Prices Set For New HealthCare Law: Another Pyramid Scheme?

Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/prices-set-health-care-exchanges-040600393.html

U.S. officials for the first time disclosed insurance prices that will be offered through new federally run health-care exchanges starting Oct. 1, showing that young, healthy buyers likely will pay more than they do currently while older, sicker consumers should get a break.

The plans, offered under the health-care overhaul to people who don't get insurance through an employer or government program, in many cases provide broader coverage than current policies.
Costs will vary widely from state to state and for different types of consumers. Government subsidies will cut costs for some lower-income consumers.

Across the country, the average premium for a 27-year-old nonsmoker, regardless of gender, will start at $163 a month for the lowest-cost "bronze" plan; $203 for the "silver" plan, which provides more benefits than bronze; and $240 for the more-comprehensive "gold" plan.
But for some buyers, prices will rise from today's less-comprehensive policies. In Nashville, Tenn., a 27-year-old male nonsmoker could pay as little as $41 a month now for a bare-bones policy, but would pay $114 a month for the lowest-cost bronze option in the new federal health exchanges.

Likewise, the least-expensive bronze policy would rise to $195 a month in Philadelphia for that same 27-year-old, from $73 today. In Cheyenne, Wyo., the lowest-cost option would be $271 a month, up from $82 today.
The Affordable Care Act marks a fundamental shift in the way insurers price their products. Carriers won't be allowed to charge higher premiums for consumers who have medical histories suggesting they might be more expensive to cover because they need more care. They will have to treat customers equally, with limited variation in premiums based on buyers' ages or whether they smoke.

Insurers also will have to offer a more generous benefits package that includes hospital care, preventive services, prescription drugs and maternity coverage.

For consumers used to skimpier plans—or young, healthy people who previously enjoyed attractive rates—that could mean significantly higher premiums.

The benefits are greater for people who previously were rejected for coverage because they were ill, or who were charged higher premiums. They are expected to find better coverage through the exchanges for the first time.

The concern for supporters of the law, and the administration, is whether enough healthy people sign up to balance the likely higher costs incurred by the sick and newly covered.

The data, which the administration was set to release Wednesday, cover 36 states where the federal government is operating insurance exchanges because state officials have declined to do so themselves. Fourteen states are operating exchanges on their own.

The Obama administration called the rates a good deal for consumers.
"The prices are affordable," said Gary Cohen, a top regulator at the Department of Health and Human Services.

"Because of the Affordable Care Act, the health insurance that people will be buying will actually cover them in the case of them getting sick. It doesn't make sense to compare just the number the person was paying, you have to compare the value people are getting," Mr. Cohen added.
Critics of the health law long have argued that the price changes represent a dramatic increase in premiums, and Senate Republicans repeated those arguments during a floor debate Tuesday.

"Obamacare hasn't even been fully implemented yet, but we can already see the train wreck headed our way. Premiums are skyrocketing," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.).

Republicans are trying to repeal the law and have tied the issue to a bill to extend government funding beyond the Sept 30 end of the fiscal year. Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) spoke on the Senate floor for hours into Tuesday night in what he said was a battle to block the law from taking effect.

The administration has pointed to new federal subsidies that many lower-income Americans will be able to use to help offset the cost of premiums.
The data released by the administration indicated that for younger single people, the value of the subsidies would be generous for someone with an annual income of up to about $25,000, though it could tail off after that.
The exchanges are set to open nationwide on Oct. 1, offering coverage that begins Jan. 1.

Washington is scrambling to fix a host of technical hurdles on the federally run exchanges, including ensuring the government's software can reliably determine the exact amount of subsidies for eligible people.
In another sign of the technical challenges, federal officials confirmed this week that if a person signing up online in the federal exchanges is found to be eligible for Medicaid, the system won't immediately be able to transfer the application to the person's state of residence. States traditionally handle enrollment for Medicaid, a federal-state health-insurance program for the poor.

The Medicaid computer handoff won't happen until Nov. 1, but people who are newly eligible for Medicaid should still be able to get coverage starting Jan. 1, officials said.

Meantime, Colorado became the second state, after Oregon, to limit the ability of residents to enroll online in its state-run exchange in the first weeks, saying some people will have to enroll by phone or in person for about a month until glitches are ironed out.

The plans on the federal exchanges are being labeled as gold, silver or bronze depending on what proportion of expected medical costs they cover. Younger people may be able to buy "catastrophic plans"—ones that cover a lower proportion of costs than a bronze option—but they cannot use subsidies toward those premiums. The administration's data indicated that catastrophic-plan rates won't cost much less than the bronze option.
The Obama administration said most people will have a choice of at least two carriers, but a few people will have just one choice. It said competition helped keep prices down from what some projections had initially estimated.

"I think there is an anticipation of a lot of new entrants coming into the market, so insurers are competing for all the new business…and insurers know people are going to be able to easily compare plans side-by-side," said Mr. Cohen.

One potential drawback of the plans on the exchanges: They often feature narrower networks of doctors and hospitals, meaning people might not be able to see the doctor of their choice.

Is anyone else reading this like I am? Younger people PAYING MORE, older people getting a break. What the fuck is this, another social security in which you're told you will get your break when you get there? I find this to be complete and utter Bullshit. It's actually hilarious, because smoking will get you higher rates, yet old age won't? It's like an oxymoron double negative, one says you shouldn't let health chances be a factor (Age). The other says you should pay more based on health chances (Smoking) :hmm:

Fucking logic, how does that work?

I find it funny that this ends up pissing on the younger generations, as if they don't cry and whine enough.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Wait until the younger crowd doesnt pay at all and ops to not get insurance and instead pays the penalty.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Wait until the younger crowd doesnt pay at all and ops to not get insurance and instead pays the penalty.

It will be the fault of everyone except those who created Obamacare. The best approach would have been from the bottom up, figuring out what is really needed and ways to go about improving the quality of outcomes and providing tools to make that happen. That would involve time and expertise that Congress lacks and so they could have delegated the task to experts and provided resources. The hacks fought that though. They would rather have a broken system made worse before they'd allow another to take credit.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/prices-set-health-care-exchanges-040600393.html

Is anyone else reading this like I am? Younger people PAYING MORE, older people getting a break. What the fuck is this, another social security in which you're told you will get your break when you get there? I find this to be complete and utter Bullshit. It's actually hilarious, because smoking will get you higher rates, yet old age won't? It's like an oxymoron double negative, one says you shouldn't let health chances be a factor (Age). The other says you should pay more based on health chances (Smoking) :hmm:

Fucking logic, how does that work?

I find it funny that this ends up pissing on the younger generations, as if they don't cry and whine enough.

Of course the young and healthy pay more, that's the entire premise of the law. If you mandate "shall issue" and prohibit medical underwriting of health insurance premia, by definition those younger and healthier are subsidizing those who are older, sicker, and have pre-existing conditions.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him.

I didn't vote for anyone. None were worthy of holding office.

We seriously need a "none of the above" option and if a plurality of votes picks that option each party needs to submit another candidate until they get someone the electorate can at least tolerate. That would be far more along the lines of democracy than we have now.
 

networkman

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
10,436
1
0
Of course it's a pyramid scheme! Do you really think the same political bodies that came up with Social Security could come up with anything different?
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
I didn't vote for anyone. None were worthy of holding office.

We seriously need a "none of the above" option and if a plurality of votes picks that option each party needs to submit another candidate until they get someone the electorate can at least tolerate. That would be far more along the lines of democracy than we have now.
You know I kinda like that!
 

frowertr

Golden Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,372
41
91
I think once the low information voters finally figure out what Obamacare really is we will seem more of these kinds of posts here on P&N and also in the news. Can't wait to see the meltdown.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Of course the young and healthy pay more, that's the entire premise of the law. If you mandate "shall issue" and prohibit medical underwriting of health insurance premia, by definition those younger and healthier are subsidizing those who are older, sicker, and have pre-existing conditions.

People will have to pay more. People who had good coverage they thought would continue will have it end or have it priced beyond their means. Health care must increase in cost and no thought will be applied to resolving certain disaster when we can supply this kind of opiate of the masses. When it's too late when those in power will blame those who came before them.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
There's no free lunch.


Average premiums before the tax credit discount is between 300-400.

Who is going to pay for that?

That's a big deal and it's expensive. Subsidy pricing is a distraction, and an insidious one given what we know happens when the government subsidizes somthing. This should be getting more clear that this is health insurance reform and not health care reform in terms of providing a solution to the critical aspect of ridiculous health care costs in the US.

Only in America do we subsidize something that is stupid expensive instead of cutting it's cost. Wonder what that paradigm benefits. Beyond that, Sorry, I don't think folks who earn 25-35k, primary folks without insurance, are going to be able to afford an extra 100-200 a month for this and then be expected to come up with out of pocket costs of up to 6k if they actually need HEALTH CARE that insurance is suppose to help with. Is 6k better than 100k, yes, but where is the breaking point for these folks with literally no savings?

I'm either in the camp that Obamacare didn't go far enough or that it is a trainwreck. I just hope it greases the wheels to actually solve the health care crisis, in terms of out of control costs in America. But when you give millions of people money that is force fed to the health insurance beast, i'm not sure that is going to weaken out of control health care costs in the states. We saw what happened to tuition costs in a similar model of free/cheap money to a certain economic demographic when that money was expected and was tunneled right to universities and college book publishers. Price exploded, like it will here. The market for health insurance just got fatter with a bunch more money that is being poured in. Folks may not spend more on their premium, but subsidy amounts will have to increase which makes the whole thing unaffordable if not to the individual then to the group expected to pay for it. This is pretty simple if we follow history.

Main issue is that in America we pay an order of magnitude more for comparable care than folks in other countries do. Obamacare doesn't address this at all. It simply hands out money to certain folks so they can afford, maybe, health insurance. Again, when it comes time to pay 6k out of pocket for a 1-2 day stay in a hospital , how are these folks going to be ok? They'll still need to avoid actually receiving health care due to exorbitant costs.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Of course the young and healthy pay more, that's the entire premise of the law. If you mandate "shall issue" and prohibit medical underwriting of health insurance premia, by definition those younger and healthier are subsidizing those who are older, sicker, and have pre-existing conditions.

Don't forget forcing single men to subsidize strong independent women.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
There's no free lunch.


Average premiums before the tax credit discount is between 300-400.

Who is going to pay for that?

That's a big deal and it's expensive. Subsidy pricing is a distraction, and an insidious one given what we know happens when the government subsidizes somthing. This should be getting more clear that this is health insurance reform and not health care reform in terms of providing a solution to the critical aspect of ridiculous health care costs in the US.

Only in America do we subsidize something that is stupid expensive instead of cutting it's cost. Wonder what that paradigm benefits. Beyond that, Sorry, I don't think folks who earn 25-35k, primary folks without insurance, are going to be able to afford an extra 100-200 a month for this and then be expected to come up with out of pocket costs of up to 6k if they actually need HEALTH CARE that insurance is suppose to help with. Is 6k better than 100k, yes, but where is the breaking point for these folks with literally no savings?

I'm either in the camp that Obamacare didn't go far enough or that it is a trainwreck. I just hope it greases the wheels to actually solve the health care crisis, in terms o out of control costs, in America.

The problem is entirely in the mentality of the approach and this goes beyond just O'care. The world has gotten too complicated for a small group of people who are completely beyond their depth with so many abstruse issues. When this system was set up a man might know a substantial portion of all relevant knowledge. When that became impossible staffers raided libraries and other resources allowing legislators to "offload" their brains to some degree. Now the staffers are out of their depth so they do the best they can, but the parties pick a plan then select experts to back it up with testimony, and still don't understand what they are doing. They cannot.

We need a different model, and I've proposed one, and the responses have been interesting. While legislators are tasked with implementing law they aren't required to place their ignorance before knowledge, but they and their supporters insist that be the case. Some things take considerable time, effort and resources to do well and aren't amenable to "well if we don't like it we can just undo it", and health care is one.

The hacks really would rather see the nation burn before they would accept this.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
It does seem weird that smoking would have a different rate. A person can choose to do something dangerous like play football or hockey at no additional cost, but they can't smoke? This makes no sense. Joe Rogan said he had both of his knees replaced due to sports injuries. UFC fighter Anderson Silva also had both of his knees replaced. The legendary Bass Rutten has fucked up knees as well. Are we supposed to pretend that sports do not cause long term damage that is on par with smoking or drinking?

Enter Mrs Obama with some double speak. People should stop smoking because it causes health problems. Kids should start exercising and playing sports because kids need more health problems. I've never heard of someone having a torn ACL or a broken fibula from playing too much xbox.
 
Last edited:
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
It's actually hilarious, because smoking will get you higher rates, yet old age won't? It's like an oxymoron double negative, one says you shouldn't let health chances be a factor (Age). The other says you should pay more based on health chances (Smoking) :hmm:

Age isn't a behavior one chooses to engage in. "I bored with being 27; I think tomorrow I'll be 80." You can't do anything to mitigate health risks that are out of people's control (like age), but you can try to limit specific behaviors which have demonstrable negative effects on an individual's health (like smoking).

That said, is there anyone on Earth who still supports the ACA? I've been disillusioned with Obama and the Democrats in general since his first term; I don't know a single soul who thinks the ACA is the right way to go to fix the problem of ballooning healthcare costs in this country.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
I find it funny that this ends up pissing on the younger generations, as if they don't cry and whine enough.

Well, Obama won a clear majority of the 18-29 crowd in the past election, so it's fair to say that, as a group, they opted-in to paying more.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
Age isn't a behavior one chooses to engage in. "I bored with being 27; I think tomorrow I'll be 80." You can't do anything to mitigate health risks that are out of people's control (like age), but you can try to limit specific behaviors which have demonstrable negative effects on an individual's health (like smoking).

That said, is there anyone on Earth who still supports the ACA? I've been disillusioned with Obama and the Democrats in general since his first term; I don't know a single soul who thinks the ACA is the right way to go to fix the problem of ballooning healthcare costs in this country.

Alcoholics and Smokers will actually argue it's not a choice either - all the same with drug addiction (Prescription or otherwise).

Plus, you can do plenty to mitigate the risks of age. For one: Being obese at the age of 25? Not that big of a deal.

Being obese at the age of 55? Damn higher % you could fall over tomorrow. So that is certainly one that is a choice: Being obese. Why smoking, but not obese? This is what I find wrong with the whole anti-smoking thing: It's societal morals that deem it to be wrong. Don't get me wrong, I hate that shit. I haven't smoked anything other than a couple free ciggs in college. It's like a bunch of snoody fat people turning their head and deeming it innappriate but their fat ass that you could run laps around is perfectly reasonable, acceptable, and within reason. Go figure :hmm:

Note: As a former fat ass I can fully say these things :thumbsup:
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Why not no drinking and no MJ and no Smoking?

You have to eat to live. You don't have to drink alcohol or smoke tobacco to live.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Whenever they give you some quote like $80 a week or something stupid like that they are including the maximum govt subsidy to help pay for the $200 a month insurance. This does not mean you will qualify for a subsidy or that there is even money to pay for this! There is no money. Every dime comes from China or they are printing the money at the fed.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
This healthcare bill will cause every tree in America to be chopped down in the USA for all the paperwork and red tape it has built into it.