• 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!

Just got my 2017 health care premium...

Fletch

Fletch

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
58,282
Reaction score
26,407
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Anthem Blue Cross Bronze plan with a $6500 deductible for one adult and two kids:

2016 premium: $807.37

2017 premium: $1004.90


Thanks Obama.
 
Per month?
 
Harshaw said:
Per month?
Click to expand...
Good question. It has to be monthly; and, one would only be led to believe that it is subtracted from his stub on a weekly basis. And another one would be is did Fletch sign up with ACA.
 
Harshaw said:
Per month?
Click to expand...
Yes, sorry, per month
Bob N said:
Good question. It has to be monthly; and, one would only be led to believe that it is subtracted from his stub on a weekly basis. And another one would be is did Fletch sign up with ACA.
Click to expand...

I'm self employed so I pay directly to Anthem and this is a policy I have had for about 3 years and it is not from ACA
 
Fletch said:
Yes, sorry, per month


I'm self employed so I pay directly to Anthem and this is a policy I have had for about 3 years and it is not from ACA
Click to expand...

This whole debacle has been a bitch on the self-employed.
 
Harshaw said:
This whole debacle has been a bitch on the self-employed.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton had it right: This system is the 'craziest thing.' $1000 per month is a house payment. And I already have one of those.
 
Fletch said:
Bill Clinton had it right: This system is the 'craziest thing.' $1000 per month is a house payment. And I already have one of those.
Click to expand...

No kidding.

Five years ago, I was paying $250/mo for a plan which would now be somewhere between "silver" and "gold." This coming year it's going to be nearly $500/mo for a worthless "bronze" plan.

But hey, as long as the stats say I'm "insured," Obamacare is a smashing success.
 
I had insurance before Obamacare. It might surprise y'all to find out that large increase in the cost of health insurance was around long before Obamacare.
 
using a non ACA premium increase to demonize the ACA is whack
 
roughdraft274 said:
I had insurance before Obamacare. It might surprise y'all to find out that large increase in the cost of health insurance was around long before Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Yep, loooong before Obama my rates went up 10-25% every single year. And pretty much every single year my employer changed Health Insurance provider, because they were always looking for the cheapest provider.

But now everything is Obama's fault. Anytime someone premiums go up anywhere, it's automatically because of ACA. Instead of everyone getting together and trying to fix it, the GOP uses it for political points, every single time.

The system is broke. When everyone from top to bottom is looking to make maximum profits, then of course the system is going to be expensive.

Unless something is done in DC, with or without ACA the Middle Class will be priced out of Health Insurance all together. But I don't expect DC to do anything. They all have good coverage, and the GOP loves to keep using ACA for political points. So if they try to fix it, there goes a bogeyman. They can't have that.
 
katzgar said:
using a non ACA premium increase to demonize the ACA is whack
Click to expand...

Worthwhile posters actually take the time to see if there were increases in ACA in Ohio compared to what has been presented in the OP.

When worthwhile informed posters do their homework, they learn the following:

Obamacare premium spikes in Ohio to be soothed by subsidies | The Columbus Dispatch

Ohioans who get their health-care coverage through the Affordable Care Act’s federal marketplace can relax a bit; those premium spikes averaging 25 percent in the news since Monday won’t apply in many cases here.

In fact, in Cleveland, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the premium for one popular plan used as a benchmark actually will go down by $5 for a hypothetical consumer who is 40, doesn’t smoke and earns $30,000 per year. In Columbus, according to a health-care advocacy group, the monthly premium for the same plan for the same hypothetical person will rise by about 4.5 percent.​
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Yep, loooong before Obama my rates went up 10-25% every single year. And pretty much every single year my employer changed Health Insurance provider, because they were always looking for the cheapest provider.

But now everything is Obama's fault. Anytime someone premiums go up anywhere, it's automatically because of ACA. Instead of everyone getting together and trying to fix it, the GOP uses it for political points, every single time.

The system is broke. When everyone from top to bottom is looking to make maximum profits, then of course the system is going to be expensive.

Unless something is done in DC, with or without ACA the Middle Class will be priced out of Health Insurance all together. But I don't expect DC to do anything. They all have good coverage, and the GOP loves to keep using ACA for political points. So if they try to fix it, there goes a bogeyman. They can't have that.
Click to expand...

Of course it is, insurance is supposed to be cheaper now and it's skyrocketing, it's as simple as that. Obamacare is a failure, and it's a dismal shame that people once again bought into the notion that the government can handle something competently and efficiently.

Health care would probably be leaps and bounds cheaper if the government weren't involved at all.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I had insurance before Obamacare. It might surprise y'all to find out that large increase in the cost of health insurance was around long before Obamacare.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is, without a doubt, true but one of the key selling points for PPACA was that it would lower premium costs. How dropping many actuarial risk factors (aka pre-existing conditions) and adding many "at no added cost" treatments (services?) was ever assumed unlikely to spur premium cost increases for most "healthy" folks was never really explained. The exchange policy subsidies and (optional) Medicaid expansion added by PPACA shifted costs but in no way reduced them. The only hope for PPACA premium cost stabilization were the mandates - thus forcing more younger and healthier folks to buy (otherwise unneeded?) policies.
 
JC Callender said:
Health care would probably be leaps and bounds cheaper if the government weren't involved at all.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. Again, when everyone has to make MAXIMUM profits, it going to be expensive. And with, or without the government, the medical field will try to maximize their profits.

Of course it is, insurance is supposed to be cheaper now and it's skyrocketing, it's as simple as that. Obamacare is a failure, and it's a dismal shame that people once again bought into the notion that the government can handle something competently and efficiently.
Click to expand...

Then maybe they should ALL get together and try to fix it. But no, instead we have 1/2 trying to do anything they can to kill it. 1 side working against the other, simply because of politics.

I'm in my 60's, and looooong before Obama came along I saw my premiums go from $0 a month to over $500. And I read many articles that flat out said unless something is done health care costs in this country might bring our whole economy to a stand still. It's the 800 lbs gorilla in the room. It's become so powerful and out of control unless something is done soon, it might be too late.

Screw politics, something needs to be done or the little guy will be prices right out of health care.
 
ocean515 said:
Worthwhile posters actually take the time to see if there were increases in ACA in Ohio compared to what has been presented in the OP.

When worthwhile informed posters do their homework, they learn the following:

Obamacare premium spikes in Ohio to be soothed by subsidies | The Columbus Dispatch

Ohioans who get their health-care coverage through the Affordable Care Act’s federal marketplace can relax a bit; those premium spikes averaging 25 percent in the news since Monday won’t apply in many cases here.

In fact, in Cleveland, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the premium for one popular plan used as a benchmark actually will go down by $5 for a hypothetical consumer who is 40, doesn’t smoke and earns $30,000 per year. In Columbus, according to a health-care advocacy group, the monthly premium for the same plan for the same hypothetical person will rise by about 4.5 percent.​
Click to expand...

The only thing that means is that taxpayers are fitting the bill to keep the costs down.
It means that the subsidies to healthcare have gone up.

This is no regard does not prove that the rates agave increased by double digits again just like they have since
This law was passed.

Premiums going up means the law is not doing its job.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) is, without a doubt, true but one of the key selling points for PPACA was that it would lower premium costs. How dropping many actuarial risk factors (aka pre-existing conditions) and adding many "at no added cost" treatments (services?) was ever assumed unlikely to spur premium cost increases for most "healthy" folks was never really explained. The exchange policy subsidies and (optional) Medicaid expansion added by PPACA shifted costs but in no way reduced them. The only hope for PPACA premium cost stabilization were the mandates - thus forcing more younger and healthier folks to buy (otherwise unneeded?) policies.
Click to expand...

Which they didn't do. That is why the rate hikes are so high. Most of the people signing up are older and sicker.
The healthy young people know a bad deal when they see it and it is still cheaper to just pay the penalty.

The other thing is that these people get jobs that offer there own healthcare.
 
ludin said:
The only thing that means is that taxpayers are fitting the bill to keep the costs down.
It means that the subsidies to healthcare have gone up.

This is no regard does not prove that the rates agave increased by double digits again just like they have since
This law was passed.

Premiums going up means the law is not doing its job.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Claiming, as the article did, that people shouldn't worry because if they are just getting by, the "government" will pick up the tab, is ridiculous.

The premium increases are crushing to anyone who has worked hard and become successful enough to not get these taxpayer funded subsidies.

It's an absolute case study in the inept and pathetic way in which the original creators of ACA do the peoples business.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
No it wouldn't. Again, when everyone has to make MAXIMUM profits, it going to be expensive. And with, or without the government, the medical field will try to maximize their profits.



Then maybe they should ALL get together and try to fix it. But no, instead we have 1/2 trying to do anything they can to kill it. 1 side working against the other, simply because of politics.

I'm in my 60's, and looooong before Obama came along I saw my premiums go from $0 a month to over $500. And I read many articles that flat out said unless something is done health care costs in this country might bring our whole economy to a stand still. It's the 800 lbs gorilla in the room. It's become so powerful and out of control unless something is done soon, it might be too late.

Screw politics, something needs to be done or the little guy will be prices right out of health care.
Click to expand...

I listened to a radio host yesterday talk about a prescription he needs for migraines. It went from a couple bucks a pill to $25 a pill, and the only difference was some ibuprofen was added. The radio host's insurance will cover that, but he refuses on principle and purchases the couple dollar prescription and a cheap bottle of Advil himself instead. Now, if there were a bicycle for sale for $200 and a separate water bottle for $10, but the manufactures try to sell them together for $2,000, it of course wouldn't work. Why would pharmaceutical companies be able to get away with this but Trek wouldn't?
 
JC Callender said:
Of course it is, insurance is supposed to be cheaper now and it's skyrocketing, it's as simple as that. Obamacare is a failure, and it's a dismal shame that people once again bought into the notion that the government can handle something competently and efficiently.

Health care would probably be leaps and bounds cheaper if the government weren't involved at all.
Click to expand...

Of course, it would be. EMTLA was (and still is) used to treat many "at no cost" yet we all know that is BS. It is deemed compassionate to "give away" free ER care yet we do not force grocers (or other food providers) to "give away" (life/health saving?) groceries to those that are unable to pay for the food that they need. The logical thing to do (to "give away" medical care to the poor) is to leave out the middle man (remove, rather than increase, the for profit insurance overhead) and have the government (taxpayers?) pay the care providers to the poor directly (at full fair market value), much like we now do for the food providers to the poor (via SNAP).
 
The spirit of Obamacare and just about every other liberal policy:

"A liberal is arrogant enough to think he can do you a half-assed favor. He is superior enough to think he can give you something that you don't deserve. A liberal will cut off your leg so he can hand you a crutch." - Jim Brown
 
Last edited:
JC Callender said:
I listened to a radio host yesterday talk about a prescription he needs for migraines. It went from a couple bucks a pill to $25 a pill, and the only difference was some ibuprofen was added. The radio host's insurance will cover that, but he refuses on principle and purchases the couple dollar prescription and a cheap bottle of Advil himself instead. Now, if there were a bicycle for sale for $200 and a separate water bottle for $10, but the manufactures try to sell them together for $2,000, it of course wouldn't work. Why would pharmaceutical companies be able to get away with this but Trek wouldn't?
Click to expand...

Look at the profit margin of some of the companies in the Medical Equipment & Supplies Industry. (some at or near 20%). By comparison Exxon Mobile's PM is about 8%.

It's obvious the HC lobbies are rich, and big and very powerful. They got DC by the balls. But again, something needs to be done, and pretty quickly. By BOTH sides. Because yet again, the little guy is stuck in the middle bickering about politics which is doing nothing but giving DC a pass.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) is, without a doubt, true but one of the key selling points for PPACA was that it would lower premium costs. How dropping many actuarial risk factors (aka pre-existing conditions) and adding many "at no added cost" treatments (services?) was ever assumed unlikely to spur premium cost increases for most "healthy" folks was never really explained. The exchange policy subsidies and (optional) Medicaid expansion added by PPACA shifted costs but in no way reduced them. The only hope for PPACA premium cost stabilization were the mandates - thus forcing more younger and healthier folks to buy (otherwise unneeded?) policies.
Click to expand...

Very fair points. The mandate hasn't worked quite like it was hoped. And premiums haven't gone down though to be honest I didn't think they would. At best it might be possible to reduce the rate of growth.
 
JC Callender said:
The spirit of Obamacare and just about every other liberal policy:

"A liberal is arrogant enough to think he can do you a half-assed favor. He is superior enough to think he can give you something that you don't deserve. A liberal will cut off your leg so he can hand you a crutch." - Jim Brown
Click to expand...

Never mind what I just wrote. I can see you are part of the problem and is in no way interested in a solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom