There appear to be three reasons why Tom's premiums have gone up:

(1) insurance companies cannot surcharge those with pre existing conditions so the cost of that gets spread across the entire pool;
(2) insurance companies can only charge up to three times more due to age and this cost gets spread across the pool
(3) to the extent his plan, if it does and this is not clear, has to change and add more coverage to comply with the ACA

freeman3 wrote:There appear to be three reasons why Tom's premiums have gone up:

(1) insurance companies cannot surcharge those with pre existing conditions so the cost of that gets spread across the entire pool;
(2) insurance companies can only charge up to three times more due to age and this cost gets spread across the pool
(3) to the extent his plan, if it does and this is not clear, has to change and add more coverage to comply with the ACA

And, again, if the President had sold this plan for what it is, it never would have passed. For the most part, this is, in effect, a tax increase. For a handful, it is a nice deal. Maybe they could not get covered before, etc. For most with coverage and income, it's a tax increase disguised as a rate increase.

Heckuva job, Mr. President!

bbauska

Sure. Other countries have done this, with a plan that is not this. Are you saying the ACA follows those models of other countries

No. But it points the direction to efficiency and effectiveness. And the ACA does move in that direction.
The ACA was what was possible politically.
Its still incredibly complex and only incrementally improves on the status quo. But it is an improvement and it is change, Having over come the resistance to any change, there is the potential for continuing improvement.
The opposition to it, is largely meaningless noise. Complaining that Some are subsidizing others is nonsense. Its both the nature of insurance, and the nature of a nation that has decided not to let the least of its citizens suffer and die because medical care is beyond their ability to pay...
And as much as Fate wants to ignore reality, that's what Ron Reagan did with the emergency medicine access, and Johnson did with Medicare. The problem with Reagan's law was that, like many republican efforts, no one figured how to pay for it .... So the costs were buried and and everyone paid for it. Everyone is already subsidizing this .... (You do recognize this Fate?)
The ACA is an improvement on provision of care at EMTs. Both in cost and effectiveness.
By bringing in oversight and standards for insurance plans, provides consumers real protections when dealing with Insurance companies and real protections for their financial security in the place of illness.

Fate

And, under Obamacare, more than 30 million of them will remain without insurance (per the CBO)

Only in states where Republican governors have refused to accept the Medicaid deal.
There are 26 of these states. 24 receive more in benefit from the federal government than they contribute. (And yet the rest of the country doesn't complain about subsidizing them..)
What this means is that in 26 states, the poor, especially the working poor, will be substantially worse off than in those States that have accepted the ACA. All because of the ideological obstinance of the governors who refuse to act in the interests of their citizens...

Ricky, thanks for caring so much and explaining my insurance plan to me.
You are 100% incorrect in your assumption. The increase in cost was about 20%, this was to stay with the exact same plan with no changes from the previous year. EXACT same plan, +20%
And my previous plan stays the same because it did qualify under the ACA rules. Yet it jumped 20% when the Prez promised savings. I got no better care, but my prices went up, a lot...far more than inflation, far more than medical inflation, far more than was promised.

rickyp wrote:The opposition to it, is largely meaningless noise. Complaining that Some are subsidizing others is nonsense. Its both the nature of insurance, and the nature of a nation that has decided not to let the least of its citizens suffer and die because medical care is beyond their ability to pay...

Um, no, "the nation" didn't decide on the ACA. The Democrats in Congress and the President did. The ACA has never had majority support.

Furthermore, if it had been honestly sold, like this, it never would have passed.

Everyone is already subsidizing this .... (You do recognize this Fate?)

You do recognize we will STILL be subsidizing this, don't you, Rickyp? The ACA leaves us with 31 million uninsured in 2020, virtually unchanged from right now. What a brilliant law! The best news is our rates go up AND ER's will still be packed!

Now, Captain Obvious (aka rickyp), will you please admit that we're not getting what we pay for? Can you at least have that much integrity?

The ACA is an improvement on provision of care at EMTs. Both in cost and effectiveness.

Opinion. Not proven. Until you prove it, and not with an op-ed, I'm calling "bull." Why? Because we will have just as many uninsured as we do now.

By bringing in oversight and standards for insurance plans, provides consumers real protections when dealing with Insurance companies and real protections for their financial security in the place of illness.

We don't know that yet. You're guessing.

Fate

And, under Obamacare, more than 30 million of them will remain without insurance (per the CBO)

Only in states where Republican governors have refused to accept the Medicaid deal.

Prove it.

There are 26 of these states. 24 receive more in benefit from the federal government than they contribute. (And yet the rest of the country doesn't complain about subsidizing them..)
What this means is that in 26 states, the poor, especially the working poor, will be substantially worse off than in those States that have accepted the ACA. All because of the ideological obstinance of the governors who refuse to act in the interests of their citizens...

False. They are acting in the fiscal interests of their States. How so? Simple arithmetic (which is difficult for you liberals): the ACA offers States help with the increased load from Medicaid patients. However, that decreases over time, but the cost does not--it will increase.

So, more Medicaid patients + less Federal aid = ???

Higher taxes for the States' workers.

Stop being such a twit, if it's possible. There really are two legitimate sides here. Like a parrot, you spew yours incessantly. We get it: socialized medicine is ideal. Well, except for democracy getting in the way: Americans don't want it. So, why not zip it?

rickyp wrote:

The opposition to it, is largely meaningless noise. Complaining that Some are subsidizing others is nonsense. Its both the nature of insurance, and the nature of a nation that has decided not to let the least of its citizens suffer and die because medical care is beyond their ability to pa

y...

fate

Um, no, "the nation" didn't decide on the ACA. The Democrats in Congress and the President did. The ACA has never had majority support.
Furthermore, if it had been honestly sold, like this, it never would have passed

But I wasn't referring to the ACA. I was referring to the Reagan Law requiring that emergency wards accept patients regardless of their ability to pay.
And I was referring to Medicare.
Those two decisions were when your nation finally decided that medical care should always be available regardless of the ability to pay. .

Medicare wasn't popular when brought in, and people like Reagan fought its introduction tooth and nail. Like the opposition to the ACA today... Today,Medicare is largely untouchable.
And the law on emergent care was passed with broad support. But no plan to actually pay for the consequences....
That's the status quo Fate. Is the way the costs for EMT care are absorbed and passed back to paying patients and tax payers fair? You are subsidizing this aren't you?

again Ricky
Medicare is something we have been paying for and we want what we paid for. Doesn't make it a deal, doesn't make it "popular" either, in fact it stinks and is getting worse. But we don't want something paid for to be taken away!

Stop with the "medicare is popular" rants, It's no different than welfare to poor people, they don't want it taken away either. But medicare is something ALL pay for so no kidding we want what's ours!

rickyp

The ACA is an improvement on provision of care at EMTs. Both in cost and effectiveness.

fate

Opinion. Not proven. Until you prove it, and not with an op-ed, I'm calling "bull."

Sure....

While the American College of Emergency Physicians reports that 92 percent of emergency visits are from “very sick people who need care within 1 minute to 2 hours,” the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey estimates that one-third to one-half of all ER visits are for non-urgent care. In fact, the top three reasons for ER visits in 2007 were for superficial injuries and contusions, sprains and strains, and upper respiratory infections. (The CDC defines non-urgent as “needing care in 2 to 24 hours.”)
The main reason that so many emergency room visits are for non-urgent care is that hospital EDs are required by federal law to provide care to all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. Since they cannot be turned away, patients without health insurance, or the necessary funds to pay out-of-pocket costs, often utilize emergency rooms as their main health care provider. This puts ERs under tremendous strain, and limits their ability to more quickly attend to health emergencies.
It is estimated that more than $18 billion could be saved annually if those patients whose medical problems are considered “avoidable” or “non-urgent” were to take advantage of primary or preventive health care and not rely on ERs for their medical needs.

http://www.debt.org/medical/emergency-r ... are-costs/

fate

Because we will have just as many uninsured as we do now.

Maybe But they'll be limited to Republican states.

Rickyp

By bringing in oversight and standards for insurance plans, provides consumers real protections when dealing with Insurance companies and real protections for their financial security in the place of illness.

We don't know that yet. You're guessing.

Yes guessing,
Based on reading the accounts of thousands of people who've been screwed over by their insurance companies in the past...

tom

Stop with the "medicare is popular" rants,

not a rant. stating fact. Its popular.And probably because it provides certainty and relieves the stress of worrying about the affects of getting ill.

But there's a clue here in how the ACA will probably roll.

As the poll record shows, the Medicare Part D prescription drug program that now enjoys 90 percent support was even more unpopular when the Bush administration launched it than Obamacare is today.

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/medi ... -obamacare

rickyp wrote:fate

Opinion. Not proven. Until you prove it, and not with an op-ed, I'm calling "bull."

Sure....

While the American College of Emergency Physicians reports that 92 percent of emergency visits are from “very sick people who need care within 1 minute to 2 hours,” the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey estimates that one-third to one-half of all ER visits are for non-urgent care. In fact, the top three reasons for ER visits in 2007 were for superficial injuries and contusions, sprains and strains, and upper respiratory infections. (The CDC defines non-urgent as “needing care in 2 to 24 hours.”)
The main reason that so many emergency room visits are for non-urgent care is that hospital EDs are required by federal law to provide care to all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. Since they cannot be turned away, patients without health insurance, or the necessary funds to pay out-of-pocket costs, often utilize emergency rooms as their main health care provider. This puts ERs under tremendous strain, and limits their ability to more quickly attend to health emergencies.
It is estimated that more than $18 billion could be saved annually if those patients whose medical problems are considered “avoidable” or “non-urgent” were to take advantage of primary or preventive health care and not rely on ERs for their medical needs.

http://www.debt.org/medical/emergency-r ... are-costs/

It's still "bull."

Why? Because we will have 31 million without insurance in 2020. Where will they go for their medical care?

Answer: ER's! So, nothing changes except we have higher rates under the ACA. You proved nothing.

fate

Because we will have just as many uninsured as we do now.

Maybe But they'll be limited to Republican states.

Source that says they will be limited to Republican states? I don't believe the CBO says that.

Are you saying Democratically-run states will have 100% coverage? Source?

Yes guessing,
Based on reading the accounts of thousands of people who've been screwed over by their insurance companies in the past...

Like 99% of your posting, that is bull. You've not read 2000 or more accounts like that. That is pulled out of your backside.

rickyp wrote:tom

Stop with the "medicare is popular" rants,

not a rant. stating fact. Its popular.And probably because it provides certainty and relieves the stress of worrying about the affects of getting ill.

But there's a clue here in how the ACA will probably roll.

As the poll record shows, the Medicare Part D prescription drug program that now enjoys 90 percent support was even more unpopular when the Bush administration launched it than Obamacare is today.

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/medi ... -obamacare

Ridiculous.

Medicare Part D affects how many Americans?

The ACA affects every American--either directly or indirectly.

Medicare Part D was bipartisan. It costs a fraction of what the ACA will cost. Furthermore, if it's a bad program, why didn't the Democrats fix it before destroying the economy with the ACA?

Meanwhile, the ACA has been the law of the land for 3-plus years. It's so "popular," why just look what it's doing for the President:

Obama falls to 39% job approval in new Gallup poll; Update: Under 50% among Latinos too

Democrats up for election are running from it. Yeah, sure, it's going to be great.

fate

Source that says they will be limited to Republican states? I don't believe the CBO says that.

Okay. Not limited to, but concentrated in.....
page 4 of the attached....Very colorful map that sorta looks like red states v blue states ....


http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/re ... /rwjf69624

rickyp wrote:fate

Source that says they will be limited to Republican states? I don't believe the CBO says that.

Okay. Not limited to, but concentrated in.....
page 4 of the attached....Very colorful map that sorta looks like red states v blue states ....


http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/re ... /rwjf69624

1. That info is out of date. It's written in 2011. There's no way anyone could have known which States would/would not accept the Medicaid increases.

2. That chart to which you refer is entitled, "Percentage Point Decline in the Uninsurance Rate Due to Reform. Now, to my eyes it appears to be the "red States" that experience the highest decline in the uninsured.

3. In any event, that tells us very little about whether GOP governors accepting/rejecting Medicaid expansion is determinative. It also tells us nothing about the future costs to States when the Feds start cutting support.

4. None of this means anything, politically. The President lied; his popularity is getting fried.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/11/05/ny-timess-sudden-aversion-to-calling-the-president-a-liar/

Exactly what I was addressing about the difference of Bush lied/People dies, and the Obama health care lies.

Well, the difference is that when Bush lied or at least misled that Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear weapons he misled 100% of Americans and thousands of Americans died as a result of his deception. When you're addressing a crowd or a large group of people and say something is true with regard to the crowd and it turns out not to be true for 2 or 3% of that crowd is that a lie? The most you can say is that he lied to 3.6% of the American people and probably not even that many. If over 90% percent of Americans who had insurance get to keep their health care plan and their doctor, is it a lie when 5 or 10% of Americans did not? Did he say that those who bought their insurance on individual plans specifically got to keep their health care plan? If it turns out that a large percentage of Americans do not get to keep their health care plan then you got something. Otherwise...it's just spin.