Another study predicts increased rates

[Quantum Windbag]

I love irony.

Wisconsin's Department of Health Services wanted to get a better idea of how Obamacare would impact health care and insurance costs in the state they are responsible for, so they hired Jonathon Gruber. Gruber helped craft Romneycare and Obamacare, so he is actually something of an expert. He is also a supporter of both.

What he found is that Obamacare would increase premiums by 30% over what they would be without it. He also determined that 87% of the individual market enrollees would see an average premium increase of 41%.

There is some good news in there, about 59% of those in the individual market who see an increase in premiums will be eligible for government subsidies, which means other people get to pay for those increased premiums. Yay!

PDF

I must be crazy for thinking that Obamacare is going to increase costs. Every time I turn around someone else comes out with a study to prove me right.

 

[Listening]

Thank you for posting this.

I opened the report and found it was 56 pages.

And while I consider myself pretty good at comprehension, it became apparent that in order to really understand what is writte would require a great deal of background in this area.

There were several highlites from the report that caught my eye (and I only read through the key findings). Unfortunately, I can't bring them onto this page (or I should say I don't know how).

My intial take on things is that:

It appears that Wisc. has about 520,000 uninsured folks. Through this whole program that number will reduce to 180,000. If there was no program, it would only reduce to 460,000. This seems like a lot of work to insure this small a number of the population. While I want them to have access to insurance, I would like to know more about why they are not insured to begin with. If it is out and out to expensive, then it seems like the state could find an easier way to do this.

60% of some market (I am not sure what this means exactly)...maybe those who buy insurance themselves will be eligible for subsidies. So, in essence, premiums will go up for others (in the form of extra taxes needed to cover the subsidies.....unless Wisc is in the black, which I don't think is the case based on what Walker was claiming when he went after the unions).

Go to the top of page 5 and read the first paragraph....how are we supposed to understand this without any additional background ?

53% of the small employer group will experience a premium increase. Part of the reason is that insureres can no longer use health status (I assume that means no more premium cuts for taking care of yourself....at the same time, you don't get dinged for things you can't control).

In the end, I don't see the kinds of numbers I expected to see. This is talking about hundreds of thousands of members in a state where the population is in the millions.

If anyone can elaborate on this report in a meaningful way, I would be very interested to read what they have to say.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "It gonna cost more dan peoples can afford in dis economy...

Gallup: Uninsured Have Increased Under Obama and Since Obamacare Was Enacted
Tuesday, September 06, 2011 - The percentage of American adults who lack health insurance coverage has not only increased during the presidency of Barack Obama, but it has continued to increase since Obama signed his signature piece of legislation last year mandating that by 2014 every American carry health insurance, according to a Gallup survey released today.

In 2008, when George W. Bush was president, according to Gallup, 14.9 percent of adult residents of the United States lacked health insurance coverage. That increased to 16.2 percent in 2009, the year that Obama was inaugurated, and to 16.4 percent in 2010, the year that Obama signed his law requiring that all Americans have health insurance.

In the first half of this year, according to data released by Gallup today, the percentage of adults in the United States lacking health insurance ticked up to 16.8 percent. That conclusion is based on Gallup's interviews with 177,237 American adults from January through June of this year. The interviews were part of the ongoing Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index survey.

Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on March 23, 2010. It mandates that all Americans must purchase government-approved health insurance plans by 2014. Under the legislation, families earning less than 400 percent of the poverty level will receive a federal subsidy to buy insurance. The constitutionality of the mandate is being challenged in federal court by more than half of the states.

Gallup: Uninsured Have Increased Under Obama and Since Obamacare Was Enacted | CNSnews.com

 

[SFC Ollie]

Can we say "We told you so" yet?

 

[uscitizen]

Yeah but rates will not go up as much as they would have without Health Care Reform.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah but rates will not go up as much as they would have without Health Care Reform.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

The study, which is in favor of Obamacare, specifically refutes that point, saying that rates are going to be 30% higher with it than without it.

 

[healthmyths]

These numbers are so suspect!
Medicaid Undercount:
6.4 million (14 percent of the 45.7 million uninsured in 2007) were enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP, but did not report such coverage to the Census Bureau.

An additional 4.3 million (9.4 percent) were eligible for public programs like Medicaid and SCHIP but not enrolled in them.

Non-Citizens: This figure of 9.3 million (20.3 percent of the uninsured

An additional 5 million uninsured (10.9 percent of the total) are aged between 18 and 34;

Census Uninsured Data - GOP.gov

 

[waltky]

Obamacare at the top of the list for the Supreme Court to review...

Healthcare tops US Supreme Court docket
Mon, Oct 03, 2011 - Washington : Profanity on television, police use of GPS without a warrant, and the status of Jerusalem on passports are grist for the new US Supreme Court session opening today, but the main event will be US President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare reform.

The nine justices on the highest court in the land already have 50 cases on the table for the new session, which runs until the end of June next year. The court has dealt with up to 75 cases in past sessions, so the extra space could be interpreted as the court leaving extra room for the sweeping healthcare reform that Obama championed and signed into law in early last year. Ilya Shapiro, an expert on the court at the Cato Institute, in Washington, described healthcare as “the so-called elephant in the room,” overshadowing all other cases. “This is definitely the issue of this term,” said Michael Carvin, a leading constitutional lawyer for the Jones Day firm in the US capital and who has argued cases in the court. “It could be the term of the century or at least of the decade,” he said.

The healthcare legislation extended coverage to an extra 32 million people and fulfilled decades of Democratic dreams of social reform, but was fiercely contested by Republicans. The divisive policy has resurfaced as a key issue in the early stages of the campaign ahead of next year’s US presidential election. On Wednesday, the Obama administration asked the court to decide whether the law is constitutional, attacking an appeals court ruling in August that struck down a central provision that would require all Americans to have health insurance by 2014. The justices, confronted with contradictory lower court rulings, have received three other appeals, including one by a group of 28 US states seeking a complete overhaul of the law. In all likelihood, the justices will hand down a decision in June. “This will be decided before the election” in November next year, said Carvin, adding that it will inevitably become a campaign issue.

“Regardless what the decision is, it’s going to be one of the most dramatic decisions in the history of constitutional law, because the court will have to decide what the limits are on [the US] Congress’s power,” said Timothy Sandefur, a lawyer at the Pacific Legal Foundation. The Supreme Court could also take up other hot issues, such as gay marriage and state laws clamping down on immigration. They are politically very significant because they involve “the power of the states against the power of the national government,” said Elizabeth Papez, a constitutional law specialist.

The Supreme Court is also expected to weigh in on the definition of “indecency” on television in a case that concerns the appearance of bare bottoms in a TV series and the use of profane language on live shows. The court will also examine a request from the Obama administration to allow police to track suspects using GPS satellite technology without a judicial warrant. The judgment is seen as a key test of the US fourth amendment after a man sentenced for drug dealing on evidence obtained using GPS without a warrant was annulled after it was deemed to have violated his rights.

Healthcare tops US Supreme Court docket - Taipei Times

 

[midcan5]

Weird how the status quo, which is constant enormous cost increases is ok with the ideologues who puppet corporate talking points, but all other increases are bad because they don't fit the wingnut's ideological model. Prices go up, sometimes honestly, sometimes not, seems corporate ideologues like QW only like corporate increases.


Anthem Blue Cross Raises Premiums | Common Dreams

"Anthem Blue Cross customers got a shock this week when the health insurer informed thousands of individual policyholders that their premium rates will jump as much as 39 percent on March 1."

 

[California Girl]

Yeah but rates will not go up as much as they would have without Health Care Reform.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Oh dear. Seems you place party over reality. How embarrassing for you. Read the report - which was produced by a supporter of the Reform. Idiot.

 

[California Girl]

Weird how the status quo, which is constant enormous cost increases is ok with the ideologues who puppet corporate talking points, but all other increases are bad because they don't fit the wingnut's ideological model. Prices go up, sometimes honestly, sometimes not, seems corporate ideologues like QW only like corporate increases.


Anthem Blue Cross Raises Premiums | Common Dreams

"Anthem Blue Cross customers got a shock this week when the health insurer informed thousands of individual policyholders that their premium rates will jump as much as 39 percent on March 1."

Even more weird that you let the bullshit from Obama slide and immediately start bitching about the 'corporate ideologues'.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Hopefully the Court will strike down this entire load of BS and we can start over and this time keep the goal of lowering the costs in mind..........

 

[healthmyths]

YOU ARE RIGHT!!!

Consider this simple example.
Before Obamacare..
If you smoked, you were charged more then non-smokers because smokers have higher cancer rates thus higher claims thus more expenses for smokers.

After Obamacare
EVERYONE is assumed to be smokers (since there is no pre-existing conditions thanks to Obamacare...) so premiums are raised for everyone!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Weird how the status quo, which is constant enormous cost increases is ok with the ideologues who puppet corporate talking points, but all other increases are bad because they don't fit the wingnut's ideological model. Prices go up, sometimes honestly, sometimes not, seems corporate ideologues like QW only like corporate increases.


Anthem Blue Cross Raises Premiums | Common Dreams

"Anthem Blue Cross customers got a shock this week when the health insurer informed thousands of individual policyholders that their premium rates will jump as much as 39 percent on March 1."

Weird how the ideologues, which oppose constant enormous cost increases, are fine if the cost increases come about because of a law that is intended to decrease costs. Seems like ideologues midcan only oppose price increases if they are corporate increases.

"L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs" Saint Bernard of Clairvaux.

Almost perfect midcan post, except my quote actually supports my argument.

 

[Care4all]

YOU ARE RIGHT!!!

Consider this simple example.
Before Obamacare..
If you smoked, you were charged more then non-smokers because smokers have higher cancer rates thus higher claims thus more expenses for smokers.

After Obamacare
EVERYONE is assumed to be smokers (since there is no pre-existing conditions thanks to Obamacare...) so premiums are raised for everyone!

true, but it won't be that much since it would be a prorated expense among all insurance policy holders. the cigarette smoker is probably not at a higher risk of getting cancer than a woman who has breast cancer that runs in her family, or no more costly than a person that is obese and sickly, or more costly than a life long diabetic, or multiple sclerosis patient.... or a reckless drunk, or an alcoholic with deteriorating health...they all get to have their costs, prorated amongst all insurance policy holders, why not smokers as well?

 

[healthmyths]

And you are right!
Add up all those "pro-rated" "pre-existing conditions" unhealthy patients and the costs go up for EVERYONE that currently has insurance.. exactly what is happening!

Whatever effect that the naive Obamacare supporters thought "increasing the risk pool" would have on lowering insurance premium costs was negated by eliminating the "pre-existing conditions" and increasing the costs!

 

[old navy]

YOU ARE RIGHT!!!

Consider this simple example.
Before Obamacare..
If you smoked, you were charged more then non-smokers because smokers have higher cancer rates thus higher claims thus more expenses for smokers.

After Obamacare
EVERYONE is assumed to be smokers (since there is no pre-existing conditions thanks to Obamacare...) so premiums are raised for everyone!

true, but it won't be that much since it would be a prorated expense among all insurance policy holders. the cigarette smoker is probably not at a higher risk of getting cancer than a woman who has breast cancer that runs in her family, or no more costly than a person that is obese and sickly, or more costly than a life long diabetic, or multiple sclerosis patient.... or a reckless drunk, or an alcoholic with deteriorating health...they all get to have their costs, prorated amongst all insurance policy holders, why not smokers as well?

Smoking is a choice, not a disease or untimely demise from a drunk driver.

 

[Care4all]

YOU ARE RIGHT!!!

Consider this simple example.
Before Obamacare..
If you smoked, you were charged more then non-smokers because smokers have higher cancer rates thus higher claims thus more expenses for smokers.

After Obamacare
EVERYONE is assumed to be smokers (since there is no pre-existing conditions thanks to Obamacare...) so premiums are raised for everyone!

true, but it won't be that much since it would be a prorated expense among all insurance policy holders. the cigarette smoker is probably not at a higher risk of getting cancer than a woman who has breast cancer that runs in her family, or no more costly than a person that is obese and sickly, or more costly than a life long diabetic, or multiple sclerosis patient.... or a reckless drunk, or an alcoholic with deteriorating health...they all get to have their costs, prorated amongst all insurance policy holders, why not smokers as well?

Smoking is a choice, not a disease or untimely demise from a drunk driver.

smoking is a choice, so is being obese with heart disease, or being type 2 diabetic, or being an alcoholic or a drug addict....or risk taker or someone who works in a field that had asbetos....these other things are covered by insurance and the smoker does have to pay for their sicknesses when he purchases his insurance.

 

[SFC Ollie]

And it seems Mr Obama isn't happy with his Obama care making health insurance go up for most. He also has to make sure that the Military retiree pays more too. (Remember when we were promised free healthcare as part of our service contract?)

The same week TRICARE announced their new TRICARE Prime enroll*ment fees, the admin*is*tra*tion pro*posed a brand new $200 annual fee for TRICARE for Life (the Medicare sup*ple*ment for mil*i*tary retirees and their depen*dents who are older than 65). If adopted, this new enroll*ment fee would be charged begin*ning in 2013, and it would grad*u*ally increase. Accord*ing to the White House the pro*posal would save $6.7 bil*lion over 10 years.

The White House also pro*posed a new TRICARE pre*scrip*tion med*ica*tion co-pay struc*ture. Under the plan retirees would see co-pays rise based a per*cent*age for*mula tied to gov*ern*ment costs. Accord*ing to a report by Tom Philpott, generic drugs at retail would be set at 10 per*cent of the Defense Department’s cost for the med*i*cine and this would climb to 20 per*cent after 2013. Co-pays for brand names would start at 15 per*cent of cost and be raised to 30 per*cent over an as yet unspec*i*fied period.

Read more: http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2011/10/more-tricare-fee-increases-proposed/#ixzz1ZovtW6NI
MilitaryAdvantage.Military.com


Yes I'll be writing to my congressman and senators and the White House again...............

 

[Care4all]

And it seems Mr Obama isn't happy with his Obama care making health insurance go up for most. He also has to make sure that the Military retiree pays more too. (Remember when we were promised free healthcare as part of our service contract?)

The same week TRICARE announced their new TRICARE Prime enroll*ment fees, the admin*is*tra*tion pro*posed a brand new $200 annual fee for TRICARE for Life (the Medicare sup*ple*ment for mil*i*tary retirees and their depen*dents who are older than 65). If adopted, this new enroll*ment fee would be charged begin*ning in 2013, and it would grad*u*ally increase. Accord*ing to the White House the pro*posal would save $6.7 bil*lion over 10 years.

The White House also pro*posed a new TRICARE pre*scrip*tion med*ica*tion co-pay struc*ture. Under the plan retirees would see co-pays rise based a per*cent*age for*mula tied to gov*ern*ment costs. Accord*ing to a report by Tom Philpott, generic drugs at retail would be set at 10 per*cent of the Defense Department’s cost for the med*i*cine and this would climb to 20 per*cent after 2013. Co-pays for brand names would start at 15 per*cent of cost and be raised to 30 per*cent over an as yet unspec*i*fied period.

Read more: http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2011/10/more-tricare-fee-increases-proposed/#ixzz1ZovtW6NI
MilitaryAdvantage.Military.com


Yes I'll be writing to my congressman and senators and the White House again...............

everyone, retirees and the working Joe, in the private sector are faced with the same broken promises and rises in their health care costs...everyone has to give a little Ollie...

I hate it as much as you do, but i am not as certain as you are, that government and military employees should not be faced with what we all face in the real world of health care in the USA.

Be thankful that you still have Tricare to pay the 20% that Medicare does not pay....