Premium Surges Could Reach 400 Percent Under Obamacare
Tuesday, 14 May 2013 11:43 AM
Citing internal reports from 17 companies provided to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the Examiner reported the estimated increases would be tied to the cost of implementing the new regulations, taxes, fees, and mandates in the healthcare reform law.
The average increase is expected to be about 100 percent and could be as high as 400 percent, according to a report released Monday by the committee laying out the estimates from such companies as Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the Kaiser Foundation.
Urgent: Is Obamacare Hurting Your Wallet? Vote in Poll
"The average yearly cost for a new customer in the individual market grows from $1,896 to $3,708 — a $1,812 cost increase," according to the report.
Adding to the costs, the committee report stated, are requirements that insurance policies cover a wider array of services and that people in poor health be added to the insurance rolls.
One insurance provider, the Examiner noted, calculated a possible 413 percent increase due to new age-rating requirements and other new benefits that will have to be offered.
"Despite promises that the law will lower costs, [Obamacare] will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially," the report from the Republican-controlled committee concluded.
"The broken promises are numerous, and the empirical data reveal that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law's higher costs."
Urgent: Is Obamacare Hurting Your Wallet? Vote in Poll
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/insurance-premiums-obamacare/2013/05/14/id/504399?s=al&promo_code=137DF-1#ixzz2TJMlPwNd
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
This is ridiculous. You keep posting this crap from the insurance companies or "studies" they have funded. It is B.S. If you want to see an objective assessment, consider independent analysts like this…
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/29/how-will-obamacare-hit-premiums-lets-break-down-the-numbers/
From the consumers point of view, the cost is more important than the premiums for those who qualify for subsidies, and it will be priced affordable for most people who have enough income to not qualify for subsidies. There are exceptions, but nothing is perfect in this world.
--David
David, you are a smart guy, however, your thinking on ObamaCrapCare is way off. You say "the cost is more important than the premiums for those who qualify for subsidies..." Who do you think is going to pay for the subsidies? Martians? The Russians? We, the tax payers are!
ReplyDeleteWe already have trillion dollar deficits, where is the money going to come from when we cannot even pay our bills that we have now?
"Although the bill has now been signed into law, the debate over its design and intended effects has not abated. As concerns appropriately mount about the nation's medium- and long-term fiscal situation, critics of the ACA have resurrected doubts about its cost-containment measures and overall fiscal impact. Many commentators have claimed that the bill focuses mostly on coverage and contains little in the way of cost control.
ReplyDeleteYet we would argue that even from a purely “green eyeshade” viewpoint, the bill will significantly reduce costs. Projections suggest that with reform, total health care expenditures as a percentage of the gross domestic product will be 0.5% lower in 2030 than they would otherwise have been. In addition, although the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expressed concern that health care costs will remain high even after reform, it also determined that the ACA will reduce the federal budget deficit by more than $100 billion over the first decade and by more than $1 trillion between 2020 and 2030. And the Commonwealth Fund recently projected that expenditures for the whole health care system will be reduced by nearly $600 billion in the first decade."
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1006571
-----------------
The cost of the subsidies is more than offset by the cost controls and revenue streams in the ACA. That is why the CBO projects that ACA will significantly reduce the federal budget deficit. I know you don't believe that, but I must remind you again that all the countries around the world that have universal healthcare have per capita health care costs that are about half of the U.S. The closer we get to their model, the closer we will get to their cost structure.
This article is not about any of that, though. It is just propaganda put out by the insurance industry for their purposes.
--David
Until you go through the bill and see the outrageous increases in commissions, programs, special incentives etc etc, there is no way in Hades that this plan can cost less with the additional burden that is placed on doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and any company dealing with this monstrosity.
ReplyDeleteThe CBO supposedly scored this bill and since that time have quadrupled its estimates of costs. They finally started to get into the weeds and find out what we saw right away. Any bill that authorizes "x" dollars in 2010 and "whatever is needed in 2011 to 2015" cannot be scored unless one assumes the same number which would be faulty thinking as government costs never remain constant.
Another falacy of this bill and its scoring is that we have been paying for it for three years already before it takes effect. The scoring was based on 7 years of costs and ten years of income. If you can explain how that makes any sense, I will eat my hat!
And lastly, every day we hear about more programs, more requirements, more regulation that was never conceived by the writers of the bill. HHS is writing the regulations and now the stack is 5 feet high. Simplicity hardly!
The CBO re-estimates the 10-yr. costs every year, so naturally the 10-yr. cost estimate this year is higher than last because it no longer includes the early years when the ACA is not fully implemented. They explain this in their report, but, of course, you critics choose to ignore the point.
ReplyDeleteOur privatized for-profit healthcare system is the most expensive in the world -- DOUBLE per capita costs of countries that have universal healthcare. You guys think they can do it, but we can't. That is irrational. If Switzerland can keep the hammer on the damn insurance companies, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, so can we. We just have to get off the fee-for-service model and pay for quality. The cost saving will come for us just as they do for Europe, Japan, Taiwan, etc. The only question I have is whether the insurance industry will steam-roll the HHS in the end. If they do, we will end up where we started!
--David
Tom, this may help you understand my point....
ReplyDeletehttp://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/313-17/10323-why-an-mri-costs-1080-in-america-and-280-in-france
--David
More from Ezra…
ReplyDelete"It’s not complaining to point out that Americans pay more per unit of health care than residents of any other country. It’s just a fact. And here are a few more: As of May 2010, the average general practitioner made an annual salary of $173,000. The average surgeon made $225,000. In January, the New York Times reported that “doctors are more likely than any other profession to be in the 1 percent — one in five is.” Doctors in the United States also make far, far more than doctors in any other country. Our nurses make more than nurses in other countries, too."
This goes to your point about the shortage of primary care doctors. Why settle for $173K income when you can specialize and make $225K? The problem existed in the medical profession long before Obamacare and would remain if Obamacare were repealed. It is pure economics. If we start paying these guys like they are paid in all other countries, their incomes will drop a little. I'm fine with that!
--David
Go here and download the Milliman report…
ReplyDeletehttp://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2013/3/29/report-acas-effect-on-insurance-premiums-varies-by-income-level.asp
Look at their Figure 1 and Figure 2 reported "Total Cost of Care" by income category. This is the composite of all cost factors (premiums, subsidies, out-of-pocket, etc.). What it shows is that Obamacare is a heck of a deal for anybody middle income or lower, which is most of the people in this country. The stuff you keep posting about ACA is inspired by the insurance companies and focuses exclusively on the people in the individual market who are not eligible for subsidies. Even narrower, it goes to the most extreme cases within this market (young people who are getting a significant upgrade to their benefits under ACA).
--David
From a study by the Urban Institute…
ReplyDelete"The ACA will significantly reduce the age-related variations in premiums charged to adults and families purchasing the same coverage in the nongroup insurance market. While the ACA will increase costs for young adults and families purchasing such coverage, the out-of-pocket implications of this provision have frequently been over-stated. Analysis shows that large majorities of young adults purchasing nongroup insurance today—as well as those expected to purchase such coverage when the ACA is fully implemented in 2014—will be shielded from the increases brought about by the tighter age rating rules. Expanded Medicaid eligibility and federal subsidies for purchasing coverage through state exchanges should help prevent large numbers being pushed out of the market, as some claim will happen."
http://www.urban.org/publications/412757.html
--------------
You can expect the House of Representatives to bring in their friends from the insurance industry to testify that that sky is falling, and millions of healthy, young people in the individual market will be driven of the market by higher premiums. Not true. But they are lobbying to get back to 5:1 age band instead of the 3:1 age band required under ACA so that they can stick it to older people age 57-64 on their premiums.
--David