NYT: Health Care Law Fails to Lower Prices for Rural Areas

[Grim17]

I nearly fell out of my chair when I learned the the following headline appeared on the front page of the New York Times. "Health Care Law Fails to Lower Prices for Rural Areas". Do those of you on the left and you Obamacare supporters understand what this means?

Front page of NYT = Game over for Obama.

When a democratic president's prize legislation get's slammed on page 1 of the Times, the argument is over and that's all she wrote. Obamacare is now officially a legislative nightmare and the only question that remains is, will the left do the right thing and demand that this trainwreck be scrapped, or will the cheerleading continue?

Health Care Law Fails to Lower Prices for Rural Areas
by REED ABELSON, KATIE THOMAS and JO CRAVEN McGINTY
Published: October 23, 2013

Excerpt

While competition is intense in many populous regions, rural areas and small towns have far fewer carriers offering plans in the law’s online exchanges. Those places, many of them poor, are being asked to choose from some of the highest-priced plans in the 34 states where the federal government is running the health insurance marketplaces, a review by The New York Times has found.

Of the roughly 2,500 counties served by the federal exchanges, more than half, or 58 percent, have plans offered by just one or two insurance carriers, according to an analysis by The Times of county-level data provided by the Department of Health and Human Services. In about 530 counties, only a single insurer is participating.

The analysis suggests that the ambitions of the Affordable Care Act to increase competition have unfolded unevenly, at least in the early going, and have not addressed many of the factors that contribute to high prices. Insurance companies are reluctant to enter challenging new markets, experts say, because medical costs are high, dominant insurers are difficult to unseat, and powerful hospital systems resist efforts to lower rates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/b...s-to-keep-prices-low-in-rural-areas.html?_r=0

 

[Moot]

What were the rates in rural areas before ACA? The article didn't say. Nor did it mention that many of the Republican governors of those rural states refused to expand Medicaid and set up an exchange. There probably wouldn't be such a disparity in rates if it were single payer UHC.

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

I nearly fell out of my chair when I learned the the following headline appeared on the front page of the New York Times. "Health Care Law Fails to Lower Prices for Rural Areas". Do those of you on the left and you Obamacare supporters understand what this means?

Front page of NYT = Game over for Obama.

This really is not that big of news. States with smaller populations were having trouble months ago finding enough insurance companies to compete since small populations do not offer enough incentives for insurance companies to do business with them. The same thing can be said of poor states with large rural communities. The bigger prizes for them are large cities and states where they will have plenty of customers willing and able to pay for their products.

When a democratic president's prize legislation get's slammed on page 1 of the Times, the argument is over and that's all she wrote. Obamacare is now officially a legislative nightmare and the only question that remains is, will the left do the right thing and demand that this trainwreck be scrapped, or will the cheerleading continue?

The ACA is going nowhere. Maybe if conservatives could come up with legitimate reforms aside from the boilerplate rhetoric about tort reform and selling across states lines, then health insurance could be reformed yet again. Given how long conservatives had during the 1990s and 2000s to reform health insurance, I do not see them putting anything substantive on the table in the near future.

 

[ItAin'tFree]

I nearly fell out of my chair when I learned the the following headline appeared on the front page of the New York Times. "Health Care Law Fails to Lower Prices for Rural Areas". Do those of you on the left and you Obamacare supporters understand what this means?

Front page of NYT = Game over for Obama.

When a democratic president's prize legislation get's slammed on page 1 of the Times, the argument is over and that's all she wrote. Obamacare is now officially a legislative nightmare and the only question that remains is, will the left do the right thing and demand that this trainwreck be scrapped, or will the cheerleading continue?






http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/b...s-to-keep-prices-low-in-rural-areas.html?_r=0

The "cheerleading" will continue. Obama and the Dems have been hellbent on destroying America and now that they finally have their ducks lined up in a row to pull it off, they won't back off. They have already made it perfectly clear that they do not care about people losing their jobs or having their hours cut over this disaster. Nor do they care about the added expense being forced on Americans by the same disaster. And they sure don't care about the doctor shortage this disaster is creating.

But they do have a lot more power and control over people and that's all they really wanted to begin with.

 

[reinoe]

I never really understood how selling across state lines was supposed to work. Isn't that a tacit demand that the federal government step in a remove state's rights and increase federal power and authority?

 

[vasuderatorrent]

This is a true story. On October 25, 2013 I went to www.healthcare.gov. I spent about 2 hours answering a lot of questions. It was very time consuming. The information I was providing was irritating to me but it was information that the government probably already had.

After filling out all of these questions I signed up for a Blue Cross Blue Shield of NC Blue Value 3000 policy. My cost was $60.63999999986 per month. This policy covers myself and my wife. Both of us are age 34, non-smokers with no pre-existing health conditions and we live in North Carolina. I estimated that my income for 2014 to be $32,532. This made me eligible for $487.00 a month credit. I'm guessing that means the policy actually costs $547.63999999986 per month. The federal government is paying $478.00 and I get stuck paying the rest.

Co-pays and co-insurance
$5 Primary doctor
$10 Specialist doctor
$10 Copay after deductible Generic drugs


Deductible
$1,000
group total

Out-of-pocket maximum
$1,400

I'm sure you guys will have more questions. My question is this. Can a family of four with an annual income of $32,532 afford $60.64 per month? If not, what did a health insurance policy cost prior to the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010?

This is an extra burden on my family because I never paid for health insurance before. I always thought it was a rip-off but now that it's required by law I thought I would sign up. According to the Supreme Court the government imposed a $727.68 annual tax on my family. This doesn't bother me. I haven't paid any federal taxes since my first daughter was born in 2003.

This is a true story and actually events are not fictitious. I was an Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 Guinea Pig. If you prefer: I was an Obamacare guinea pig.

vasuderatorrent

 

[Renae]

This is a true story. On October 25, 2013 I went to www.healthcare.gov. I spent about 2 hours answering a lot of questions. It was very time consuming. The information I was providing was irritating to me but it was information that the government probably already had.

After filling out all of these questions I signed up for a Blue Cross Blue Shield of NC Blue Value 3000 policy. My cost was $60.63999999986 per month. This policy covers myself and my wife. Both of us are age 34, non-smokers with no pre-existing health conditions and we live in North Carolina. I estimated that my income for 2014 to be $32,532. This made me eligible for $487.00 a month credit. I'm guessing that means the policy actually costs $547.63999999986 per month. The federal government is paying $478.00 and I get stuck paying the rest.

Co-pays and co-insurance
$5 Primary doctor
$10 Specialist doctor
$10 Copay after deductible Generic drugs


Deductible
$1,000
group total

Out-of-pocket maximum
$1,400

I'm sure you guys will have more questions. My question is this. Can a family of four with an annual income of $32,532 afford $60.64 per month? If not, what did a health insurance policy cost prior to the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010?

This is an extra burden on my family because I never paid for health insurance before. I always thought it was a rip-off but now that it's required by law I thought I would sign up. According to the Supreme Court the government imposed a $727.68 annual tax on my family. This doesn't bother me. I haven't paid any federal taxes since my first daughter was born in 2003.

This is a true story and actually events are not fictitious. I was an Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 Guinea Pig. If you prefer: I was an Obamacare guinea pig.

vasuderatorrent

Oh that's SOO NICE You're getting your family cared for by the hard work of others. I'd feel so proud, so very glad other people work their butts off so that you can have "affordable healthcare"! Isn't it great folks, here's someone just pleased as kittens with a saucer of milk that other people make sure his family get's the care they need. Never mind others rates are going through the roof, other people have lost their healthcare plans they liked, could afford and wanted. His family got the hook up. Here's a guy that can crow about the good forcing working American's to hook his family up. If only more people would just embrace paying for others living we'd all be better off!

Truly, you should be proud of yourself.

 

[The Man]

Oh that's SOO NICE You're getting your family cared for by the hard work of others. I'd feel so proud, so very glad other people work their butts off so that you can have "affordable healthcare"! Isn't it great folks, here's someone just pleased as kittens with a saucer of milk that other people make sure his family get's the care they need. Never mind others rates are going through the roof, other people have lost their healthcare plans they liked, could afford and wanted. His family got the hook up. Here's a guy that can crow about the good forcing working American's to hook his family up. If only more people would just embrace paying for others living we'd all be better off!

Truly, you should be proud of yourself.

If you read his post, you'll find out that he didn't want it and the only reason that he signed up is because it is mandatory.

 

[joG]

I nearly fell out of my chair when I learned the the following headline appeared on the front page of the New York Times. "Health Care Law Fails to Lower Prices for Rural Areas". Do those of you on the left and you Obamacare supporters understand what this means?

Front page of NYT = Game over for Obama.

When a democratic president's prize legislation get's slammed on page 1 of the Times, the argument is over and that's all she wrote. Obamacare is now officially a legislative nightmare and the only question that remains is, will the left do the right thing and demand that this trainwreck be scrapped, or will the cheerleading continue?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/b...s-to-keep-prices-low-in-rural-areas.html?_r=0

I find the thing rather odd. Why would a policy have a different price in one county than in another?

 

[joG]

What were the rates in rural areas before ACA? The article didn't say. Nor did it mention that many of the Republican governors of those rural states refused to expand Medicaid and set up an exchange. There probably wouldn't be such a disparity in rates if it were single payer UHC.

I really cannot tell, as I am not à jour on the Rates. But if the rates are much different from one county to the next, there is a design error.

 

[Moot]

I really cannot tell, as I am not à jour on the Rates. But if the rates are much different from one county to the next, there is a design error.

Rural areas have always been more expensive to insure because of they are smaller risk pool and they have a higher rate of obesity and diabetes.

 

[joG]

Rural areas have always been more expensive to insure because of they are smaller risk pool and they have a higher rate of obesity and diabetes.

I thought ACA was going to do away with health risk pricing.

 

[Born Free]

This is a true story. On October 25, 2013 I went to www.healthcare.gov. I spent about 2 hours answering a lot of questions. It was very time consuming. The information I was providing was irritating to me but it was information that the government probably already had.

After filling out all of these questions I signed up for a Blue Cross Blue Shield of NC Blue Value 3000 policy. My cost was $60.63999999986 per month. This policy covers myself and my wife. Both of us are age 34, non-smokers with no pre-existing health conditions and we live in North Carolina. I estimated that my income for 2014 to be $32,532. This made me eligible for $487.00 a month credit. I'm guessing that means the policy actually costs $547.63999999986 per month. The federal government is paying $478.00 and I get stuck paying the rest.

Co-pays and co-insurance
$5 Primary doctor
$10 Specialist doctor
$10 Copay after deductible Generic drugs


Deductible
$1,000
group total

Out-of-pocket maximum
$1,400

I'm sure you guys will have more questions. My question is this. Can a family of four with an annual income of $32,532 afford $60.64 per month? If not, what did a health insurance policy cost prior to the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010?

This is an extra burden on my family because I never paid for health insurance before. I always thought it was a rip-off but now that it's required by law I thought I would sign up. According to the Supreme Court the government imposed a $727.68 annual tax on my family. This doesn't bother me. I haven't paid any federal taxes since my first daughter was born in 2003.

This is a true story and actually events are not fictitious. I was an Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 Guinea Pig. If you prefer: I was an Obamacare guinea pig.

vasuderatorrent

Now here is a great example of who is signing up, those that need a subsidy of $487 a month for one, second all those that have a precondition. However to make this program work the young healthy person that needs no subsidy has to sign up by the millions. Otherwise this program will increase our national debt to continue to skyrocket, or tax the people who make money to pay for all those that don't pay anything and now who are all getting subsidies and all the rest of the entitlement programs and free stuff.

Obamacare is just another way of wealth distribution.

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

I never really understood how selling across state lines was supposed to work. Isn't that a tacit demand that the federal government step in a remove state's rights and increase federal power and authority?

That is what makes it such a paradox. Any reform will erode a state's ability to regulate their own insurance market while at the same time enhancing the capability of the federal government to regulate insurance markets nationwide.

Despite that, I think the only way to have insurance markets with increased competition is to do just that. Otherwise, the United States will continue to see insurance companies ignore rural and less populated regions because the risks are too large and the rewards are too small. At least with a national market insurance companies could subsidize smaller markets with profits from larger markets, something that is not possible in some states.

 

[Renae]

If you read his post, you'll find out that he didn't want it and the only reason that he signed up is because it is mandatory.

You must understand I'm mocking the whole healthcare law, perhaps harshly but he didnt have to sign up. The penalty is far less to pay then the subsidized insurance. If he really thought it was a rip off he'd eat the pittance tax penalty and pocket the rest.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Oh that's SOO NICE You're getting your family cared for by the hard work of others. I'd feel so proud, so very glad other people work their butts off so that you can have "affordable healthcare"! Isn't it great folks, here's someone just pleased as kittens with a saucer of milk that other people make sure his family get's the care they need. Never mind others rates are going through the roof, other people have lost their healthcare plans they liked, could afford and wanted. His family got the hook up. Here's a guy that can crow about the good forcing working American's to hook his family up. If only more people would just embrace paying for others living we'd all be better off!

Truly, you should be proud of yourself.

I didn't pass any legislation. You have me confused with someone else.

vasuderatorrent

 

[Renae]

Again, I'm mocking obamacare.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Again, I'm mocking obamacare.

I know but lots of conservatives enjoy criticizing "welfare queens" or the welfare culture. If people are giving a choice between $1,000 or $0 most people will choose the $1,000.

The anger should be directed at the government who gives the money away not the people who accept it. When conservatives start criticizing people who receive government benefits it makes me think that the government caused all the problems but managed to force peoples attention elsewhere. It just seems like a perfect scam and it pisses me off that smart people fall for it. They wreak havoc and turn Americans against Americans. All the while they look like angels and continue to get re-elected.

I'll be the first to call someone an idiot for criticizing a government beneficiary. They never committed a crime. They actually done something noble by doing the best thing for their family. To criticize a good man while leaving the perpetrator unscathed is beyond retarded it's just sad that the government has that much power to twist the minds of otherwise intelligent people.

vasuderatorrent

 

[sangha]

If you read his post, you'll find out that he didn't want it and the only reason that he signed up is because it is mandatory.

Of course he doesn't want it. Moochers never want to pay their share either

 

[apdst]

I never really understood how selling across state lines was supposed to work. Isn't that a tacit demand that the federal government step in a remove state's rights and increase federal power and authority?

It vreates more competition.

 

[apdst]

Rural areas have always been more expensive to insure because of they are smaller risk pool and they have a higher rate of obesity and diabetes.

Link?

 

[Rocketman]

What were the rates in rural areas before ACA? The article didn't say. Nor did it mention that many of the Republican governors of those rural states refused to expand Medicaid and set up an exchange. There probably wouldn't be such a disparity in rates if it were single payer UHC.

Our governor participated and our rates increased 30% a while coverages were reduced and out of pocket increased dramatically

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Of course he doesn't want it. Moochers never want to pay their share either

Moochers are part of the population. When you make decisions you have to figure them in as part of the equation. The option is to live in fairy tale land. Living in fairy tale land is a good strategy for feeling good but a terrible way for finding solutions and solving problems.

vasuderatorrent

 

[sangha]

Moochers are part of the population. When you make decisions you have to figure them in as part of the equation. The option is to live in fairy tale land. Living in fairy tale land is a good strategy for feeling good but a terrible way for finding solutions and solving problems.

vasuderatorrent

The premiums the moochers will be paying, and the cost for ER health care they won't be dumping on non-moochers like me, have been figured into the equation

Now the moochers won't be able to continue living in the fairy tale land where they think they can dump their expenses on the rest of us

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Now the moochers won't be able to continue living in the fairy tale land where they think they can dump their expenses on the rest of us

Will the moochers die once the government quits giving them handouts? Eventually everybody will catch on to how good the moocher life is and will lower their income to gain access to the good life. It always happens in socialism. The system always grows and grows until it can no longer contain itself.

You can always get a good high paying government job and pretend you aren't bumming off the government. Lots of "conservatives" like to do that. It is more dignified than food stamps but serves the same purpose of advancing socialism.

vasuderatorrent

Socialism is the best system in the world if there wasn't so many socialist. -unknown