“No one really knows what premiums would be like with the old system vs. Obamacare.”
If a health insurer were legally required to write a high-risk that would otherwise not write, they would, if legally allowed, write the risk at a higher premium than the average risk. That is why if today’s spread of risk were written under the “old” rate system would result in an average higher premium per insured. That is all I said and is factually correct. However, it also highly unlikely that many of today’s high-risk insured’s could afford those high-risk rates.
“Obamacare's minimum benefits and same priced premiums to those with pre-existing conditions have caused Obamacare premiums to explode.”
Of the six benefits plans that the ACA offers, one is what you can call a “bare bones” policy. But, not all are and those with pre-existing conditions can have any plan they wish without surcharge or restriction. However, I do agree high-risk, pre-existing condition insureds increased claim costs. Obviously, that’s what high-risk insureds cause. The reason that caused an increase in premiums, though, is that the Obama gambled and lost on what turned out to be not enough healthy people enrolled to pay into the health system to offset those claims costs. Ooops.
“It's also rather stupid for Obamacare to charge higher prices to those who smoke but not to those with pre-existing conditions…”
Why is it stupid? If you make pre-existing condition undeniable, then deny coverage by proxy through surcharges, the intent is being compromised. I don’t see the logic.
“…and I say all of this as a person who has pre-existing conditions.”
Does that make what you say more meaningful? If so, and if I have no pre-existing condition yet want coverage undeniable at no surcharge, does that make what I say just as meaningful, though diametrically opposed?
