Our companies are based in multiple states including California. The insurance plans are the same for people across the company in the U.S. This has nothing to do with states.
A baby is condemned to death by socialized medicine
- Thread starter Tom B
- Start date
Our companies are based in multiple states including California. The insurance plans are the same for people across the company in the U.S. This has nothing to do with states.
You have to be more specific about your insurance plans for me to understand why your rates are going up much faster than usual, could be ACA - could be something else.
There have been plenty of articles and published insurance plan information for you to figure this out with resources on the Internet if you desire to research it in detail.
When a large portion of America is being told by their employers that Obamacare is screwing them with rapidly escalating cost --- at some point it should be obvious that ACA is not sustainable. When insurance companies are dropping out in every state due to losses and soon some states will not have any insurers offering ACA plans -- it should be obvious that ACA is not sustainable.
If the citizens of our country deem that universal coverage is a desirable social benefit then we need to get to a single payer plan have a reasonable system. Other countries offer great examples to build a template from.
Single payer also eliminates another primary issue with Obamacare - it covers a small portion of the population for free while screwing everyone else. If we implement a universal health plan then it should cover everyone at all income levels --- in other words be universal -- not operate simply to transfer money from the middle/upper class to the poor.
I provided you the research from Kaiser, what you are describing doesn't match with what the statistics are showing - the escalation you keep talking about has actually slowed down when it comes to insurance costs, other things like deductibles have increased but that's another matter, insurance isn't socialized healthcare where all the costs get covered, it's only meant for serious expenses.
The current healthcare system is not sustainable, let's not pretend ACA is responsible for all of this mess. Look at your party, they can't even come up with anything that makes the situation better - just more tax cuts is their answer.
All the maps that came out each year showing the average increase in health insurance premiums on a state-by-state basis support example what I have been saying. Normally the increases ranged from 24% to 35% per state in the middle of the range - an extraordinary amount. You can look back in previous threads to find example of these health insurance premium increase maps. Let's look at the most recent year of 2017 - http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/01/Here-s-How-Much-Obamacare-Premiums-Are-Rising-All-50-States Arizona at 116%. North Carolina at 40%. And these merely are the ACA figures. The corporate plans generally rose higher than this.
Actually the portion of the Republican answer to do away with the transfer of wealth by paying premiums for only some people --- will immediately reduce insurance costs for the rest of us. These payments at inflated insurance company rates are one example of what is extraordinarily wrong with Obamacare from an economic perspective.
Is what the Republicans are proposing much better? No.
The bottom line is that either we need a single payer plan or free market with the elimination of all federal health insurance mandates (reverting to where things were at in 1980). ACA or any lightweight versions of it are not sustainable economically. Either the federal government needs to go all in or stay out.
But this is not extraordinary at all, pre-ACA the increases averaged 31% according to Kaiser, how is 24-35% extraordinary in that case?
Overwhelming Evidence That Obamacare Caused Premiums To Increase Substantially
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...miums-to-increase-substantially/#1eee05bb15be
As I stated earlier the average increase was 10% before Obamacare and over 20% after Obamacare.
Premiums grew average of 10% before Affordable Care Act
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...age-of-10-before-affordable-care-act/9960093/
Another op-ed from a far-right Heritage Foundation guy attempting to debunk an actual non-partisan think tank study. Why can't you just look at the data instead of reading up stuff to confirm your biases?
The article with links provides lots of data. Are you also attempting to claim the USA Today article is biased. Or are the Obamacare premium increase maps also biased.
I take it you don't like it when an author cites large number of sources or research. Obviously you don't go and read the citations. Let's just post some text from one of them for the Forbes article.
From University of Pennsylvania economists, Mark Pauly, Scott Harrington, and Adam Leive
"Sticker Shock" in Individual Insurance under Health Reform
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20223
This paper provides estimates of the changes in premiums, average or expected out of pocket payments, and the sum of premiums and out of pocket payments (total expected price) for a sample of consumers who bought individual insurance in 2010 to 2012, comparing total expected prices before the Affordable Care Act with estimates of total expected prices if they were to purchase silver or bronze coverage after reform, before the effects of any premium subsidies. We provide comparisons for purchasers of self only coverage in California and in 23 states with minimal prior state premium regulation before the ACA now using federally managed exchanges. Using data from the Current Population Survey, we find that the average prices increased by 14 to 28 percent, with similar changes in California and the federal exchange states; we attribute the increase primarily to higher premiums in exchanges associated with insurer expectations of a higher risk population being enrolled. The increase in total expected price is similar for age-gender population subgroups except for a larger than average increases for older women. A welfare calculation of the change in risk premium associated with moving from coverage that prevailed before reform to bronze or silver coverage finds small changes.
Last edited: