• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Change: Health Insurance Premiums Up 3K Under Obama

Bronson

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
3,195
Reaction score
1,192
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Another lie exposed. Another promise broken.

Health Premiums Up $3,000 Under Obama; He Had Vowed $2,500 Cut - Investors.com

A1prem_120925_345.png.cms


During his first run for president, Barack Obama made one very specific promise to voters: He would cut health insurance premiums for families by $2,500, and do so in his first term.

But it turns out that family premiums have increased by more than $3,000 since Obama's vow, according to the latest annual Kaiser Family Foundation employee health benefits survey.
 
Another broken promise... and an indicator of the Change that people weren't endorsing when they voted for him...
 
If you look at that chart wearing rose colored glasses then it clearly has been a cut since the black line goes down and everything else disappears :)
 
Politifact lists it as a broken promise, and it probably will be. But in fact Obama did not promise that premiums would drop $2,500 in his first term. What he said, specifically, was:

"I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."

So he said he would sign the law during his first term, which is a promise kept, but he did NOT say premiums would drop $2,500 in his first term. Given that most of ACA doesn't go into effect until 2014, the promise may still be kept.
 
let's take a look at the preceding years for a bit of perspective :

000177.jpg

looks to me that this is less an indictment of one or two administrations and more of an indictment of our completely inefficient employer-linked private health care system. i'm glad that the OP brought this up, though, because it's a national discussion that we really need to have. these increases are entirely unsustainable, and they place serious financial burden on both employers and employees. something is going to have to change, and the PPACA doesn't go far enough. if anything, it's a small first step.
 
Another attack Obama thread.

How about putting the facts up there instead? Funny how you and investors.com avoid mentioning the last president and how premiums reacted there.
 
This is why we need single-payer.
 
Another attack Obama thread.

How about putting the facts up there instead? Funny how you and investors.com avoid mentioning the last president and how premiums reacted there.

The chart includes the Bush years. Funny that liberals forget that ACA has 10 years worth of funding, while calculating only 6 years worth of benefits and cost. So, there are 4 solid years of funding for Obamacare, while they only factor in 6 years of benefits.

Do liberals understand how this is skewed? After a decade of funding, it still doesn't cover the cost of 6 years of benefits. Which is why the CBO has projected the cost of Obamacare to be almost 3 times the estimation Obama put forth when selling Obamacare.

Now, I work in this industry, and I can tell you the average rise in premiums this year alone is 18% nationally. That is the largest increase in health insurance premiums over a 4 year period EVER. Despite the statement from Obama that his healthcare bill would lower premiums by $2500, they have risen on average of $3000 in 3 years. This means, that by 2014, his healthcare law would have to lower premiums by $5500 per year by 2014 just to break even. That isn't going to happen. He misrepresented his bill, and lied to the American people. Shocking I know.....
 
This is why we need single-payer.

How can you pay for it? Almost half the country isn't paying a dime in federal income tax already. So, How do you propose single payer would be funded? It would certainly have to be funded through tax revenues, or see another substantial increase in premiums across the board.

Single payer isn't what we need. What we need is real reform. The CBO estimated that almost 30% of every dollar spent on healthcare is wasted or spent on fraudulent claims. This alone accounts for billions of dollars per year. Government is responsible for that waste, and liberals refuse to address it.

In order for Obamacare to even work mathimatically, they had to upload 10 years of funding against 6 years of benefits. This alone tells you that it isn't feasible.
 
Politifact lists it as a broken promise, and it probably will be. But in fact Obama did not promise that premiums would drop $2,500 in his first term. What he said, specifically, was:



So he said he would sign the law during his first term, which is a promise kept, but he did NOT say premiums would drop $2,500 in his first term. Given that most of ACA doesn't go into effect until 2014, the promise may still be kept.

This is what he said:

"the only thing we're going to try to do is lower costs so that those cost savings are passed onto you. And we estimate we can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year."

"We are going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2,500. We will not wait 20 years from now to do it, or 10 years from now to do it. We will do it by the end of my first term as president."

I guess he's got a lot of work to do if he wants to keep his promise by the end of his first term.
 
The chart includes the Bush years.

The OP chart? Unless my eyes are getting that old, I only see 2008 to 2012.. and that is 1 year of Bush.

Funny that liberals forget that ACA has 10 years worth of funding, while calculating only 6 years worth of benefits and cost. So, there are 4 solid years of funding for Obamacare, while they only factor in 6 years of benefits.

Err no. Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010. But even then, the first provisions that could impact costs, first came into use in on June 21 2010. So at best one and half years of Obamacare..

Do liberals understand how this is skewed? After a decade of funding, it still doesn't cover the cost of 6 years of benefits. Which is why the CBO has projected the cost of Obamacare to be almost 3 times the estimation Obama put forth when selling Obamacare.

Do you understand basic facts?

Now, I work in this industry, and I can tell you the average rise in premiums this year alone is 18% nationally. That is the largest increase in health insurance premiums over a 4 year period EVER. Despite the statement from Obama that his healthcare bill would lower premiums by $2500, they have risen on average of $3000 in 3 years. This means, that by 2014, his healthcare law would have to lower premiums by $5500 per year by 2014 just to break even. That isn't going to happen. He misrepresented his bill, and lied to the American people. Shocking I know.....

Again false. Healthcare inflation per month was much higher under Bush and before him as well.. aka under Clinton. It was insane under Carter and Reagan.

Consumer Price Index: Medical Care

There are plenty of charts and statistics out there about it.
 
How can you pay for it? Almost half the country isn't paying a dime in federal income tax already. So, How do you propose single payer would be funded? It would certainly have to be funded through tax revenues, or see another substantial increase in premiums across the board.

Single payer isn't what we need. What we need is real reform. The CBO estimated that almost 30% of every dollar spent on healthcare is wasted or spent on fraudulent claims. This alone accounts for billions of dollars per year. Government is responsible for that waste, and liberals refuse to address it.

In order for Obamacare to even work mathimatically, they had to upload 10 years of funding against 6 years of benefits. This alone tells you that it isn't feasible.

It would lower costs for individuals and employers since they no longer have to worry about their employees health care and also the government. We pay more than any other nation and we have private healthcare.
 
Wow. If this is really true, it's a freakin' disaster. Is this, then, going to be Obama's real legacy? The largest-ever "tax increase" on the middle class in history? It's actually hard to believe. But the source is excellent.

The main part of the bill hasn't even kicked in. Also, no, it's not the "largest tax increase on the middle class in history." (unless you're counting the expiration of some temporary tax cuts that Obama didn't implement in the first place, for some reason)
 
This is what he said:

"the only thing we're going to try to do is lower costs so that those cost savings are passed onto you. And we estimate we can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year."

"We are going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2,500. We will not wait 20 years from now to do it, or 10 years from now to do it. We will do it by the end of my first term as president."

I guess he's got a lot of work to do if he wants to keep his promise by the end of his first term.

Yep, looks like that one's not going to work out.
 
It would lower costs for individuals and employers since they no longer have to worry about their employees health care and also the government. We pay more than any other nation and we have private healthcare.

Here's where you can find me slapping my forehead with my palm.....

If the individuals and employers stop funding health care, I'm assuming you understand that the government would then be responsible for funding it right? I mean, single payer IS what you are talking about after all.....

Now stop. Please try to use a little sense here.....

If the government pays for everyone's healthcare, which is what SINGLE PAYER is, where does the government get the money to pay for it??????

lol....I swear, do liberals ever think???

Get this through your head, the government cannot spend a single dime before it FIRST extracts money from the private sector economy through taxation. Get it? The money the government would spend on funding healthcare, WOULD STILL BE PAID by private sector tax payers. Understand now? The government doesn't make a profit on anything it does, so this is still funded by tax dollars.

Now, calculate the cost. You would either have to raise taxes dramatically in order to cover the costs!!!! You praise other country's who have SINGLE PAYER, but you refuse to recognize their freaking tax rates!!!! Every single person in Canada pays something in taxes. That's not so here in America. We would have to transition from 47% of Americans paying NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, to approximately 5% paying NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, just to cover the cost. So, you go ahead and campaign on tax hikes to pay for universal healthcare for everyone. It would sink like a lead balloon.

In Canada, there isn't simply a federal income tax rate, but there is also a PROVINCE/TERRITORY tax rate, in addition to a federal tax rate. Everyone is subject to paying it too. Wanna know the primary reason why? Single payer health care. EVERYONE has to pay something in order for it to work.

So, the day that EVERYONE starts paying income taxes in America, is the day that Obamacare MIGHT work.

Also, read the CBO reports on Obamacare. It takes 10 years of funding, to pay for 6 years of benefits. Let me translate this for you. It takes 10 years worth of premiums paid, to cover the 6 year costs of the insurance companies to cover pre-ex conditions, and children up to 26 years old. This is simply a fact jack.

Since the passage of Obamacare, it hasn't lowered the cost of anything! In fact, the rates have risen faster than any other 4 year period in history! 18% national average of increase IN ONE YEAR!

Compare the marginal tax rates in countries with universal health care, as opposed to marginal tax rates in America. When 90-95% of the country is willing to pay a much higher tax rate, then, maybe universal health care would work in this country. But when we have 47% of a nation that pays NOTHING in federal income tax, you simply cant fund it. Period.

So let Obama campaign all he wants for Obamacare and universal health care. He'll have to run on tax hikes, and big ones, in order to fund it.....that isn't going to fly in America. In England, the top marginal rate is 50%. Campaign on that Obama....see how far you get....
 
Last edited:
Here's where you can find me slapping my forehead with my palm.....

If the individuals and employers stop funding health care, I'm assuming you understand that the government would then be responsible for funding it right? I mean, single payer IS what you are talking about after all.....

Now stop. Please try to use a little sense here.....

If the government pays for everyone's healthcare, which is what SINGLE PAYER is, where does the government get the money to pay for it??????

lol....I swear, do liberals ever think???

Get this through your head, the government cannot spend a single dime before it FIRST extracts money from the private sector economy through taxation. Get it? The money the government would spend on funding healthcare, WOULD STILL BE PAID by private sector tax payers. Understand now? The government doesn't make a profit on anything it does, so this is still funded by tax dollars.

Now, calculate the cost. You would either have to raise taxes dramatically in order to cover the costs!!!! You praise other country's who have SINGLE PAYER, but you refuse to recognize their freaking tax rates!!!! Every single person in Canada pays something in taxes. That's not so here in America. We would have to transition from 47% of Americans paying NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, to approximately 5% paying NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, just to cover the cost. So, you go ahead and campaign on tax hikes to pay for universal healthcare for everyone. It would sink like a lead balloon.

In Canada, there isn't simply a federal income tax rate, but there is also a PROVINCE/TERRITORY tax rate, in addition to a federal tax rate. Everyone is subject to paying it too. Wanna know the primary reason why? Single payer health care. EVERYONE has to pay something in order for it to work.

So, the day that EVERYONE starts paying income taxes in America, is the day that Obamacare MIGHT work.

Also, read the CBO reports on Obamacare. It takes 10 years of funding, to pay for 6 years of benefits. Let me translate this for you. It takes 10 years worth of premiums paid, to cover the 6 year costs of the insurance companies to cover pre-ex conditions, and children up to 26 years old. This is simply a fact jack.

Since the passage of Obamacare, it hasn't lowered the cost of anything! In fact, the rates have risen faster than any other 4 year period in history! 18% national average of increase IN ONE YEAR!

Hey, you figured it out! Single payer is funded through taxes! Congratulations.

Of course what we know from every other civilized country in the world is that singe payer reduces per capita spending by HALF. So, for example, you could spend about $15,000 for your insurance, or you could pay about $7,500 extra in taxes and get government insurance. Slap your head a few more times and see if you can figure out which number is lower.
 
You want a government health-care monopoly as long as you don't have to pay. Nothing is to expensive for those getting a free ride.

You have already been paying for the "free riders"
 
Hey, you figured it out! Single payer is funded through taxes! Congratulations.

Of course what we know from every other civilized country in the world is that singe payer reduces per capita spending by HALF. So, for example, you could spend about $15,000 for your insurance, or you could pay about $7,500 extra in taxes and get government insurance. Slap your head a few more times and see if you can figure out which number is lower.

That's operating under the condition that EVERYONE pays $7500 extra in taxes per year. In a country where 47% of the population is paying ZERO!!!! Ya, instead of slapping my head, maybe you should be slapping your own!!!

And the reason the cost is cut in half is because they RATION CARE. Just google "waiting periods for health care in Europe". See what you can dig up. In Canada, the average waiting period for a hip replacement is upwards of 6 months. Wanna know what it is in America? About 2 weeks tops. In England, they refuse to cover the top two breast cancer drugs in the world because of cost. Take a look at mortality rates of breast cancer patients in England compared to America's mortality rates for the same freaking disease.

You liberals and your warped sense of statistical analysis. The quality of care is above and beyond EVERY nation on Earth here in America. Sometimes you need to stop, and look at the actual RESULTS of your philosophies. While it may cut some costs for care, you have to ask "how" and "why". They cut costs by simply refusing to cover certain procedures and drugs. Like Palin said, it creates a bureaucracy of death panels deciding who they will cover, how much they will cover, which drugs they will cover, which surgeries they will cover, and if a person is too old, or too sick to spend money on! If that's the kind of healthcare system you desire, move!

But the main point is about cost. Liberals need to stop lying about it making things more affordable. While the actual care may be cheaper, it's only funded by higher taxation, and the rationing of care. Bottom line.
 
Another attack Obama thread.

How about putting the facts up there instead? Funny how you and investors.com avoid mentioning the last president and how premiums reacted there.

Hey it's election season, there are plenty of Romney attack threads around, but you knew that.

Btw, my premiums were raised all of $30 total during the eight years of Bush presidency. They've been raised $200 under Obama's first term alone.
 
Hey, you figured it out! Single payer is funded through taxes! Congratulations.

Of course what we know from every other civilized country in the world is that singe payer reduces per capita spending by HALF. So, for example, you could spend about $15,000 for your insurance, or you could pay about $7,500 extra in taxes and get government insurance. Slap your head a few more times and see if you can figure out which number is lower.

Also, I don't spend anything near $15,000 for my health insurance. I pay around $2400. That's a far cry from $15,000. So, you can go ahead and put your foot back in your mouth on that example. A $7500 additional tax would triple my expense. I can also cover my wife and son for an additional $400 per month, which would bring my annual total, if I paid for their insurance, to $7200 per year. Also a far cry from $15,000.

Your numbers are bogus my friend. My wife has insurance through her employer, and we added our son to her policy, instead of mine, because it was cheaper. I also pay insurance for 17 employees at my business. None of their premiums come close to $15,000 per year either.

Once again, you're caught in a campaign of misinformation, and discounting the millions of Americans it would raise the cost on. Now, for old people and sick people, their annual premiums may be around $15,000 per year. But I know millions of people in this country have health insurance for far cheaper than that. You try to sell that to a single guy, who pays about $130 a month for health insurance, that he's now going to pay $7500 more in taxes to cover his health care. He's gonna say, "what the f!!! I was paying less than $2000 under my old plan". Pretty tough sell pal.....
 
Btw, my premiums were raised all of $30 total during the eight years of Bush presidency.

Where is my BS flag....?

The average heatlh insurance premium was about $7,500/yr. when Bush took over and it was about $13,000/yr. when he left office.

HealthPremiumsRiseChart.jpg
 
I got a 6% cut in my premiums.

I'm in the high risk pool though.
 
Also, I don't spend anything near $15,000 for my health insurance. I pay around $2400. That's a far cry from $15,000. So, you can go ahead and put your foot back in your mouth on that example. A $7500 additional tax would triple my expense. I can also cover my wife and son for an additional $400 per month, which would bring my annual total, if I paid for their insurance, to $7200 per year. Also a far cry from $15,000.

Your numbers are bogus my friend. My wife has insurance through her employer, and we added our son to her policy, instead of mine, because it was cheaper. I also pay insurance for 17 employees at my business. None of their premiums come close to $15,000 per year either.

Once again, you're caught in a campaign of misinformation, and discounting the millions of Americans it would raise the cost on. Now, for old people and sick people, their annual premiums may be around $15,000 per year. But I know millions of people in this country have health insurance for far cheaper than that. You try to sell that to a single guy, who pays about $130 a month for health insurance, that he's now going to pay $7500 more in taxes to cover his health care. He's gonna say, "what the f!!! I was paying less than $2000 under my old plan". Pretty tough sell pal.....

Please ... you do NOT pay $2,400 a year for health insurance, or if you do it must have an insane deductible and cover almost nothing. In any case, I wasn't referring to your specific premium, but rather the average family premium which is around $15k a year. Most people only pay a portion of that directly, with their employer picking up the balance, but that employer contribution is in lieu of compensation, so the employee is in fact paying for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom