunch of money, keeping their plans and their doctors, etc. Sure, it never did add up, but that didn't stop people from saying/believing it. Now that those things aren't coming to fruition, people are (justifiably) upset. Even if it may be true (time will tell), it's hard to trust the people saying that we'll be better off overall when they've been wrong/dishonest about other aspects of the program.

Also, there's no way of knowing what impact this is going to have on the overall cost burden to the nation. We essentially took a flawed system and placed more people into it. I agree that we needed to do "something", but I'm afraid that it didn't adequately address the cost problems, and there isn't going to be much political will to try something else that might.

 

[MaxThreshold]

So you acknowledge everything goes up in cost (including taxes, healthcare, and insurance premiums), but are here to complain about about these things going up in cost?

I'm confused.

I'm here saying I don't think you're correct in saying "costs will be lower" relative to doing nothing. Not sure what confused you about that.

You are complaining about things being the way they were and would be without the ACA, while trying to attribute it to the ACA.

And I never said costs would be lower. I said that is the theory behind trying to get everyone insured. I would agree with this theory.

.

So if getting everyone insured was the goal, why was the whole "average family will save $2500 per year" constantly repeated?

Because the messaging was bull#### at best and truthfully and dishonest. Of course, considering there was the same level of lying and IMO even worse from the other side of the aisle, it's hard to really pin point who is to blame. If the republicans actually cared more about governing and doing right by the nation rather than making Obama look bad (he's done that just fine on his own, mind you), we could have worked toward a law that had more buy in and more general understanding.

Unfortunately elections are more important than the electorate , and while all are guilty, I can't recall a cut your nose off to spite your face obstructionist approach of scorched earth as we've seen with the Republican Party since Obama entered office.

That said, it's no excuse for a president to purposefully mislead and then give away the store to certain interests, again at the total expense of the welfare of the American people. Perhaps had Obama been a better leader rather than petty political orator he would shine through this as opposed to become mired in his own ####.

I thought the GOP tried to work with Obama and were told to go to the back of the bus and "elections have consequences" nonsense? Who not working with who?

 

[matttyl]

So you acknowledge everything goes up in cost (including taxes, healthcare, and insurance premiums), but are here to complain about about these things going up in cost?

I'm confused.

I'm here saying I don't think you're correct in saying "costs will be lower" relative to doing nothing. Not sure what confused you about that.

You are complaining about things being the way they were and would be without the ACA, while trying to attribute it to the ACA.

And I never said costs would be lower. I said that is the theory behind trying to get everyone insured. I would agree with this theory.

.

 

[Koya]

So you acknowledge everything goes up in cost (including taxes, healthcare, and insurance premiums), but are here to complain about about these things going up in cost?

I'm confused.

I'm here saying I don't think you're correct in saying "costs will be lower" relative to doing nothing. Not sure what confused you about that.

You are complaining about things being the way they were and would be without the ACA, while trying to attribute it to the ACA.

And I never said costs would be lower. I said that is the theory behind trying to get everyone insured. I would agree with this theory.

.

So if getting everyone insured was the goal, why was the whole "average family will save $2500 per year" constantly repeated?

Because the messaging was bull#### at best and truthfully and dishonest. Of course, considering there was the same level of lying and IMO even worse from the other side of the aisle, it's hard to really pin point who is to blame. If the republicans actually cared more about governing and doing right by the nation rather than making Obama look bad (he's done that just fine on his own, mind you), we could have worked toward a law that had more buy in and more general understanding.Unfortunately elections are more important than the electorate , and while all are guilty, I can't recall a cut your nose off to spite your face obstructionist approach of scorched earth as we've seen with the Republican Party since Obama entered office.

That said, it's no excuse for a president to purposefully mislead and then give away the store to certain interests, again at the total expense of the welfare of the American people. Perhaps had Obama been a better leader rather than petty political orator he would shine through this as opposed to become mired in his own ####.

I thought the GOP tried to work with Obama and were told to go to the back of the bus and "elections have consequences" nonsense? Who not working with who?

I'm hardly an Obama fan, and his early failures as President included an almost complete lack of understanding of how to move things through the legislative branch. But as someone who voted for neither Obama nor Romney, it would make me laugh to hear someone who truly, objectively believes that the greater obstacle to moving ANYthing of substance forward does not lie far more on the backs of the right side of the aisle that the left.

If Anything, tactically speaking, Obama tried TOO hard to be conciliatory when he had not only a true mandate but control of congress in his first term. Decisions would likely have been made that would be to the left of my liking, but #### would have gotten done and re American people could have better judged whether the dems were a direction they wanted to continue to go another way.

Then again, if the reps were not so stupid as to run Romney, they'd have control at this point of the executive branch

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Serious question (unlikely to get serious, unbiased answers, granted):

I've been pretty mixed on Obamacare. We need to so SOMEthing about our soaring health care costs. From both a social justice and pure business economics point of view, the future would be a lot worse if our current system went on unchecked, creating more and more uninsured, which in the end will cost our nation's taxpayers far more than taxing them for a more universal system.

That said, I've been completely against how this has all transpired - from not knowing wtf the law really IS, to the disingenuous political marketing and PR bull####, to not just calling it as it is (a health care tax) and most of all, the foolish tactical decisions to push health care through when our economy and civil rights are still, imo, more important and more winnable issues.

THAT SAID, isn't the idea here that many americans will pay somewhat more (it IS a tax after all), to ensure better care for all? Especially those who have been left hanging by the old system? Folks too poor to afford care, people who had pre-existing conditions etc?

Basically, I see a lot of selfishness in those who's main concern is that their personal rates went up. If this will, in the end (at least theoretically), lower the total cost burden to the nation, isn't that increased tax you are paying supposed to not only help those who were left out of the old system, while in the end lowering the overall cost burden to the nation (and therefore you, the taxpayer?).

It reminds me of local land use politics where people huff and puff about how wrong it is that a development will happen, even those that development will help out about 90% plus of the population... it's just that they happen to be neighbors and dont want to selfishly lose a view, or deal with a couple years of construction.

I agree with much of this, but I think a big issue is how it was sold- people were on board with the good things regarding more people getting coverage, no pre-ex, etc., but they were told that would all be done along with saving themselves a bunch of money, keeping their plans and their doctors, etc. Sure, it never did add up, but that didn't stop people from saying/believing it. Now that those things aren't coming to fruition, people are (justifiably) upset. Even if it may be true (time will tell), it's hard to trust the people saying that we'll be better off overall when they've been wrong/dishonest about other aspects of the program.

Also, there's no way of knowing what impact this is going to have on the overall cost burden to the nation. We essentially took a flawed system and placed more people into it. I agree that we needed to do "something", but I'm afraid that it didn't adequately address the cost problems, and there isn't going to be much political will to try something else that might.

I was critical about virtually everything Obama did when healthcare reform first started back in 2009 through passage of the ACA in 2010, but I think some of these points are as much a reflection of the way the public consumes information as what's delivered by politicians. I don't think anything delivered in a 20 second sound bite can hold up under even modest scrutiny, but that's the way we (the big we, not anyone here in particular) seem to require our information. Politicians work to the lowest common denominator and position things in black and white terms, when virtually everything is more complex than that, because the public rewards it. Nothing is being said or has been said about the ACA or anything to do with HCR that is outside the norm of any government bill being debated and passed.

It's easy to point the finger at the media, but reality is that we vote with our dollars on the kind of media we want. Until we collectively expect more from our media and our politicians and actively seek out better sources of information we're not going to get anything different.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Mine went up slightly but that has been the case since my first job out of college in 1981. My son had an individual policy last year that was $320 a month, he is paying $172 / month for better coverage with obamacare.

And you're apparently around the Pittsburgh area - which is the second cheapest area in the nation for these new plans, amazingly within $8 a month of what your son is paying now on average.By comparison, if he lived in "Southwest Georgia", the same plan would cost $461, just over 2.5x as much. Tells me that the Pittsburgh area drastically under-priced their products.

Tells me that you are stationed at your keyboard 24/7 to ensure that we know to blame the president for any aspect of the health insurance system that affects anyone negatively.

No, just an easy to find study. Obama really don't have anything to do with the rates that carriers in Pittsburgh or in Georgia came up with for their (extremely similarly built) plans.

Every mattyl post: Oh noes, ObamaCareGhazi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Todd Andrews]

So you acknowledge everything goes up in cost (including taxes, healthcare, and insurance premiums), but are here to complain about about these things going up in cost?

I'm confused.

I'm here saying I don't think you're correct in saying "costs will be lower" relative to doing nothing. Not sure what confused you about that.

You are complaining about things being the way they were and would be without the ACA, while trying to attribute it to the ACA.

And I never said costs would be lower. I said that is the theory behind trying to get everyone insured. I would agree with this theory.

.

So if getting everyone insured was the goal, why was the whole "average family will save $2500 per year" constantly repeated?

Because the messaging was bull#### at best and truthfully and dishonest. Of course, considering there was the same level of lying and IMO even worse from the other side of the aisle, it's hard to really pin point who is to blame. If the republicans actually cared more about governing and doing right by the nation rather than making Obama look bad (he's done that just fine on his own, mind you), we could have worked toward a law that had more buy in and more general understanding.

Unfortunately elections are more important than the electorate , and while all are guilty, I can't recall a cut your nose off to spite your face obstructionist approach of scorched earth as we've seen with the Republican Party since Obama entered office.

That said, it's no excuse for a president to purposefully mislead and then give away the store to certain interests, again at the total expense of the welfare of the American people. Perhaps had Obama been a better leader rather than petty political orator he would shine through this as opposed to become mired in his own ####.

I thought the GOP tried to work with Obama and were told to go to the back of the bus and "elections have consequences" nonsense? Who not working with who?

Yes, the KooKs were trying to work with Obama when he proposed and then passed the GOP marketbased healthcare plan ACA.

 

[MaxThreshold]

So you acknowledge everything goes up in cost (including taxes, healthcare, and insurance premiums), but are here to complain about about these things going up in cost?

I'm confused.

I'm here saying I don't think you're correct in saying "costs will be lower" relative to doing nothing. Not sure what confused you about that.

You are complaining about things being the way they were and would be without the ACA, while trying to attribute it to the ACA.

And I never said costs would be lower. I said that is the theory behind trying to get everyone insured. I would agree with this theory.

.

So if getting everyone insured was the goal, why was the whole "average family will save $2500 per year" constantly repeated?

Because the messaging was bull#### at best and truthfully and dishonest. Of course, considering there was the same level of lying and IMO even worse from the other side of the aisle, it's hard to really pin point who is to blame. If the republicans actually cared more about governing and doing right by the nation rather than making Obama look bad (he's done that just fine on his own, mind you), we could have worked toward a law that had more buy in and more general understanding.

Unfortunately elections are more important than the electorate , and while all are guilty, I can't recall a cut your nose off to spite your face obstructionist approach of scorched earth as we've seen with the Republican Party since Obama entered office.

That said, it's no excuse for a president to purposefully mislead and then give away the store to certain interests, again at the total expense of the welfare of the American people. Perhaps had Obama been a better leader rather than petty political orator he would shine through this as opposed to become mired in his own ####.

I thought the GOP tried to work with Obama and were told to go to the back of the bus and "elections have consequences" nonsense? Who not working with who?

Yes, the KooKs were trying to work with Obama when he proposed and then passed the GOP marketbased healthcare plan ACA.

Still spouting this nonsense, eh? You off your meds?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Mine went up slightly but that has been the case since my first job out of college in 1981. My son had an individual policy last year that was $320 a month, he is paying $172 / month for better coverage with obamacare.

And you're apparently around the Pittsburgh area - which is the second cheapest area in the nation for these new plans, amazingly within $8 a month of what your son is paying now on average.

By comparison, if he lived in "Southwest Georgia", the same plan would cost $461, just over 2.5x as much. Tells me that the Pittsburgh area drastically under-priced their products.

He shouldn't get too comfortable with that rate (if he in fact lives around the Pittsburgh area).

I know nothing about Southwest Georgia but there is lots of competition in the Pittsburgh area. UPMC and Highmark are in a fierce battle right now. We are bombarded with advertising, both positive and negative, night and day.

Competition helps, and it's even better when the carriers are guaranteed against losses for 3 years. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next 3-5 years with the rates in these extreme areas.

I was going to point out the presence of UPMC in that market. An integrated heath care delivery system (providers) that moved to insurance. It is one of the "blurring the line from provider and insurer" models that is supposed to be the future.

 

[Koya]

Max - do you not recognize that there is a lot more private sector involvement in the ACA as opposed to traditional govt services. It's not a bunch of civil servants and local patronage politicos filling jobs, but rather the private sector insurance companies (aided and abetted by larger time politicos, granted) in the ACA.

Isn't that on its own worthy of something? Imagine if it became the national medical service. I just kills me to see folks who won't see at all, the benefits of a law because laws now somehow belong to either party and ideology rather than help us live better and more free and equitable lives.

 

[BassNBrew]

Technically mine have gone down.

1. Haven't been able to insure my son due to ACA so I've been saving the cost of that monthly premium.

2. The taxpayers are footing a nice subsidy for me.

3. I won't have to make insurance payments for the last two months of the year with the new rules.

Why can't you insure your son? (If you don't wish to go into detail, understood)

When I completed my marketplace application they said he didn't qualify for me to be able to purchase a policy for him because my agi was too low. His application was supposed to have been sent to the state for Medicaid review. The state didn't get the application in a timely manner because of problems at the Marketplace. They have since received it and have 3 months to make a decision. Once they do, they will likely deny his eligibility. I was told by BCBS they once I get that letter I can then apply with them, but there will be a 3 month waiting period before the policy goes into effect.

 

[Koya]

Technically mine have gone down.

1. Haven't been able to insure my son due to ACA so I've been saving the cost of that monthly premium.

2. The taxpayers are footing a nice subsidy for me.

3. I won't have to make insurance payments for the last two months of the year with the new rules.

Why can't you insure your son? (If you don't wish to go into detail, understood)

When I completed my marketplace application they said he didn't qualify for me to be able to purchase a policy for him because my agi was too low. His application was supposed to have been sent to the state for Medicaid review. The state didn't get the application in a timely manner because of problems at the Marketplace. They have since received it and have 3 months to make a decision. Once they do, they will likely deny his eligibility. I was told by BCBS they once I get that letter I can then apply with them, but there will be a 3 month waiting period before the policy goes into effect.

Oof. Awful mechanics there.

 

[sho nuff]

Has it ever gone down?

Every few years mine went up...pretty much didn't matter who was in office.

 

[matttyl]

Mine went up slightly but that has been the case since my first job out of college in 1981. My son had an individual policy last year that was $320 a month, he is paying $172 / month for better coverage with obamacare.

And you're apparently around the Pittsburgh area - which is the second cheapest area in the nation for these new plans, amazingly within $8 a month of what your son is paying now on average.By comparison, if he lived in "Southwest Georgia", the same plan would cost $461, just over 2.5x as much. Tells me that the Pittsburgh area drastically under-priced their products.

Tells me that you are stationed at your keyboard 24/7 to ensure that we know to blame the president for any aspect of the health insurance system that affects anyone negatively.

No, just an easy to find study. Obama really don't have anything to do with the rates that carriers in Pittsburgh or in Georgia came up with for their (extremely similarly built) plans.

Every mattyl post: Oh noes, ObamaCareGhazi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

??? I haven't once made a single post about Benghazi. Not a single post.

 

[BassNBrew]

Mine went up slightly but that has been the case since my first job out of college in 1981. My son had an individual policy last year that was $320 a month, he is paying $172 / month for better coverage with obamacare.

And you're apparently around the Pittsburgh area - which is the second cheapest area in the nation for these new plans, amazingly within $8 a month of what your son is paying now on average.By comparison, if he lived in "Southwest Georgia", the same plan would cost $461, just over 2.5x as much. Tells me that the Pittsburgh area drastically under-priced their products.

Tells me that you are stationed at your keyboard 24/7 to ensure that we know to blame the president for any aspect of the health insurance system that affects anyone negatively.

No, just an easy to find study. Obama really don't have anything to do with the rates that carriers in Pittsburgh or in Georgia came up with for their (extremely similarly built) plans.

Every mattyl post: Oh noes, ObamaCareGhazi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

??? I haven't once made a single post about Benghazi. Not a single post.

Matttyl, adults should just ignore the noise coming from the kiddie table.