Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Report: Premiums rising faster than eight years before Obamacare COMBINED

  1. #1

    Report: Premiums rising faster than eight years before Obamacare COMBINED


    Report: Premiums rising faster than eight years before Obamacare COMBINED

    2:28 PM 03/18/2014

    Health insurance premiums have risen more after Obamacare than the average premium increases over the eight years before it became law, according to the private health exchange eHealthInsurance.

    The individual market for health insurance has seen premiums rise by 39 percent since February 2013, eHealth reports. Without a subsidy, the average individual premium is now $274 a month. Families have been hit even harder with an average increase of 56 percent over the same period — average premiums are now $663 per family, over $426 last year.

    Between 2005 and 2013, average premiums for individual plans increased 37 percent and average family premiums were upped 31 percent. So they have risen faster under Obamacare than in the previous eight years.

    An important caveat is that eHealth’s prices don’t include subsidies, so the prices for anyone earning between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level will be lower. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has repeatedly claimed patients will pay as little as $18 per month, without noting the taxpayer cost.

    Premiums are being hiked across the board for several reasons, but the biggest contributor is the Obama administration’s highly touted “essential health benefits,” services that insurers on and off exchanges must provide.

    Some benefits, such as emergency and laboratory services, are uncontroversial. But others, like maternity, newborn and pediatric services, are causing headaches for huge swaths of the population that don’t need them. Anyone past childbearing age, single men, the infertile, even nuns — their premiums are rising as well, because their plans must, by law, provide more services.

    But premiums aren’t the only key to health care costs — deductibles and out-of-pocket costs like co-pays are also rising. When it comes to employer health plans alone, four out of five U.S. companies have increased deductibles or are considering doing so. (RELATED: 4 of 5 companies may hike deductibles due to Obamacare)

    Prices may [drive] people away from purchasing health insurance. The latest survey from consulting firm McKinsey found that half of those who haven’t purchased health insurance yet this year cited their inability to pay the premium.

    Follow Sarah on Twitter

    Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
    Last edited by ibleedgreen; 03-20-2014 at 07:55 PM.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by ibleedgreen View Post
    Premiums are being hiked across the board for several reasons, but the biggest contributor is the Obama administration’s highly touted “essential health benefits,” services that insurers on and off exchanges must provide.

    Some benefits, such as emergency and laboratory services, are uncontroversial. But others, like maternity, newborn and pediatric services, are causing headaches for huge swaths of the population that don’t need them. Anyone past childbearing age, single men, the infertile, even nuns — their premiums are rising as well, because their plans must, by law, provide more services.

    i have no children but I still pay for the school district via property tax. I already have a college degree but it doesn't stop the state from using some part of my tax to pay for the college system. That's how the system works we all pay for things we don't need but we do it for the greater good. Thats not communism by the way it's being part of a community.

    as for the prices being raised if you have a junk policy that covers nothing, it will be cheaper than a real policy that covers everything. Requiring policies to actually help people isn't such a crazy idea.

  3. #3
    Jets Moderator ret2ski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Palm Coast, Fl.
    Posts
    35,952
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    as for the prices being raised if you have a junk policy that covers nothing, it will be cheaper than a real policy that covers everything. Requiring policies to actually help people isn't such a crazy idea.
    But not what the liar in chief promised. He lied as he has on most things.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by ret2ski View Post
    But not what the liar in chief promised. He lied as he has on most things.
    but if he told the true no one would have ever voted for it, so he had to. you don't get it!

  5. #5
    Assistant Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Farmington Mn
    Posts
    5,618
    So a gay couple needs to get abortion coverage! No you get what you need and you pay for it!

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    i have no children but I still pay for the school district via property tax. I already have a college degree but it doesn't stop the state from using some part of my tax to pay for the college system. That's how the system works we all pay for things we don't need but we do it for the greater good. Thats not communism by the way it's being part of a community.

    as for the prices being raised if you have a junk policy that covers nothing, it will be cheaper than a real policy that covers everything. Requiring policies to actually help people isn't such a crazy idea.
    The Fed Government is anathema to true community. Centralized power is in competition with local communities and self reliance. Public education was and is a bad idea and public health care is even worse yet.

    I'm not a big Ayn Rand fan, but she was right about much evil being waged in the name of the "common good".

    The tribal notion of “the common good” has served as the moral justification of most social systems—and of all tyrannies—in history. The degree of a society’s enslavement or freedom corresponded to the degree to which that tribal slogan was invoked or ignored.

    “The common good” (or “the public interest”) is an undefined and undefinable concept: there is no such entity as “the tribe” or “the public”; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of individual men. Nothing can be good for the tribe as such; “good” and “value” pertain only to a living organism—to an individual living organism—not to a disembodied aggregate of relationships.

    “The common good” is a meaningless concept, unless taken literally, in which case its only possible meaning is: the sum of the good of all the individual men involved. But in that case, the concept is meaningless as a moral criterion: it leaves open the question of what is the good of individual men and how does one determine it?


    It is not, however, in its literal meaning that that concept is generally used. It is accepted precisely for its elastic, undefinable, mystical character which serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from morality. Since the good is not applicable to the disembodied, it becomes a moral blank check for those who attempt to embody it.

    When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that “the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against the minority or the individual. Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit: even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility of justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a pretense and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights means the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the power of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and proceeds to rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing the same means.

    If one begins by defining the good of individual men, one will accept as proper only a society in which that good is achieved and achievable. But if one begins by accepting “the common good” as an axiom and regarding individual good as its possible but not necessary consequence (not necessary in any particular case), one ends up with such a gruesome absurdity as Soviet Russia, a country professedly dedicated to “the common good,” where, with the exception of a minuscule clique of rulers, the entire population has existed in subhuman misery for over two generations
    .
    Last edited by ibleedgreen; 03-24-2014 at 10:15 AM.

  7. #7
    if people only paid for what we needed, what kind of country would that be?

    a place where a family of four pays five figures of property tax for schooling while a retired couple pays nothing?

    a place where old people pay everything they have for healthcare while a young healthy person pays nothing?

    a place where people in flood and fire prone areas pay for FEMA relief right after losing their home?

    The problem with Rand and the libertarian school of thought is the economics don't line up. Everyone needs to contribute so the weakest among us can afford to be a part of the community. Or simply survive.

    FDR listed 4 freedoms in his 1941 state of the union:

    Freedom of speech
    Freedom of worship
    Freedom from want
    Freedom from fear

    The bottom two don't happen unless everyone helps out. That's the world we live in and we aren't going back to the days before when people got put into debtors prison or whatever. Life was not better before the New Deal.
    Last edited by bitonti; 03-24-2014 at 02:04 PM.

  8. #8
    "Want" is something that never goes away for anyone, even the eastern mystics who think they are enlightened or the masterminds with their dreams of utopian society. And the left loves to use envy to their own benefit.

    What you don't "get" is that forced compassion and charity robs both parties of blessings. You confuse a faceless, inefficient Govt entity with real face-to-face community. Hypocrites like to pontificate like this and then say they pay their taxes so they are good. But what are they doing for their immediate neighbors and family members themselves? Where is the sacrifice and service? It becomes a transaction to ease guilt for most, so that they don't have to get their hands dirty.

    Govt has taken over so many areas in which we used to work with one another and rely on one another and know one another. We have become atomized and fragmented and it's not hard to see why, as Govt replaces God. Thus this foggy, phony (misguided) compassion designed to cover the underlying ambivalence and guilt as the Leviathan's insatiable appetite is fed.
    Last edited by ibleedgreen; 03-24-2014 at 02:50 PM.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by ibleedgreen View Post
    as Govt replaces God.
    now, as back in the days of the great depression, there's a huge amount of people who believe in a Christian God. That didn't stop the dust bowl and the bread lines. Private charity couldn't deal with the poor of an industrialized society in that time and it can't do it now. There needs to be a safety net and we learned the hard way, as a nation, what happens when there is no such net.
    Last edited by bitonti; 03-24-2014 at 06:26 PM.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    now, as back in the days of the great depression, there's a huge amount of people who believe in a Christian God. That didn't stop the dust bowl and the bread lines. Private charity couldn't deal with the poor of an industrialized society in that time and it can't do it now. There needs to be a safety net and we learned the hard way, as a nation, what happens when there is no such net.
    Sounds good in theory, but not when the Govt takes out the competition and gobbles it up and the "safety net" becomes a full-blown bureaucracy. And the same is happening to small businesses all over the country these days.

    Just look at Social Security. This was never designed to be the Ponzi scheme that it is today because most people DIED before eligibility. It was supposed to be a very modest amount for hard luck cases and those who could not pull their own weight. Now, it's viewed as part of retirement, even though the Govt lies and tells people their money is being invested and what not when it's already earmarked and spent.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO