Yet another Lie about ACA...it WILL actually cost MORE.

[sammy the sage]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507489/Obamacare-plans-cost-cases-WITH-government-subsidies-Obama-administration-admits-time.html#ixzz2ki3rSeS5

The Obama administration has directly conceded for the first time that 'in many cases,' health insurance plans offered through government exchanges are more expensive than plans consumers bought before the Affordable Care Act became law – even when government subsidies are figured in.

In a letter to state insurance commissioners, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight director Gary Cohen wrote on Thursday that one reason for the new Obamacare measures the president announced Thursday is that millions of consumers receiving cancellation letters from their insurers are learning the Affordable Care Act options are in fact less affordable.

'Although affected individuals and small businesses may access quality health insurance coverage through the new Health Insurance Marketplaces,' Cohen wrote, 'in many cases with federal subsidies, some of them are finding that such coverage would be more expensive than their current coverage, and thus they may [be] dissuaded from immediately transitioning to such coverage.'

His written statement contradicts President Obama's campaign promises that the Affordable Care Act would lower costs for Americans.
.................................................. .................................................. .......

so much for THAT chart that Al, Most, Hcap kept throwing around... :rolleyes:

[Dave Schwartz]

I would guess that - based upon MY experience with ACA - this is true if you are a 30-somethings or younger. Maybe even 40s. My premium went down for similar coverage but instead we opted for better coverage.

[mostpost]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507489/Obamacare-plans-cost-cases-WITH-government-subsidies-Obama-administration-admits-time.html#ixzz2ki3rSeS5

The Obama administration has directly conceded for the first time that 'in many cases,' health insurance plans offered through government exchanges are more expensive than plans consumers bought before the Affordable Care Act became law – even when government subsidies are figured in.

In a letter to state insurance commissioners, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight director Gary Cohen wrote on Thursday that one reason for the new Obamacare measures the president announced Thursday is that millions of consumers receiving cancellation letters from their insurers are learning the Affordable Care Act options are in fact less affordable.

'Although affected individuals and small businesses may access quality health insurance coverage through the new Health Insurance Marketplaces,' Cohen wrote, 'in many cases with federal subsidies, some of them are finding that such coverage would be more expensive than their current coverage, and thus they may [be] dissuaded from immediately transitioning to such coverage.'

His written statement contradicts President Obama's campaign promises that the Affordable Care Act would lower costs for Americans.
.................................................. .................................................. .......

so much for THAT chart that Al, Most, Hcap kept throwing around... :rolleyes:

It also costs more if you replace your Corolla with a Rav 4, or your burger with a steak. Comparing apples with string beans accomplishes nothing.

[johnhannibalsmith]

It also costs more if you replace your Corolla with a Rav 4, or your burger with a steak. Comparing apples with string beans accomplishes nothing.

Right, and we all know that this thing was billed as upgrading from sloppy Joe to T-Bone at a correlating expense.

[davew]

many, most, few, ...

these terms are ambigious to an administraion that has little concept of running a business (and making a profit) but happy about distributing the wealth so everyone is broke and depends on the government to survive ...

[elysiantraveller]

It also costs more if you replace your Corolla with a Rav 4, or your burger with a steak. Comparing apples with string beans accomplishes nothing.

"If you like your plan you can keep it."

[Clocker]

It also costs more if you replace your Corolla with a Rav 4, or your burger with a steak.

Especially if you don't want those things and can't afford them. It really costs a lot if you have to buy a steak for yourself under penalty of law, which doesn't leave you enough money to buy burgers for the rest of your family

[Clocker]

these terms are ambigious to an administraion that has little concept of running a business (and making a profit) ...

Apparently the administration has learned about how to run a business. From Obama's speech yesterday:

What we're also discovering is that insurance is complicated to buy.

[JustRalph]

It also costs more if you replace your Corolla with a Rav 4, or your burger with a steak. Comparing apples with string beans accomplishes nothing.

Show me a law where I am required by the IRS to upgrade my car and your analogy works...........otherwise you're just steppin and fetching for your boy again.........

[classhandicapper]

many, most, few, ...

these terms are ambigious to an administraion that has little concept of running a business (and making a profit) but happy about distributing the wealth so everyone is broke and depends on the government to survive ...

I don't mean to be so harsh because many of best friend are to the left of center (some quite far).

But the reality is that despite generally good social and other goals, their idealism puts them in a position of having an absolutely delusional view of the way economies work, the way people behave, the way businesses behave etc.. So everything they try to implement eventually fails or causes the outcome to be worse than it would have been if they did nothing at all. And for each failure, they blame the market for political cover and take another step towards making it worse.

Sometimes it takes a very long time and sometimes it happens quickly, but unsound economic and business ideas eventually fail.

[mostpost]

Especially if you don't want those things and can't afford them. It really costs a lot if you have to buy a steak for yourself under penalty of law, which doesn't leave you enough money to buy burgers for the rest of your family
But you don't have to buy a steak under penalty of law and you will never have to. There is a reason to require someone to have a minimum of health care insurance and that is that it benefits society as a whole. It's not about just you.

Anyway, my point was that things of more value cost more.

[HUSKER55]

why would I buy a steak if I can only pay for a hamburger.

[witchdoctor]

Our hospital owns it's own insurance company. Here are some of the thoughts from our insurance guys.

During a press conference held yesterday, President Obama issued a statement, in effect, allowing insurance providers to extend these “non-compliant” plans for another plan year* on the condition that insurers electing to offer such plans issue notices to policy holders outlining each of the following:
1) an itemized listing of benefits not included as part of the plan;
2) that consumers have the right to purchase a plan offered on their state’s respective health exchange;
3) the right to purchase coverage from another carrier outside of the exchange
* In the most exaggerated example, individuals may have the option of keeping their “non-compliant” plan through December 31, 2015; the date of issuance is what determines the plan’s benefit year.


Notwithstanding the politics of the President’s proposal, this accommodation carries with it a number of consequences, not the least of which being that it further narrows an already fragile risk pool. To the extent greater numbers of consumers elect to maintain their “non-compliant” plan(s) in lieu of enrolling on the exchange, many have speculated that this could result in substantial premium increases in future years (presumably 2015 and beyond) as those that otherwise would have been obligated to purchase insurance on the exchange may now maintain their coverage under a “non-compliant” plans, thus creating two distinct risk pools--one that requires insurers to comply with the healthcare law’s coverage requirements and one that does not.

The fear among many insurance providers is that those that need insurance most-- those with chronic disease or those with pre-existing conditions--will be those most likely to select exchange-based plans. Of equal concern is that young adults (many of whom may be eligible to remain on their parent’s health plan, as allowed for under the Affordable Care Act) will not be obligated to purchase insurance on the exchange. Taken together, these two factors could result in a significant destabilization of the insurance market, resulting in a skewed risk pool and thus far higher premiums for consumers in 2015.

[Tom]

Well written, WD! :ThmbUp:

Looks like you put more thought into that one post than Obama and the rest of the idiot-o-crats put into the whole ACA fiasco.

Sub-standard plans - like that total idiot Obama - Mr. Oblivious - has a clue what is good for anyone. I can tell you everyone's health would improve if he were get the hell out of the country and never come back. He is a cancer.

[TJDave]

Show me a law where I am required by the IRS to upgrade my car and your analogy works

There are a myriad of regulations that require upgrading your vehicle. Additionally, new cars come with options that you may not want but are required to purchase.

[Clocker]

There is a reason to require someone to have a minimum of health care insurance and that is that it benefits society as a whole. It's not about just you.



If something benefits society as a whole, then society should pay for it as a whole. Forcing selected people to buy more insurance than they need for more money than they can afford is discriminatory and regressive. This is hypocritical by being contrary to the holy writ of the left that the rich should pay their fair share. It is also cowardly on the part of politicians who are afraid to raise taxes to pay for their welfare program.

Anyway, my point was that things of more value cost more.

You cannot determine value for other people. If I am a contractor, a Ford pick-up has more value to me than a top of the line BMW sedan. If I am a 25 year old single male, a six pack of beer has more value to me than maternity benefits in a mandatory insurance plan.

You still refuse to call ObamaCare what it is: a welfare program funded by unequal, unfair transfer payments from the young and the healthy to the old and ill. It is a scam under the guise of doing good. The Dems should at least have the courage and honesty to admit what it is.

It is not insurance. Period.

[Tom]

There are a myriad of regulations that require upgrading your vehicle. Additionally, new cars come with options that you may not want but are required to purchase.

No one has to buy a car to begin with.

[Tom]

Hey mostie.....you want to try to explain to me how having maternity care make NY policy more valuable to me? :lol::lol::lol:

[Clocker]

No one has to buy a car to begin with.

And if you don't like the "required" options on a new car, you can buy used.

[TJDave]

You still refuse to call ObamaCare what it is: a welfare program funded by unequal, unfair transfer payments from the young and the healthy to the old and ill. It is a scam under the guise of doing good.

It is unfair in the same sense that SS is unfair. It is also a key tenet of actuarial risk.

[TJDave]

No one has to buy a car to begin with.

No one has to buy insurance.

[mostpost]

Hey mostie.....you want to try to explain to me how having maternity care make MY policy more valuable to me? :lol::lol::lol:

You are unlikely to need maternity care. A twenty five year old slender mother is unlike to need care for diabetes, heart disease, or hypertension all of which you are likely to be suffering for. Some people are high risk for cancer and some are not. You pay for maternity care; the twenty five year old pays for diabetes etc.

[mostpost]

If something benefits society as a whole, then society should pay for it as a whole.
In other words you are in favor of single payer. Or maybe you're in favor of communism.

[Clocker]

In other words you are in favor of single payer. Or maybe you're in favor of communism.

You need to watch Obama more to learn how to artistically pivot and deflect from the subject like an expert.

But you did manage to totally avoid the issues. What I am in favor of is society providing health care to the truly needy, and to do so with an honest and open program funded by general tax revenue.

A stealth program disguised as insurance, funded by disguised taxes, is the typical sneaky approach to most issues taken by this childish president when he can't get his way. Rather than actually do his job and work within the system, he uses executive actions and selective enforcement of the laws to get what he wants when he wants it.

[Tom]

You are unlikely to need maternity care. A twenty five year old slender mother is unlike to need care for diabetes, heart disease, or hypertension all of which you are likely to be suffering for. Some people are high risk for cancer and some are not. You pay for maternity care; the twenty five year old pays for diabetes etc.

So BOTH get screwed by paying for stuff they do not need.
Hey Eintstein, that doesn't lower costs.

[TJDave]

So BOTH get screwed by paying for stuff they do not need.
Hey Eintstein, that doesn't lower costs.

Aggregate costs are the same but averaging reduces individual cost, theoretically.

[Clocker]

Aggregate costs are the same but averaging reduces individual cost, theoretically.

The average remains the same. But averaging reduces costs for the high end and increases costs for the low end. The same principle would apply if everyone paid the same for auto insurance. But those rates are based on the probability of you having an accident.

And maternity insurance used to be based on the probability of you getting pregnant. But some people thought that was unfair. If that's not fair, then it is not fair for a 20 year old kid driving a muscle car to pay more for auto insurance than a 40 year old driving a minivan.

[JustRalph]

There are a myriad of regulations that require upgrading your vehicle. Additionally, new cars come with options that you may not want but are required to purchase.

Come on Dave? There are no regs that require me to purchase a new car.

Especially under threat of the IRS army. I can drive my 60's car my entire life if I want.

[TJDave]

The average remains the same. But averaging reduces costs for the high end and increases costs for the low end. The same principle would apply if everyone paid the same for auto insurance. But those rates are based on the probability of you having an accident.


Yes, averaging increases costs for the low end thereby decreasing costs at the top. That is the premise behind affordable care. Without it costs at the top become untenable.

You can't honestly compare auto and health insurance...Not when death is considered an illness. ;)

[TJDave]

I can drive my 60's car my entire life if I want.

True. And just like not buying health care, there are penalties involved.

Even if you are your own mechanic. ;)

To argue that no one is forced to buy a new car is the same as arguing no one needs new shoes. I suppose you could grow your own food and never spend a dime at the market, too.

[Clocker]

Yes, averaging increases costs for the low end thereby decreasing costs at the top. That is the premise behind affordable care. Without it costs at the top become untenable.



Why should that be the business or the burden of a 25 year old kid getting started in life? He didn't cause the problem. He has his own problems, working an entry level job, paying rent, buying a car, and trying to get drunk and laid on week ends.

You can't honestly compare auto and health insurance...Not when death is considered an illness.

I can honestly compare auto and health insurance. I have no more responsibility for a 25 year man crashing his car than I do for a 25 year old woman having a kid. What's the difference? It's not my car and it's not my kid.

I have no problem with society providing a safety net for emergencies. If a woman has a child that requires extraordinary treatment to live, that's all well and good for society to pay for it. But routine pregnancy falls into the area of a woman's right to control her own body.

Bring death into this discussion is a straw man argument. See previous paragraph regarding extraordinary measures. We are talking about health insurance, not health care.

[TJDave]

Why should that be the business or the burden of a 25 year old kid getting started in life? He didn't cause the problem. He has his own problems, working an entry level job, paying rent, buying a car, and trying to get drunk and laid on week ends.

Because, if they're lucky, all 25 year-old kids will get old, sick and die. Paying more now will mean paying less later.



Bring death into this discussion is a straw man argument. See previous paragraph regarding extraordinary measures. We are talking about health insurance, not health care.

Health insurance pays for health care. The two are explicably linked. In the last few months of life all health care consists of extraordinary measures.

[HUSKER55]

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/the-horror-of-government-run-veteran-health-care


if the government can't run a hospital what in the world makes you think they can run your health care?

[sammy the sage]

In other words you are in favor of single payer. Or maybe you're in favor of communism.

now THIS is rich... :rolleyes: :faint: :D :lol:

[Tom]

No one has to buy insurance.

If they do not, they are fined.
And the fines will go up.
Not so with a car.
Or a sandwich, or toothpaste.

This ACA bill is total BS and has no place in a free country.
The supreme court should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail - the court has lost any claim it had to any respect.

What we have are 9 mentally questionable degenerates who dress funny and suck pond water. A pox on everyone one of them. The history of the court is replete with despicable and morally questionable justices. The trend continues to this day.

[Tom]

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/the-horror-of-government-run-veteran-health-care


if the government can't run a hospital what in the world makes you think they can run your health care?

JFK committed to putting a man on the moon and vringing him back home safer within a decade. It took 8 years.

Obama had over 3 years to build a web site - something already in existence and daily use by millions......and the IDIOT couldn't come close! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Clocker]

Health insurance pays for health care. The two are explicably linked. In the last few months of life all health care consists of extraordinary measures.

The ACA allows insurance companies to charge smokers more than nonsmokers. How is that fair? If it is fair to charge men for maternity coverage, then it is certainly fair to charge non-smokers for coverage of smoking-related health problems. The argument for the need for end of life care certainly is more relevant to someone with lung cancer than to someone having a baby. Smokers need more care. Just like women need more care than men. If it is not fair to charge women more because of their need for care, than it is equally unfair to charge smokers more.

[TJDave]

The ACA allows insurance companies to charge smokers more than nonsmokers. How is that fair? If it is fair to charge men for maternity coverage, then it is certainly fair to charge non-smokers for coverage of smoking-related health problems. The argument for the need for end of life care certainly is more relevant to someone with lung cancer than to someone having a baby. Smokers need more care. Just like women need more care than men. If it is not fair to charge women more because of their need for care, than it is equally unfair to charge smokers more.

I agree. It is not fair. So what?

Life is not fair.

[Clocker]

I agree. It is not fair. So what?

Life is not fair.

Then why are you arguing that it is fair for a young male to subsidize maternity benefits?

PS: My arguments about fairness were sarcastic. No one has the right to impose their opinion of fairness on others. Everyone should pay for the resources they use as much as possible.

[Saratoga_Mike]

JFK committed to putting a man on the moon and vringing him back home safer within a decade. It took 8 years.

Obama had over 3 years to build a web site - something already in existence and daily use by millions......and the IDIOT couldn't come close! :lol: :lol: :lol:

...and the administration misled Congress about the progress on building out the website this past summer - see emails released by Congressman Upton yesterday

[Saratoga_Mike]

It also costs more if you replace your Corolla with a Rav 4, or your burger with a steak. Comparing apples with string beans accomplishes nothing.

But the GOVERNMENT doesn't tell me I have to buy a steak instead of a burger, at least not yet. Maybe I love burgers. In the case of the ACA, the govt is dictating what has to be in someone's policy (i.e., they're tell me I must eat steak).

[TJDave]

Then why are you arguing that it is fair for a young male to subsidize maternity benefits?


I never used the word fair. You must have me confused with a liberal. ;)

[Clocker]

You must have me confused with a liberal. ;)

I'm not a liberal, so I don't get confused. :p

[Tom]

ACA = ASS Clown Act!