DUH!!! You think????

[healthmyths]

"It is important to recognize some limitations[DUH you think???] in our modeling of prices.

In particular, given publicly available data we cannot incorporate the effects of the ban on pre-existing conditions exclusions.

This ban will cause a rise in premiums as insurers are forced to cover conditions that they had previously excluded.[DUH you think???]
In addition, there are new premium taxes on insurers that will raise premium rates…

Overall, we cannot predict the net impacts of these factors on premiums without more analysis."


Obamacare, the law’s architect, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, was all over the op-ed pages, talking about how the bill would reduce the cost of health insurance. “What we know for sure,” he told Ezra Klein, “is that [the bill] will lower the cost of buying non-group health insurance.”

DUH??? and this guy is an MIT economist AND he said he couldn't account for the ban on "pre-existing conditions"!!!

What the above says is due to Obamacare's ban on pre-existing conditions insurance premiums will rise! DUH you think??

I mean consider the simple smoker versus non-smoker!

For years EVERYONE even idiots on this board have been told "smoking causes cancer"!
So well insurance companies know that TOO!

BUT now without knowing if a insurance applicant smokes or doesn't smoke.. HOW will the insurance risk analyst calculate how much to charge for insurance?

JUST raise the premium to that which they would have charged "smokers"!
Thus everyone that doesn't smoke is NOW penalized by those that do smoke!
Those that smoke are rewarded for their bad behavior !

MAKES absolutely NO COMMON SENSE!!!

Yet Obamacare TOUTS that feature!


How Obamacare Dramatically Increases the Cost of Insurance for Young Workers - Forbes

 

[waltky]

Obama's own party havin' misgivings about Obamacare...

Democrats expressing buyers’ remorse on Obama's healthcare law
4/19/12 - An increasing number of Democrats are taking potshots at President Obama’s healthcare law ahead of a Supreme Court decision that could overturn it.

The public grievances have come from centrists and liberals and reflect rising anxiety ahead of November’s elections. “I think we would all have been better off — President Obama politically, Democrats in Congress politically, and the nation would have been better off — if we had dealt first with the financial system and the other related economic issues and then come back to healthcare,” said Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), who is retiring at the end of this Congress. Miller, who voted for the law, said the administration wasted time and political capital on healthcare reform, resulting in lingering economic problems that will continue to plague Obama’s reelection chances in 2012.

Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) also criticized his party’s handling of the issue, and said he repeatedly called on his leaders to figure out how they were going to pay for the bill, and then figure out what they could afford. Cardoza, who like Miller will retire at the end of the Congress, said he thought the bill should have been done “in digestible pieces that the American public could understand and that we could implement.” The most recent wave of misgivings from Democrats began with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who told New York magazine that Democrats “paid a terrible price for healthcare.” Frank said Obama had erred in pushing the legislation after GOP Sen. Scott Brown’s January 2010 victory in Massachusetts, which took away the Senate Democrats’ 60th vote.

Most of the second-guessing has come from retiring members such as Frank and Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who this week predicted the law will be Obama’s “biggest downside” heading into the November elections. Such members can afford to be more candid in speaking their minds without offending their leadership, but are also likely to reflect the feelings of other lawmakers in the House and Senate. To be sure, the comments from Frank and others have stirred up supporters of the law, who say the criticism is misinformed. Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.), for example, took issue with Webb’s suggestion that the president should have given Congress more direction on the issue. Webb said the way the law was passed “cost Obama a lot of credibility as a leader.” “Maybe if you weren’t on one of the committees you wouldn’t have known that, but the administration was super involved with it,” said Schwartz, who served on the Ways and Means Committee when the healthcare law was approved.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who helped write the law as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee in 2010, compared Frank’s comments to Democratic hand-wringing during the year-plus legislative debate. Democrats were divided over what Obama should tackle first, and the White House was repeatedly urged to abandon the effort. Waxman said Obama made the right decision and brushed off the latest round of second-guessing. “I don’t know that it makes a lot of difference one way or the other,” Waxman said. “People can say what they think. People were saying it at the time. People said publicly, and to the president personally — they called on him not to go forward with healthcare, even in the White House. And he, to his credit, stood as a stalwart supporter of getting that job done.” Frank, he added, eventually got the financial reform bill he wanted.

MORE

 

[Greenbeard]

Many of the people who go uninsured are young people. The young are just entering the work force, and therefore typically have below-average incomes. In addition, the young are healthy, and have much less use for expensive health insurance.

Obamacare forces insurers to charge their eldest beneficiaries no more than 3 times what they charge their youngest ones: a policy known as “community rating.” This, despite the fact that these older beneficiaries typically have six times the health expenditures that younger people face. The net effect of this “community rating” provision is the redistribution of insurance costs from the old to the young.

Misleading. The rating restrictions are "with respect to the particular plan or coverage," meaning that two people buying the same product can only see their premiums vary by at most a factor of three. That doesn't mean that the oldest person buying health insurance in an exchange never pays more than three times what the youngest person is paying, across all insurance offerings.

People under age 30 have additional options available to them: catastrophic plans not meeting the minimum 60 percent actuarial value requirements levied on most exchange-participating plans. Lower premiums, high deductibles.