Obama Administration Confirms Double-Digit Premium Hikes

[Harshaw]

Is there any reason to believe that wouldn't have happened under the old system?

Is that what you're going with?

 

[Cardinal]

Is that what you're going with?

I assumed this was a critique of the ppaca being worse than the old system. Was this an incorrect assumption?

 

[Harshaw]

I assumed this was a critique of the ppaca being worse than the old system. Was this an incorrect assumption?

I'd say it's about the cluster**** of Obamacare entirely incandescent unto itself.

If you feel the need to tell yourself that it would have happened anyway, I guess that's what you have to do.

 

[reinoe]

I need to hurry up and get my degree in Finance so I can become an underwriter. Use that to propel myself into the Actuary business. The ACA boondoggle has made insurance very prof

 

[Cardinal]

I'd say it's about the cluster**** of Obamacare entirely incandescent unto itself.

If you feel the need to tell yourself that it would have happened anyway, I guess that's what you have to do.

Your post fails to address the implied concern of this thread. Is the ppaca itself responsible for the price hike? Can we know that it wouldn't have happened anyway? If the answer to these questions is no, then why should anybody be expected to accept that there is a greater onus on the ppaca than the system that existed before it?

 

[azgreg]

Your post fails to address the implied concern of this thread. Is the ppaca itself responsible for the price hike? Can we know that it wouldn't have happened anyway? If the answer to these questions is no, then why should anybody be expected to accept that there is a greater onus on the ppaca than the system that existed before it?

Excuse me sir but your statements are violating the "Not enough hyper-partisan bull ****" rule.

 

[Harshaw]

Your post fails to address the implied concern of this thread. Is the ppaca itself responsible for the price hike? Can we know that it wouldn't have happened anyway? If the answer to these questions is no, then why should anybody be expected to accept that there is a greater onus on the ppaca than the system that existed before it?

If those are the straws you need to grasp at to keep the partisan faith, don't let me stop you.

 

[Cardinal]

If those are the straws you need to grasp at to keep the partisan faith, don't let me stop you.

I suggest you slow down and read more carefully before projecting your assumptions onto me. I see a thread that puts "PPACA" and "Health insurance costs rise" into the same thought, and apparently I'm supposed to accept the causality of one over the other, or that the costs wouldn't have risen if it hadn't been for the PPACA because...................reasons?

 

[Cardinal]

Excuse me sir but your statements are violating the "Not enough hyper-partisan bull ****" rule.

I will work on that.

 

[Harshaw]

I suggest you slow down and read more carefully before projecting your assumptions onto me. I see a thread that puts "PPACA" and "Health insurance costs rise" into the same thought, and apparently I'm supposed to accept the causality of one over the other, or that the costs wouldn't have risen if it hadn't been for the PPACA because...................reasons?

Reasons:

The requirement that everyone be covered.

1) Because no one can be turned down, even with drastic pre-existing conditions, it increases the risk and the expense of payouts, so more money needs to come in. Everyone's premiums go up.

2) Because everyone is required to buy it, there is absolutely no downward pressure or containing pressures on prices.

But I'm certain that will not satisfy you, and you will cling to the idea that it's not Obamacare driving these (fully predictable and predicted) increases.

 

[Cardinal]

Reasons:

The requirement that everyone be covered.

1) Because no one can be turned down, even with drastic pre-existing conditions, it increases the risk and the expense of payouts, so more money needs to come in. Everyone's premiums go up.

2) Because everyone is required to buy it, there is absolutely no downward pressure or containing pressures on prices.

But I'm certain that will not satisfy you, and you will cling to the idea that it's not Obamacare driving these (fully predictable and predicted) increases.

Everyone buying into it is what prevents the additional costs due to not being able to reject people for pre-existing conditions, or for not raising their costs or dumping them when they do get sick. So your argument for causality doesn't work.

 

[Harshaw]

Everyone buying into it is what prevents the additional costs due to not being able to reject people for pre-existing conditions, or for not raising their costs or dumping them when they do get sick.

Uh, no, that makes no sense at all. In fact, that's the opposite of what happens, as even a basic understanding of economics should inform.

So your argument for causality doesn't work.

Yeah, color me surprised that you'd conclude this. Oh, wait, I'm really not:

But I'm certain that will not satisfy you, and you will cling to the idea that it's not Obamacare driving these (fully predictable and predicted) increases.

:roll:

Enjoy your self-constructed safe-space reality.

 

[Cardinal]

Uh, no, that makes no sense at all. In fact, that's the opposite of what happens, as even a basic understanding of economics should inform.



Yeah, color me surprised that you'd conclude this. Oh, wait, I'm really not:



:roll:

Enjoy your self-constructed safe-space reality.

Actually it does make sense. When those who are young and not prone to illness (i.e. the low risk) pay into health insurance anyway, the overall risk is decreased. So all your ad homs aside, your argument for causality doesn't make sense. Your argument is essentially reduced to

1. Costs have risen.
2. We have Obamacare.
3. Obamacare requires people to have insurance.
4. Assumption: #3 causes #1.

You have presented no argument for why anybody should accept that assumption. You also continue to be unable to demonstrate that those prices wouldn't have risen just the same without the PPACA.

 

[Harshaw]

Actually it does make sense. When those who are young and not prone to illness (i.e. the low risk) pay into health insurance anyway, the overall risk is decreased. So all your ad homs aside, your argument for causality doesn't make sense. Your argument is essentially reduced to

1. Costs have risen.
2. We have Obamacare.
3. Obamacare requires people to have insurance.
4. Assumption: #3 causes #1.

You have presented no argument for why anybody should accept that assumption. You also continue to be unable to demonstrate that those prices wouldn't have risen just the same without the PPACA.

No, I presented the argument; you're just pretending I didn't. And to the extent you don't so pretend, you respond with economically-illiterate gibberish.

:2wave:

Yeah, this bores me now. Hacks gonna hack, I guess. :shrug:

You have a good night.

 

[Cardinal]

No, I presented the argument; you're just pretending I didn't. And to the extent you don't so pretend, you respond with economically-illiterate gibberish.

:2wave:

Yeah, this bores me now. Hacks gonna hack, I guess. :shrug:

You have a good night.

You made a bad argument because it didn't take into account that a very large proportion of the additional people forced to take part in it aren't actually high risk. That's what spreads the risk, and makes the case for causality meaningless.

You seem upset that I don't automatically accept your assumptions.

 

[MickeyW]

Associated Press:


News from The Associated Press

gee, what terrible(but totally unsurprising to anyone with a brain) news. and just days before the general election.

Trump gets a big bump in the polls in 3.......2........1.......

Yep...the Democrats screwed us still again.....and the dumb idiots will vote for Clinton!

 

[joG]

Hah!

I actually thought of that as well! (single-payer)

Those Harvard lawyers sure are sneaky!

But this outcome shows, why they are paid so well. They get, what they want before anyone notices.

 

[jmotivator]

There's a county in Arizona that might not have any.

Arizona county at risk of having no ObamaCare option | TheHill

Is that really a "risk" though? Sounds great to me.

 

[jmotivator]

Reasons:

The requirement that everyone be covered.

1) Because no one can be turned down, even with drastic pre-existing conditions, it increases the risk and the expense of payouts, so more money needs to come in. Everyone's premiums go up.

2) Because everyone is required to buy it, there is absolutely no downward pressure or containing pressures on prices.

But I'm certain that will not satisfy you, and you will cling to the idea that it's not Obamacare driving these (fully predictable and predicted) increases.

3) The prices were kept artificially lower in the startup years by subsidizing the insurers losses.

4) The program insured that only the sickest and most expensive patients would buy into the system.


They've been touting the "savings" in Obamacare entirely on the huge sums of money being dumped into the system to cover the unsustainable losses by insurers.

Now the subsidies are gone and insurers have to charge directly for their costs... and TA DA! Huge price increases and death spiral.

 

[tres borrachos]

Hopefully this news helps the down ballot Republicans in a very big way. It confirms what they predicted was going to happen.

 

[Harshaw]

3) The prices were kept artificially lower in the startup years by subsidizing the insurers losses.

4) The program insured that only the sickest and most expensive patients would buy into the system.


They've been touting the "savings" in Obamacare entirely on the huge sums of money being dumped into the system to cover the unsustainable losses by insurers.

Now the subsidies are gone and insurers have to charge directly for their costs... and TA DA! Huge price increases and death spiral.

Bah. The faithful won't care, as we've seen.

 

[jmotivator]

Bah. The faithful won't care, as we've seen.

Well, the true faithful are hoping for a full collapse of the US healthcare system so that the government can save it with a government takeover. They'll pay lip service to the system that is killing American health care only so long as the system isn't dead yet.

In other words, the true faithful support for Obamacare is just a stalling tactic.

 

[Roadvirus]

Well, the true faithful are hoping for a full collapse of the US healthcare system so that the government can save it with a government takeover.

Because that's working well with the VA. Just ask the Vets who died while on a "waiting list".

 

[danielpalos]

With a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for simply being unemployed, who wouldn't be able to afford catastrophic forms of insurance?

 

[Objective Voice]

Re: Obama Admin Confirms Double-Digit Premium Hikes

It was NOT sold that way at all. The promises by Obama included an average savings of $2500. Now we are looking at an average increase next year of 25%. That is massive and in many cases, unaffordable. This was predicted and now you are blaming others for a crappy law. That sort of behavior from liberals was predicted as well.

You guys are forgetting two things concerning both the ACA and these premium hikes:

1) The ACA was meant to be a "wholesale" enrollment program and, thus, mirror how employees in the private sector (corporate world) generally receive their health insurance. The more people enroll as part of a "package deal", the cheaper the overall cost because premium pricing is shared across the aggregate of consumers.

2) The premium hikes will only affect those who purchase mid-level (Silver) plans or higher. So, if you receive insurance coverage through your employer OR a basic (Bronze) plan from the government health insurance exchange, these rate hikes don't apply to you since your premiums are already "subsidized" in some way.

From the OP article:

The vast majority of the more than 10 million customers who purchase through HealthCare.gov and its state-run counterparts do receive generous financial assistance. "Enrollment is concentrated among very low-income individuals who receive significant government subsidies to reduce premiums and cost-sharing," said Caroline Pearson of the consulting firm Avalere Health

But an estimated 5 million to 7 million people are either not eligible for the income-based assistance, or they buy individual policies outside of the health law's markets, where the subsidies are not available. The administration is urging the latter group to check out HealthCare.gov. The spike in premiums generally does not affect the employer-provided plans that cover most workers and their families.