*SHOCK* Obamacare Raising Costs? No Way!

1. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago

   http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca … by-64-146/
   
   It's OK though, I see no reason why we shouldn't be doubling the premiums people have to pay.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Your link is dishonest in several ways, first off it compares just individual insurance instead of average insurance costs, the average insurance cost will stay the same or fall slightly.
      http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/23/news/ec … -premiums/
      
      Obamacare insurance offers far more service than the former average plan it is being compared to in that it's an unlimited coverage beyond the 6500 mark for the customer etc. etc. a similar plan before Obamacare would have costed MUCH MORE.
      
      The author accuses others of comparing apples and oranges but then goes ahead and does exactly that by comparing inferior insurance plans with better ones at direct cost comparison which is flat out braindead stupid. If you use the very link the author uses in his article and look for a plan that has all of the Obamacare benfits you will see it costs more than 30% more for the cheapest one.
      http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/
      
      Also obviously low income earners get subsidized so much of this cost will not actually be born except by those who can afford to pay it. You have to be making more than 92 000 as a family to have to pay the whole cost. Oh the tragedy families making more than 92 000 will pay a bit more if they take a specific type of plan but less on average, it's sooooooo terrible.
      
      Wait no it's not.   
      
      In the meantime Obamacare has already saved over three thousand lives through insurance plan expansion and it hasn't even properly started yet. But obviously those aren't important.
      http://www.urban.org/publications/411588.html

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Forbes is dishonest?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Obviously since this a Forbes article claiming another Forbes article is dishonest, since both can't be right obviously an article on Forbes was dishonest.

            replyreport
2. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago

   It compares the same type of insurance to the same type of insurance. That cost goes up. Any other way is dishonest.
   
   Also, you're wrong, he didn't compare inferior plans. One example of a coverage-to-coverage comparison:
   
   "Today, he can buy a PPO plan from a major insurer with a $5,000 deductible, 30 percent coinsurance, a $10 co-pay for generic prescription drugs, and a $7,000 out-of-pocket maximum for $177 a month.
   
   According to Covered California, a “Bronze” plan from the exchange with nearly the same benefits, including a slightly lower out-of-pocket maximum of $6,350, will cost him between $245 and $270 a month"

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Women's Preventive Services – including: well-woman visits; gestational diabetes screening; human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women age 30 and older; sexually transmitted infection counseling; human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and counseling; FDA-approved contraceptive methods and contraceptive counseling; breastfeeding support, supplies and counseling; and domestic violence screening and counseling - will be covered without cost sharing.[87] This is also known as the contraceptive mandate
      
      Dependents (children) will be permitted to remain on their parents' insurance plan until their 26th birthday,[59] and regulations implemented under the PPACA include dependents that no longer live with their parents, are not a dependent on a parent's tax return, are no longer a student, or are married.[
      
      Insurers are prohibited from excluding pre-existing medical conditions (except in grandfathered individual health insurance plans) for children under the age of 19.[62][63]
      
      All new insurance plans must cover preventive care and medical screenings[64] rated Level A or B by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.[65] Insurers are prohibited from charging co-payments, co-insurance, or deductibles for these services.[66]
      
      nsurers' abilities to enforce annual spending caps will be restricted, and completely prohibited by 2014.[42]
      
      Insurers are prohibited from dropping policyholders when they get sick.[42]
      
      Insurers are required to reveal details about administrative and executive expenditures.[42]
      
      Insurers are required to implement an appeals process for coverage determination and claims on all new plans.[42]
      
      Enhanced methods of fraud detection are implemented.[42]
      
      All new insurance plans must cover childhood immunizations and adult vaccinations recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) without charging co-payments, co-insurance, or deductibles when provided by an in-network provider.
      
      Contraceptive Mandate etc. etc.
      
      As I said ALL of the ACA improvements make it much better thus apples and oranges. So AGAIN if you compare a plan that does not have these things against one which does and say it's cheaper and claim that means anything other than inferior products and services are generally cheaper you are being braindead.
      
      Also what matters is how much people actually pay, most young families don't make 92 000+ so their insurance will be subsidized meaning actually they are paying LESS.
      
      See the CBO report on it btw, it rips apart all the nonsense very easily and shows 5 to 7% effective cost reduction.

      replyreport