Rate Shock In CA - Obamacare Increases Premiums by 64-146%

[red states rule]

Remember what libs have said about CA. So goes CA - so goes the nation

I do hope all those libs who voted for Obama are enjoying the end results of their vote





Obamacare to double individual-market premiums



If you’re a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month. (That’s the median monthly premium across California’s 19 insurance rating regions.)


The next cheapest plan, the “bronze” comprehensive plan, costs $205 a month. But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com (http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/) (NASDAQ:EHTH (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=EHTH)), the average cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92. In other words, for the average 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.


Under Obamacare, only people under the age of 30 can participate in the slightly cheaper catastrophic plan. So if you’re 40, your cheapest option is the bronze plan. In California, the median price of a bronze plan for a 40-year-old male non-smoker will be $261. But on eHealthInsurance, the average cost of the five cheapest plans was $121. That is, Obamacare will increase individual-market premiums by an average of 116 percent.


For both 25-year-olds and 40-year-olds, then, Californians under Obamacare who buy insurance for themselves will see their insurance premiums double.


http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/05/Calif-rate-shock-map1.png
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

[Marcus Aurelius]

We could have told them that.

Oh, wait... WE DID!

[Marcus Aurelius]

According to Ezra Klein, there IS no California...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-29/one-way-obamacare-may-already-be-working.html


“National health spending grew by 3.9 percent each year from 2009 to 2011, the lowest rate of growth since the federal government began keeping such statistics in 1960,” reports (http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/assessing-the-effects-of-the-economy-on-the-recent-slowdown-in-health-spending-2/) the Kaiser Family Foundation. Early data suggest that the numbers held into 2012. So the curve hasn’t just bent; it has bent more than ever.


In a new paper, Harvard University scholars David Cutler and Nikhil Sahni calculate that if those numbers hold over the next decade, the government will save up to $770 billion, employers will save up to $430 annually on each covered worker and households will spend up to $290 less on annual health costs.

California finally dropped off the edge of the country. Only it didn't get swallowed by the pacific ocean. It is getting swallowed by Obamacare. Or, perhaps, it's doing the swallowing...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Remember what libs have said about CA. So goes CA - so goes the nation

I do hope all those libs who voted for Obama are enjoying the end results of their vote

Welcome to the fruits of the obamatree. Enjoy you dumbass liberals, appeasers, dem supporting "bought out blacks" and other assorted ignorant trash..-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We could have told them that.

Oh, wait... WE DID!

Bankrupt the states and you have bankrupted the nation. Aworthy goal and all going as planned, thanks obama you slimy ffing traitor! -Tyr

[fj1200]

According to Ezra Klein, there IS no California...

I think you're comparing two different things. One is overall national health spending and the other is individual policies.

Of course this part was interesting:


For one thing, health costs began slowing in 2005 or so.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I think you're comparing two different things. One is overall national health spending and the other is individual policies.

Of course this part was interesting:


...and households will spend up to $290 less on annual health costs.

Annual health costs don't include cost of insurance?

[fj1200]

Annual health costs don't include cost of insurance?

They are a part of it.

EDIT: Not sure why you pulled that particular quote.

[Thunderknuckles]

I don't know about those numbers that are being posted.
I'm 42 and have been paying $800/month before ObamaCare. Of course that is including my wife and children. However, even if I took them out I'd be paying significantly more than this so called catastrophic amount of $184/month.

What I have seen reported is that independent insurance is going to indeed spike but not by the percentage posted, while folks who get their insurance through their employers will see a modest increase of about 10%-20%. In any case, if I can get insurance for $184/month, I'd be all over it!

[tailfins]

I'm suspicious. ACA Bronze might not be a good deal, but a better comparison would be the difference in the best deal pre and post Obamacare. This looks too much like a trick from a statistically illiterate journalist.

[red states rule]

When you have union thugs who supported Obama and backed Obamacare - now calling for the repeal of Obamacare - you know there are serious issues with the Unaffordable Care Act

Too bad for the union goons Obama no longer needs them.

But the Dems do in 2014

[cadet]

This is my shocked face. :blues:

[red states rule]

It is amazing how our residents liberals are ignoring another Obamacare thread. Seems they are having trouble explaining how government can provide a service cheaper; and more effectively; then the the private sector

[Nukeman]

I don't know about those numbers that are being posted.
I'm 42 and have been paying $800/month before ObamaCare. Of course that is including my wife and children. However, even if I took them out I'd be paying significantly more than this so called catastrophic amount of $184/month.

What I have seen reported is that independent insurance is going to indeed spike but not by the percentage posted, while folks who get their insurance through their employers will see a modest increase of about 10%-20%. In any case, if I can get insurance for $184/month, I'd be all over it!
I think you misunderstood the "catastophic plan" that means a plan that ONLY covers a catastrophic illness. Basicly its for hospitalization and nothing more.. So $200 a month just for that is kind of high. You at least with your plan have Dr.'s visits, X-ray, and Lab services (I assume).

I am in the same boat as you as far as cost for a family plan... I saw a 20% increase last year and hate to thinkwhat it will go up in 2014....

[taft2012]

I think you misunderstood the "catastophic plan" that means a plan that ONLY covers a catastrophic illness. Basicly its for hospitalization and nothing more.. So $200 a month just for that is kind of high. You at least with your plan have Dr.'s visits, X-ray, and Lab services (I assume).

I am in the same boat as you as far as cost for a family plan... I saw a 20% increase last year and hate to thinkwhat it will go up in 2014....

Catastrophic is actually what most people need. It truly is medical "insurance".

I go to the doctor about once every two years for an office visit. An office visit costs about $100.

My employer is ponying up about $10K per year to cover this $100.

I can pay that $100, and my employer could provide a catastrophic policy to me for less than $1000 a year.

[Nukeman]

Catastrophic is actually what most people need. It truly is medical "insurance".

I go to the doctor about once every two years for an office visit. An office visit costs about $100.

My employer is ponying up about $10K per year to cover this $100.

I can pay that $100, and my employer could provide a catastrophic policy to me for less than $1000 a year.Thank Ted Kennedy for all this.. He was instrumental in the 70's for introducing HMO's and PPO's so you only had to spend $5.00 for a visit, and its morphed into the current crap we have today...

In the early 70's that was about the only type of insurance there was. There wasn't any dental or vision, those you just paid. Once insurance started jumping in the price skyrocketed..

There are a few Dr.'s that are going back to a "cash" only and are dropping their fees. This is what is needed for reform, and this would curb the over utilization of the ER by ignorant morons that think its a free clinic........... We need to go back to "catastrophic" type insurance and just pay the other out of pocket. People go to the Dr. WAY to often than is good for them... IMHO..

[taft2012]

Thank Ted Kennedy for all this.. He was instrumental in the 70's for introducing HMO's and PPO's so you only had to spend $5.00 for a visit, and its morphed into the current crap we have today...

In the early 70's that was about the only type of insurance there was. There wasn't any dental or vision, those you just paid. Once insurance started jumping in the price skyrocketed..

There are a few Dr.'s that are going back to a "cash" only and are dropping their fees. This is what is needed for reform, and this would curb the over utilization of the ER by ignorant morons that think its a free clinic........... We need to go back to "catastrophic type insurance and jsut pay the other out of pocket. People go to the Dr. WAY to often than is good for them... IMHO..

Of course this is all by design. They've successfully created the perception in the public's mind that it's someone else's responsibility to pay for one's health care. There's no undoing this.

[tailfins]

Of course this is all by design. They've successfully created the perception in the public's mind that it's someone else's responsibility to pay for one's health care. There's no undoing this.

The pain threshold hasn't been reached yet. This can indeed be undone. Obama now owns the healthcare system politically. Any problems can now be hung around his neck. Obama may have done free market supporters a favor. Had Obamacare been overturned by the Supreme Court, any problems would have been blamed on the "unregulated system". Perhaps John Roberts knew what he was doing.

[tailfins]

I have been trying to find the unsubsidized price of a "Platinum" family plan in California. It's like trying to find a closely guarded secret.

[aboutime]

And the Gov. of California wonders why people are LEAVING the state in such an exodus. His tax base can't support anything????

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/kn060713dAPR20130606024535.jpg

[Noir]

You guys pay HOW MUCH?

Like my national insurance, to cover all medical and dental costs is £42 ($65) per month, and that's only if i'm working, and earning more than about $1000 per month.

[Noir]

I'm 42 and have been paying $800/month before ObamaCare. Of course that is including my wife and children.

Is this typical? Like really?!

[fj1200]

You guys pay HOW MUCH?

ALL of it unlike...

[Thunderknuckles]

Is this typical? Like really?!
It all depends on the company you work for. My current employer is rather small so they don't get an enormous group discount like when I was working for a large bank where I think I was paying about $200/month to cover my family. Some really good companies will cover the entire expense.
But yeah, $800/month sucks pretty bad.

[red states rule]

You guys pay HOW MUCH?

Like my national insurance, to cover all medical and dental costs is £42 ($65) per month, and that's only if i'm working, and earning more than about $1000 per month.

Is this the same British healthcare system where do to overcrowding women give birth in the hallways and elevators? Where bed sheets are not washed daily but simply turned over on the second day? Or patients are "put to sleep" to save money? Or hospital staff steped over a man in a hallway who died waiting for treatment?

If so Noir it would seem you are getting what you are paying for

and lives are being lost for the sake of the bottom line

We are well aware on how well other governemnt run healthcare systems are doing and that is why many in US do not want Obamacare

[Noir]

Is this the same British healthcare system where do to overcrowding women give birth in the hallways and elevators? Where bed sheets are not washed daily but simply turned over on the second day? Or patients are "put to sleep" to save money? Or hospital staff steped over a man in a hallway who died waiting for treatment?

If so Noir it would seem you are getting what you are paying for

and lives are being lost for the sake of the bottom line

We are well aware on how well other governemnt run healthcare systems are doing and that is why many in US do not want Obamacare

I'm sure there are plenty of horror stories, i'll go by what i know, personally i've only ever had good experiences, especially recently, as my girlfriend is under the care of a field-leading neurologist.

But even putting that aside, just for curiosity i went onto a private insurance company here to get a quote. The *most expensive* policy, that would cover me for unlimited out-patient and in-patient costs is...£48 per month, about $75.

[red states rule]

I'm sure there are plenty of horror stories, i'll go by what i know, personally i've only ever had good experiences, especially recently, as my girlfriend is under the care of a field-leading neurologist.

But even putting that aside, just for curiosity i went onto a private insurance company here to get a quote. The *most expensive* policy, that would cover me for unlimited out-patient and in-patient costs is...£48 per month, about $75.

You and your girl are young and thus a low risk

I hope you do not see first hand what is going on in Britian's hospitals. I read where a WWII vet was denied the meds he needed to save the sight in one eye. Of course he would get treatement if he lost the sight in BOTH eyes

That is the result of government run healthcare. Like America, Britian is broke and is getting desperate for cash.

Again you get what you pay for Noir. Also do not forget, many patients are killed out of "mercy" and to save money

Remember Sarah Palin's death panel statement?

[jimnyc]

You guys pay HOW MUCH?

Like my national insurance, to cover all medical and dental costs is £42 ($65) per month, and that's only if i'm working, and earning more than about $1000 per month.

I'm glad it's affordable for you... But keep in mind, most medical care is still expensive there, just as it is here. I doubt doctors and others in the profession are going to work for free, or for such low fees. While your costs are much lower per month - SOMEONE is still ponying up, somewhere, for the rest of the costs.

Here, the fees are much higher for monthly healthcare, but there are FAR less people paying for "me".

[red states rule]

I'm glad it's affordable for you... But keep in mind, most medical care is still expensive there, just as it is here. I doubt doctors and others in the profession are going to work for free, or for such low fees. While your costs are much lower per month - SOMEONE is still ponying up, somewhere, for the rest of the costs.

Here, the fees are much higher for monthly healthcare, but there are FAR less people paying for "me".

Just as here in the US, Great Britian is learning socialism is great until you run out of other people's money to spend

[Noir]

You and your girl are young and thus a low risk


Lol low risk? 'My girl' has chronic asthma, Functional and dissociative neurological disorder (causing constant Vertigo, dizziness, motion sickness and blackouts)
Myalgic Encephalopathy (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome), and Dysthymia (Chronic depression) coupled with Anxiety disorder.
Not to mention a weakened immune system caused by a severe infection several years ago.

So tell, what do you reckon her fees would be in the states? Lol.

[jimnyc]

Lol low risk? 'My girl' has chronic asthma, Functional and dissociative neurological disorder (causing constant Vertigo, dizziness, motion sickness and blackouts)
Myalgic Encephalopathy (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome), and Dysthymia (Chronic depression) coupled with Anxiety disorder.
Not to mention a weakened immune system caused by a sever infection several years ago.

So tell, what do you reckon her fees would be in the states? Lol.

Obama and his cronies would setup the death panel and let her expire. :coffee:

[Noir]

Obama and his cronies would setup the death panel and let her expire. :coffee:

Just like they have here in Britain? =P

[red states rule]

Lol low risk? 'My girl' has chronic asthma, Functional and dissociative neurological disorder (causing constant Vertigo, dizziness, motion sickness and blackouts)
Myalgic Encephalopathy (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome), and Dysthymia (Chronic depression) coupled with Anxiety disorder.
Not to mention a weakened immune system caused by a sever infection several years ago.

So tell, what do you reckon her fees would be in the states? Lol.

As Jim correctly pointed out - other people are paying the bills

Wait until those people are broke and YOU and your GF have to pay for own medical care

Like the fools who voted for Obama, you will also suffer from sticker shock

[jimnyc]

Just like they have here in Britain? =P

They would prefer you die there too? That's because you don't pay enough, they save money if you croak!

[Noir]

As Jim correctly pointed out - other people are paying the bills

Wait until those people are broke and YOU and your GF have to pay for own medical care

Like the fools who voted for Obama, you will also suffer from sticker shock

This still doesn't address the point that (as per the OP) the most basic care a 25 year old non-smoking male can get is around $180 per month. When here i am as a 23 year old nom-smoking male, and the most expensive totally comprehensive cover will cost about $75 per month...someones getting screwed.

[Noir]

They would prefer you die there too? That's because you don't pay enough, they save money if you croak!

Yep, According to RSR, anything more than a sniffle and you're off to the executioners dock ^,^

[red states rule]

This still doesn't address the point that (as per the OP) the most basic care a 25 year old non-smoking male can get is around $180 per month. When here i am as a 23 year old nom-smoking male, and the most expensive totally comprehensive cover will cost about $75 per month...someones getting screwed.

NOir, it is very simple. Someone else is paying for your coverage. The Brists have a government run helathcare system and the broke Brit taxpayters are paying the bill

That is why your rates are so low. Enjoy the ride because it will end sooner or later

That is why the care is so bad in your country

[red states rule]

Yep, According to RSR, anything more than a sniffle and you're off to the executioners dock ^,^

Why such a uncaring attitude about people being killed? Try reading your own newspapers Noir and perhaps you woiuld not so damn uninformed on what is going on in your own country

[fj1200]

This still doesn't address the point that (as per the OP) the most basic care a 25 year old non-smoking male can get is around $180 per month. When here i am as a 23 year old nom-smoking male, and the most expensive totally comprehensive cover will cost about $75 per month...someones getting screwed.


Lol low risk?

Yes, the young are "low risk." The issues your girl faces are the reasons to buy insurance. Nevertheless, you are correct that someone is getting screwed and it's likely both of us. US rates are high because of mandates on insurance companies and especially the recent requirement that the difference in rates among the young and old are mandated to be 3x when the actuarial difference would be higher; I don't recall the exact but maybe 5x? which means that the young will pay more than they should. Also, does your cost include the HC taxes that are paid? I'm not that familiar with your scheme over there (must have misplaced my "leftie" handbook of convenient excuses to why Socialism is bad) but I don't think you're accounting for all that is paid by you and others.

[Noir]

NOir, it is very simple. Someone else is paying for your coverage. The Brists have a government run helathcare system and the broke Brit taxpayters are paying the bill

That is why your rates are so low. Enjoy the ride because it will end sooner or later

That is why the care is so bad in your country

To take out a private insurance plan, with a private company. With their own private hospitals and private staff, at their highest rate, would cost me $75 per month. If i was in the sates, as stated in the OP, i'd be starting at $180 per month.

[Noir]

Also, does your cost include the HC taxes that are paid? I'

What are HC taxes?

[red states rule]

To take out a private insurance plan, with a private company. With their own private hospitals and private staff, at their highest rate, would cost me $75 per month. If i was in the sates, as stated in the OP, i'd be starting at $180 per month.

and that expalines the crappy care, and why people are being killed - you get what you pay for

So enjoy your government run healthcare system Noir. Unil you become to big an expense for the collective

[Noir]

and that expalines the crappy care, and why people are being killed - you get what you pay for

So enjoy your government run healthcare system Noir. Unil you become to big an expense for the collective

I am taking about private healthcare insurance. Nothing to do government run NHS. Thats PRIVATE...should i say it again? Private.

The most basic healthcare as stated in the OP is over twice the cost of the most expensive private option here.

Unless you're under the impression that 'more expensive = better'. Inwhich case i guess if i buy a pepsi that costs $1, and yours costs $3, yours tastes better, right?

[red states rule]

I am taking about private healthcare insurance. Nothing to do government run NHS. Thats PRIVATE...should i say it again? Private.

The most basic healthcare as stated in the OP is over twice the cost of the most expensive private option here.

Unless you're under the impression that 'more expensive = better'. Inwhich case i guess if i buy a pepsi that costs $1, and yours costs $3, yours tastes better, right?

I do believe rates are capped and regulated by the government

However, enjoy your low rates. Others are paying for them - some more then others





A leading medical journal in Great Britain revealed the gruesome practice of starving and withdrawing fluid from sickly babies as well as terminally-ill adults.
The Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html?ito=feeds-newsxml) reported:

Sick children are being discharged from NHS hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial ‘death pathways’.

Until now, end of life regime the Liverpool Care Pathway was thought to have involved only elderly and terminally-ill adults.

But the Mail can reveal the practice of withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as severely disabled newborn babies.
One doctor has admitted starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone.

Writing in a leading medical journal, the physician revealed the process can take an average of ten days during which a baby becomes ‘smaller and shrunken’.

The LCP – on which 130,000 elderly and terminally-ill adult patients die each year – is now the subject of an independent inquiry ordered by ministers.
The use of end of life care methods on disabled newborn babies was revealed in the doctors’ bible, the British Medical Journal.

Earlier this month, an un-named doctor wrote of the agony of watching the protracted deaths of babies. The doctor described one case of a baby born with ‘a lengthy list of unexpected congenital anomalies’, whose parents agreed to put it on the pathway.

The doctor wrote: ‘They wish for their child to die quickly once the feeding and fluids are stopped. They wish for pneumonia. They wish for no suffering. They wish for no visible changes to their precious baby.

‘Their wishes, however, are not consistent with my experience. Survival is often much longer than most physicians think; reflecting on my previous patients, the median time from withdrawal of hydration to death was ten days.

‘Parents and care teams are unprepared for the sometimes severe changes that they will witness in the child’s physical appearance as severe dehydration ensues.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/baby-death-panels-new-study-reveals-gruesome-practice-of-starving-sickly-babies-in-british-health-system/

[Noir]

I do believe rates are capped and regulated by the government

However, enjoy your low rates. Others are paying for them - some more then others



Well you believe wrong, as a private organisation it sets its own rates, and relays only on policy holders for revenue. I don't understand why a similar service in America would cost so much more.

[fj1200]

What are HC taxes?

Health Care although payroll taxes for HC might have been more accurate.

[red states rule]

Well you believe wrong, as a private organisation it sets its own rates, and relays only on policy holders for revenue. I don't understand why a similar service in America would cost so much more.

As far as the cost what part of government run healthcare do you not get? That is why treatment is denied and babies are being killed

Once agin Sarah Palin was correct when it comes to death panels

As I said you get what you pay for




The insurance part isn’t too difficult to understand. People living in Britain can obtain private insurance, and about 10 percent of them do. About one-third of people with private insurance purchase it with their own money, while the rest receive it as a benefit of employment. Many of the big multinationals provide such insurance, either to all their employees or to senior executives. It’s considered a plum perk for everyone, and most expats coming to work in the UK consider it an essential benefit.
Private insurance covers care provided outside the tax-funded NHS system. Sometimes, people use it to obtain items that the NHS has chosen not to cover, like medications or devices with low cost-effectiveness ratios (as I described in my previous blog on NICE (http://community.the-hospitalist.org/2011/12/20/saying-no-while-being-nice/)). But that’s unusual. Far more commonly, the insurance is used to purchase services that are freely available in the NHS, such as subspecialty consultation and elective surgery.

The delivery side is more interesting – and fraught – than the insurance side. Private insurance generally doesn’t cover primary care; most patients seem relatively satisfied with their publicly funded general practitioners (whom I described here (http://community.the-hospitalist.org/2011/11/26/%E2%80%9Ci%E2%80%99m-the-main-breadwinner%E2%80%9D-the-british-primary-care-system-and-its-lessons-for-america/)) and most GPs make enough money that they don’t seek more work. The action in the private world stems from occasionally poor access to specialty care in the NHS, both because of limited numbers of specialists and gatekeeping by GPs. The result of these limitations is the famously long NHS queues – in the 1970s and 80s, patients often had to wait up to a year for an elective hip replacement. While the queues improved after a Blair-era initiative (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1543098/Blair-promises-an-end-to-hospital-waiting-lists.html) to enforce a maximum wait between GP visit to surgery of 18 weeks (and despite the Brits’ amazing equanimity in the face of “queuing up” (http://www.weeklygripe.co.uk/a95.asp)), many patients still have to wait longer than they’d like in the NHS. Such patients find the private sector’s shorter waits attractive.

There are few purely “private doctors” in Britain – most private care is delivered by moonlighting NHS physician-specialists. Since inking the national consultant’s contract (http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/document.rm?id=6365) in 2003, the NHS’s 30,000 specialists have had no cap on the amount of money they can earn from private practice, as long as they clock 40 hours a week for the Health Service (about one-fourth of which can be administrative and CME activities). As you might imagine, a system in which the same doctors work (for a relatively low and fixed salary) in NHS hospitals and (for fee-for-service, at lucrative rates) in private practices can generate some interesting, amusing, and, at times, ethically dicey situations (http://www.bma.org.uk/images/ppcfaqs_tcm41-183488.pdf).


http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2012/01/16/the-awkward-world-of-private-insurance-in-the-uk/

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/81_13308620130612043738.jpg