Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Monday, February 11, 2013

ObamaCrapCare Premiums up 100%

According to the following article, insurance premiums, especially on the young, could jump by triple digits! Isn't that a kick in the head of those young people who voted for the Obominator!

ObamaCrapCare aka ObamaCare and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is going to hurt the very people it was meant to help and it will NOT solve the problems it was designed to correct. It is a poorly designed plan that was rushed through the Congress to give Obama a victory.  If it is not thrown out, we will be paying for this crime against the country for years to come.

Conservative Tom

Here is the article: 

http://www.cato.org/blog/obamacares-triple-digit-premium-hikes-dramatize-need-repeal





15 comments:

  1. This is a good article. Premiums increase for healthy, wealthy young people. You are right about that. However, you have nothing to say about the significant cost savings for all the previously uninsured Americans (especially old people and sick people who consume a disproportionate share of health care costs in the U.S.). Remember, that 5% of the population consumes 65% of the health services. Getting most of these people finally insured and receiving better quality health care is where the biggest cost savings will come under Obamacare.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  2. Most older people are covered by Medicare, your point is wrong. Medicare covers these people until they run out of money and then Medicaid takes over. They already are covered. ObamaCrapCare does nothing to effect that.

    There will BE NO SAVINGS for ObamaCrapCare, it will only cost you and I millions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What are you talking about? There are millions of uninsured people under age 65 who have chronic diseases. Getting these people insured and, hopefully, some more young people who can get earlier diagnosis and treatment BEFORE delays causes a chronic or catastrophic illness will improve population health statistics and lower per capita healthcare costs. Compared to the U.S. system, nearly all the other democracies that have universal health care have better population health stats and lower per capita costs. I have already shown you that data on that. Obamacare is a significant step toward getting our health care system closer to the rest of the world. Within 10 years, I expect the U.S. will substantially close the gap with the rest of the rich countries of the world on both quality and costs. Since we will finally be doing many of the things they are already doing, our numbers will get closer to theirs as our system gets closer to their. Conversely, CBO projects that repealing Obamacare would increase the budget deficit by $109 billion over 2013-22. So it is doesn't even make sense fiscally, not to mention that it would leave our population LESS healthy than it will become once we get another 32 million insured and receiving regular healthcare.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  4. $109 billion is absolutely nothing. That is less than a penny. The real cost of Obama Crap Care will be 2-4 trillion dollars. What's the point?u

    You will find out that ObamaCrapCare will NOT do what you say it will.

    You were talking about people over 65 and I answered that.

    Most of those "sick" people under 65 had access to health insurance already. Now that the rates for health insurance are going through the roof thanks to ObamaCrap Care, even with the govenment paying part of the premium, they will not be able to pay for it regardless of the price.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The CBO projects that Obamacare will cost $109 billion LESS than what the cost would be without it, because we would still have the inefficient/more costly system that it is going to replace. That was the point.

    Obamacare will reduce Medicare costs by changing the way providers are paid (i.e. paying for value, not fee-for-service). But I was also talking about all the sick people under 65 who have been denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions or by having the premiums jacked up so high by the insurance companies that they can't afford coverage. One way or the other, for-profit insurance companies work to get rid of unprofitable persons. This will not be possible under Obamacare because they must let sick people into the group plan AND they can ONLY charge higher premiums to people based on such things as age and tobacco use, but NOT health status. That is why sick people with chronic disease will have much LOWER premiums under Obamacare than previously. If you don't know this, then you don't know as much about the ACA as you claim.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  6. In Michigan--sick people had the SAME rate as healthy under BCBS.

    ACA allows insurance carriers to increase premiums for people with health issues--they cannot deny them but they can charge more!

    ReplyDelete
  7. >ACA allows insurance carriers to increase premiums for people with health issues--they cannot deny them but they can charge more!

    Absolutely false. Read the law. I even posted it verbatim. They can discriminate against smokers. That's it.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  8. Quoting from ACA....

    "Sec. 2701. Fair health insurance premiums. Establishes that premiums in the individual and small group markets may vary only by family structure, geography, the actuarial value of the benefit, age (limited to a ratio of 3 to 1), and tobacco use (limited to a ratio of 1.5 to 1)."

    Premiums may vary only on these criteria. A 50-yr. old male with diabetes and a recent heart attack pays the SAME premium as a 50-yr. old male with excellent health history. That's the law.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And that is really fair to the person who has taken care of themselves, they get to pay higher premiums while the person who has abused their body with drugs, chemicals, junk food and no exercise gets to pay less. That really makes sense f you want to ruin health care.!
    \
    Otherwise, it discourages the very actions that have helped someone to stay healthy.

    This makes no sense, of course, the purpose of is to make America a second or third rate country with so much debt that it cannot maintain its military or be a source of good in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, it makes sense if you drop the morality soapbox and analyze the problem economically. The primary reason to eat a healthy diet, not smoke/drink, and exercise is to maintain your health, not to lower your insurance.

    Getting the sick, uninsured people insured and receiving regular check-ups and early diagnostics/treatments will lower the amount of money they cost all the rest of us. It is not as if we are not indirectly paying for them already when they show up sick in the emergency rooms with advanced illnesses.

    Anyway, I am pleased to see that you now accept the fact that ACA significantly lowers insurance costs for these people. That is progress in our discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The fly in your analysis is that the people who are unhealthy now will be unhealthy under ObamaCrapCare. Habits do not change because you can go to the doctor and be told that you need to drop weight, take meds, eat better. In fact, it might even make you less compliant.

    We tried this with HMOs and it did not work.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Regular check-ups with screenings to detect cancers and other diseases at the early stage of development allow early diagnosis and treatment, which is much less costly than when the uninsured person finally shows up at the emergency room with advanced illness. It sure as hell DOES work. This is one of the reasons why countries with universal health care have better population health statistics than the U.S.

    >We tried this with HMOs and it did not work.
    Define "work."

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  13. HMO success was not present when detecting cancer etc. It did not make people lose weight etc. It did not improve health statistics. That is what it means "not to work."

    ReplyDelete
  14. This might explain…

    "In the end, even the HMOs didn't believe their own fiction, largely because it was never in the industry's interest to try to prevent diseases they would never need to pay for anyway. The result was that HMOs tended to focus on things that were easy and popular, like mammograms, ignoring the kind of broad and costly preventive measures that might have made a real difference.

    No incentive

    As Denver-based health care economist J.D. Kleinke points out in his forthcoming book Oxymorons: The Myth of a U.S. Health Care System, with the average person changing health care plans every three years, HMOs had no incentive to pay for expensive medicine to prevent a disease that wouldn't manifest itself for another ten years. Why spend gobs of money ferreting out premalignant polyps that wouldn't make themselves manifest as colon cancer for another decade? By the time most diseases would sprout, patients would be another insurer's problem or covered under Medicare."

    http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2001/08/13/bica0813.htm

    ReplyDelete
  15. Under ACA, the insurance companies are required to provide all these free of charge in every new policy….

    1. Services recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), including screening tests, immunizations and preventive medications.

    2. Immunizations recommended by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

    3. Preventive care and screening for infants, children and adolescents that are included in comprehensive guidelines issued by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).

    4. Women's preventive care and screenings, to be issued in future HRSA guidelines.

    This is more preventive health service than HMOs were doing, and includes all of the most proven effective items (e.g., immunizations).

    --David

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.