T minus 7 days before the devastation of Obamacare!!

...and facts are facts even when they contradict the far left narrative...

 

"I have an honest question here.

Can anyone tell me how much their insurance will go up or down or will it remain the same?

Mine will go up.

Read more: http://www.partisanlines.com/thread...ation-of-obamacare.50553/page-2#ixzz2g7jlsHKI"

Mine goes up slightly most years but not much. It shocks me to read what some pay. I pay about $240 per month for a family of four, and that includes full medical, dental and eye. My employer pays the majority of our costs.

 

The New York Times Tries -- And Fails -- To Protect Obamacare From Health Insurance 'Rate Shock'
Avik Roy Contributor
Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, and quadruple for men.
HHS releases a trickle of data and a load of spin
Earlier this month, I and two colleagues from the Manhattan Institute—Yevgeniy Feyman and Paul Howard—published an interactive map that detailed Obamacare’s impact on individually-purchased health insurance premiums in 13 states plus D.C. As the accompanying article described, Obamacare increased premiums in those states by an average of 24 percent.
But those states were largely blue states that had set up their own, state-based insurance exchanges. The big data dump that we’ve been waiting for, since then, is from the majority of states that didn’t set up their own state-based exchange. That data is the responsibility of the Obama administration, namely HHS. Finally, with less than a week to go before the exchanges are supposed to go on-line, HHS has released a slim, 15-page report and a press release that summarize some of the premium data.
“Premiums nationwide will also be around 16 percent lower than originally expected,” HHS cheerfully announces in its press release. But that’s a ruse. HHS compared what the Congressional Budget Office projected rates might look like—in 2016—to its own findings. Neither of those numbers tells you the stat that really matters: how much rates will go up next year, under Obamacare, relative to this year, prior to the law taking effect.
Former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin agrees. “There are literally no comparisons to current rates. That is, HHS has chosen to dodge the question of whose rates are going up, and how much. Instead they try to distract with a comparison to a hypothetical number that has nothing to do with the actual experience of real people.”
Comparing pre-Obamacare and post-Obamacare premiums
The HHS report doesn’t provide enough details about Obamacare’s premiums for us to incorporate the data into our interactive map. Our map compares the five cheapest plans available on the market today to the five cheapest plans available on Obamacare’s exchanges. The HHS report offers only the cheapest bronze, silver and gold plans, and the second-cheapest silver plan.
We look at rates for 27, 40, and 64 year olds; and rates for men and women. (Under Obamacare, rates for men and women are the same, which has the net effect of disproportionately increasing rates for men, who generally paid less under the old system.) The HHS report offers rates for 27-year-olds; and rates for the average-aged exchange participant, a figure that varies by state, but seems to generally land in the mid-thirties.
So, we conducted two comparisons between pre-ACA data and post-ACA data, as reported by HHS. The first comparison is between the cheapest plan available to 27-year-olds pre- and post-Obamacare. The second is between the cheapeast plan available to the average exchange participant, and to the typical 40-year-old pre-Obamacare. We would have liked to have compared rates for older individuals, but HHS didn’t report that data.


27-year-olds will face rate increases as high as 279 percent
As you can see from the map above, many 27-year-olds will face steep increases in the underlying cost of individually-purchased insurance under Obamacare. For the states where we have data—the 36 reported by HHS, plus nine others that we had compiled for our map that HHS didn’t report—rates will go up for men by an average of 97 percent; for women, 55 percent. (In the few cases where HHS reported on states that our map includes, we went with HHS’ numbers.)
Worst off was Nebraska, where the difference between the cheapest plan under the old system and under Obamacare was 279 percent for men, and 227 percent for women: more than triple the old rate. Faring best was Colorado, where rates will decline for both 27-year-old men and women by 36 percent. The only other state to see a rate decline in this analysis was New Hampshire: 8 percent for both men and women.
(Still missing are data from Hawaii, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, and Nevada. The data from New York and New Jersey should be taken with a grain of salt, as their individual insurance markets are not like those of other states.)


40-year-olds will face rate increases as high as 305 percent
40-year-olds, surprisingly, will face a similar picture. The cheapest exchange plan for the average enrollee, compared to what a 40-year-old would pay today, will cost an average of 99 percent more for men, and 62 percent for women.
For this cohort, men fared worst in North Carolina, with rate increases of 305 percent. Women got hammered in Nebraska, where rates will increase by a national high of 237 percent. Again, Colorado and New Hampshire fared best, with 17 percent and 5-8 percent declines, respectively.
Remember that here, we aren’t conducting an exact comparison. Instead we’re comparing the lowest-cost bronze plan offered to the average participant in the exchanges, to the cheapest plan offered to 40-year-olds today. This approach artificially flatters Obamacare, because the median age of an exchange participant is, in most states, below the age of 40.
In both the 27-year-old and 40-year-old comparisons, we adjusted the pre-ACA rates to take into account people who would be charged more for insurance, or denied coverage altogether, due to a pre-existing condition, using the same methodology we’ve used in the past.
For most people, subsidies won’t counteract rate shock
All of the analyses I’ve discussed thus far involve changes in the underlying cost of health insurance for people who buy it for themselves. Many progressives object to this comparison, because it doesn’t take into account the impact of Obamacare’s subsidies on the net cost of insurance for low-income Americans.
I’ve long argued that it’s irresponsible to ignore the change in underlying premiums, because subsidies only protect some people. Middle-class Americans face the double-whammy of higher insurance premiums, and higher taxes to pay for other people’s subsidies. However, it is important to understand how subsidies will impact the decisions by Americans as to whether or not to participate in the exchanges.
If you click on the “Your Decision” tab on our interactive map, you will now find the results, as assembled by Yevgeniy, for the 13 states plus D.C. in our original database. Here’s the bottom line: most people with average incomes will pay more under Obamacare for individually-purchased insurance than they did before.

 

In the 13 states plus D.C. (which I will abbreviate as 13+DC), a 27-year-old would have to make 59 percent of the median income of his peers, or less, to come out ahead with regard to Obamacare’s subsidies. A 40-year-old would have to make less than 57 percent of the median income for his peers. On the other hand, older people fare better; the average 64-year-old who makes less than 111 percent of the median income for 64-year-olds will spend less on premiums than he did before.
However, the overall results make clear that most people will not receive enough in subsidies to counteract the degree to which Obamacare drives premiums upward. Remember that nearly two-thirds of the uninsured are under the age of 40. And that young and healthy people are essential to Obamacare; unless these individuals are willing to pay more for health insurance to subsidize everyone else, the exchanges will not serve the goal of providing coverage to the uninsured.
The bottom line: Obamacare makes insurance less affordable
For months, we’ve heard about how Obamacare’s trillions in health care subsidies were going to save America from rate shock. It’s not true. If you shop for coverage on your own, you’re likely to see your rates go up, even after accounting for the impact of pre-existing conditions, even after accounting for the impact of subsidies.
The Obama administration knows this, which is why its 15-page report makes no mention of premiums for insurance available on today’s market. Silence, they say, speaks louder than words. HHS’ silence on the difference between Obamacare’s insurance premiums and those available today tell you everything you need to know. Rates are going higher. And if you’re healthy, or you’re young, the Obama administration expects you to do your duty and pay up.
* * *
Follow @Avik on Twitter, Google+, and YouTube, and The Apothecary on Facebook.
Or, sign up to receive a weekly e-mail digest of articles from The Apothecary.
* * *
UPDATE: Brett Norman and Jason Millman of Politico lacerated the administration for the fact that “the report doesn’t actually reveal very much about what most people will pay.”

It was a far cry from full disclosure. Want to know what you might pay for health coverage in an exchange next year? Too bad. The report gives lots of examples of the kinds of people who will get good prices — but everyone else will remain in the dark until at least next Tuesday, when Obamacare is supposed to open its doors.​

The paper also noted that HHS carefully embargoed the release so as to try to prevent it from getting into the wrong hands; i.e., the hands of “outside health insurance experts.”

The report was issued to news organizations on Tuesday under a strict embargo, with specific instructions not to share the information with anyone else, like outside health insurance experts who might be able to provide more analysis of the numbers. Apparently, though, the word still leaked out.​

Peter Suderman wonders why HHS thinks the “outside health insurance experts” are so scary:

The embargo guidelines suggest that HHS was wary of early scrutiny of the numbers. And along with the selective reporting, it does make one wonder whether HHS is anxious about premium levels when enrollment begins next week. If a comprehensive report on premiums could stand up to outside scrutiny, wouldn’t HHS be putting out a fuller picture, and courting outside analysis?​

Andrew Sullivan thinks the White House needs “much better messaging.” Kathy Kristof of CBS MoneyWatch relates her own experience of seeing a 67 percent spike in her premiums, for a worse policy than she had before:

The promise that you could keep your old policy, if you liked it, has proved illusory. My insurer, Kaiser Permanente, informed me in a glossy booklet that “At midnight on December 31, we will discontinue your current plan because it will not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.” My premium, the letter added, would go from $209 a month to $348, a 66.5 percent increase that will cost $1,668 annually.
What made my plan too substandard to survive under Obamacare? It did not provide maternity benefits. I’m 53 years old. I figure pregnancy would require an act of God. (Incidentally, maternity benefits will be covered on men’s policies too. Let’s hope medical science comes a long way so you guys can use those benefits.) My policy also did not cover substance abuse treatments or psychiatric care…
Meanwhile, the things that mattered to me — that I would be able to limit my out-of-pocket costs if I had a catastrophic ailment — got worse under my new Obamacare policy. My policy, which has always paid 100 percent of the cost of annual check-ups, had a $5,000 annual deductible for sick visits and hospital stays. Once I paid that $5,000, the plan would pay 100 percent of any additional cost. That protected me from economic devastation in the event of a catastrophic illness, such as cancer.
Kaiser’s Obamacare policy has a $4,500 deductible, but then covers only 40 percent of medical costs for office visits, hospital stays and drugs. Out-of-pocket expenses aren’t capped until the policyholder pays $6,350 annually.
Sure, that’s only another $1,350. But it adds to the additional $1,663 that I’m paying in premiums, making my personal cost for Obama care add to $3,018 annually. This, by the way, is the bare-bones policy under Obamacare — the Bronze plan. Premiums for plans that offer lower deductibles and premiums would cost almost twice as much, according to the Kaiser booklet.​

 

INVESTORS’ NOTE: Aetna (NYSE:AET), UnitedHealth (NYSE:UNH), WellPoint (NYSE:WLP), Molina (NYSE:MOH), and Cigna (NYSE:CI) are leading players in the exchange market nationwide.
Highly suggest reading the articles linked below!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Apothecary, With Avik Roy’s Popular Posts
Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146%
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/
Obama To Labor Unions With Multi-Employer Health Plans: Drop Dead
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/14/obama-to-labor-unions-multi-employer-health-plans-drop-dead/
Yet Another White House Obamacare Delay: Out-Of-Pocket Caps Waived Until 2015
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/25/double-down-obamacare-will-increase-avg-individual-market-insurance-premiums-by-99-for-men-62-for-women/?partner=yahootix
Obamacare Will Increase Health Spending By $7,450 For A Typical Family of Four [Updated]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/23/its-official-obamacare-will-increase-health-spending-by-7450-for-a-typical-family-of-four/
Labor Unions: Obamacare Will 'Shatter' Our Health Benefits, Cause 'Nightmare Scenarios'
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/07/15/labor-leaders-obamacare-will-shatter-their-health-benefits-cause-nightmare-scenarios/

2013 Forbes.com LLC™ All Rights Reserved

 

Great info...trying to absorb it all. Can I assume that Colorado is a good state to weather the affects of ObamaCare?

 

I would be guessing that it means Colorado was a bad place to buy medical insurance to begin with.

 

Forbes took another ethical vacation. Here is why:

Debunking the Propaganda Campaign to Kill Obamacare
Opponents will not get the last word. Real people will.

September 27, 2013 |




Forget the sexist Koch brothers-funded ad of a creepy-looking Uncle Sam about to conduct a pelvic exam as a way to convince college students not to sign up for Obamacare. A recent article in Forbes trumpeting a study by the right-wing Manhattan Institute claiming that Obamacare will be more costly than current health insurance plans is a more intentionally misleading attack on Obamacare.

The article’s big lie is a sin of intentional journalistic omission. Obamacare hopes to extend coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans. But more than 25 million people will not pay the full premium price. That’s because the government will pay insurance companies as much as two-thirds of the policy’s cost via federal subsidies. For 2014, $16 billion has been set aside for those discounts, to be doled out based on incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

In 2013, that includes individuals making $11,490 to $46,000, couples earning between $19,530 and $78,120, and families of four making $23,550 to $94,200.

How does Forbes handle omitting that not-so-minor detail? Its article states, “Subsidies only protect some people. Middle-class Americans face the double-whammy of higher insurance premiums, and higher taxes to pay for other people’s subsidies.”

The “some” in that sentence are 78 percent of Obamacare’s likely recipients, or 25.7 million people, a study by the advocacy group Families USA found.

This is how propaganda works. You don’t state all the facts. You select bits and build an argument. Forbes’ editors should know better—especially since the publication that bills itself as a capitalist’s tool is whacking a law with gigantic profits for its insurance industry friends.

On Thursday, Bloomberg.com reported that anti-Obamacare forces have so far outspent the pro-Obamacare side five-to-one, with its advertising approaching $500 million. But the tide may be turning in the Obamacare propaganda war. Bloomberg’s source, Kantar Media, which tracks ad buys and trends, said the pro-Obamacare side would spend $500 million as the law is rolled out this fall and next year. That’s part of the $3.7 billion given to states to create and promote their program. And that does not count free media coverage, such as the president’s recent healthcare speeches.

Until now, the national media has not reported on the subsidies. But that is also changing. Take this Washington Post report profiling “how eight lives would be affected by the health law.” Not everyone who wants Obamacare can get it, the Post’s first example revealed. That’s because the Supreme Court ruled states do not have to enroll people earning wages under the federal poverty level in state-run Medicaid programs. Republican-run Virginia is one of the states deciding not to help its poor people get health plans. Republican majorities in red states will prevent 8 million poor from getting help, the Post said, citing an Urban Institute study.

But other individuals profiled by the Post show how the subsidies work. A single musician making $25,000 a year looking at the cheapest plan, costing $136 a month, will get a $54 federal subsidy. That brings its cost to $82 a month. The man profiled has Crohns disease, a serious intestinal disability, and told the Post he would welcome coverage. A middle-aged single mother of three, who has a heart condition, could get a $350 monthly subsidy for a family plan based on a $30,000 income, the Post said. Obamacare offers four levels of coverage. The most barebones and cheapest plan would cost her nothing. A slightly better plan, lowering her deductible, would cost her $104 a month.

 

As usual that's a media matters cut and paste.

I offer this suggestion to the conservates here.....before you post anything derogatory or facts that go against the admim istration talking points run it thru media matters to see what Mr Nations opinion and reply will be.

 

RB, how interesting! Forbes presents 51 different states/dc in 4 different age groups backed up by referenced government data and you say it is a lie because it was supported by " the sexist Koch brothers". What being "sexist" has to due with Obamacare or the facts I have no idea even if it were supported and true. And then it claims "the national media has not reported on the subsidies". Funny, but half that report is about subsidies. Oh, and your report has zero references.

 

OK, we'll only listen to Forbes....

Proof That Obamacare 'Rate Shock' Is An Ugly Insurance Company Deception

Over the past few months, the nation’s largest health insurance companies have been hard at work selling a narrative claiming that the Affordable Care Act is about to result in dramatically larger premium costs for a significant number of Americans. Indeed, the warnings have become so worrisome that the massive increases they are predicting have taken on a frightening descriptor all its own—rate shock.

At the heart of the health insurers’ retelling of the Chicken Little story is a regulation promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services a few months back limiting what a health insurer can charge a 64 year old to three times what they charge a 21 year old. Currently, the average bump for older participants is typically five times that of the younger customers—although there are examples where the increase can reach ten times what is paid by the young immortals buying coverage.

Will The Middle Class Really Pay One Trillion In New Obamacare Taxes And, If True, What Would It Buy Them?

As a result of the lower premium prices that will be paid by older participant, the expectation—one created by the large insurance companies—is that the youngest participants will have to pay significantly more to make up the difference.

Now, The Urban Institute—an organization so clearly bi-partisan that even the most suspicious partisan would encounter extreme difficulty making a case for bias—is out with a study that states that the ‘rate shock’ argument is “unfounded”, particularly when applied to the millions of Americans in the individual market.

As noted in the report summary:

“Overall, we find that loosening the rate bands from 3:1
to 5:1 would have very little impact on out-of-pocket
rates paid by the youngest nongroup purchasers, once subsidies are taken into account. This is not only the case for all likely purchasers, but also for two populations of particular concern: the 10 million 21-27 year olds who are currently uninsured and the 3 million who currently have nongroup coverage.”

By suggesting that the insurance company claims are merely ‘unfounded’, The Urban Institute is being quite kind as I would suggest a far harsher explanation for their scare tactics.

What the insurance industry is not telling you—as revealed by The Urban Institute study—is that the overwhelming majority of young people who would be charged a higher premium to make up for the lower premiums to be paid by their elders will either be covered by the premium subsidies offered via the insurance exchanges or eligible for Medicaid under the expansion of the program extending health coverage to those earning 133 percent above the federal poverty line.

Therefore, as clearly stated by the report, the lowered premium costs to the oldest participants in an insurance plan “would have very little impact on out-of-pocket rates paid by the youngest nongroup purchasers.”

According to the study, here are the estimates:

92 percent of people ages 21 to 27 projected to buy an individual plan in an exchange in 2017 are expected to have incomes less than 300 percent of the poverty line, so they would be eligible either for Medicaid (if their state expands it) or for substantial subsidies to help pay premiums in the exchange.
Similarly, 88 percent of 18- to 20-year-olds projected to buy a plan in the exchange are expected to be eligible for premium subsidies or Medicaid.
In addition to the above statistics, The Urban Institute study highlights the fact that of the 961,000 young adults between the age of 21 and 27 who currently buy their own health insurance as an individual and make too much money to qualify for premium subsidies or Medicaid, a full two-thirds are 26 years old or younger and are in families receiving employer coverage. Accordingly, these kids can receive health insurance coverage under their parent’s employment policy as Obamacare requires that insurers allow parents to add their kids who are under 26 to their employment based health care plan.

While any new law as significant as the Affordable Care Act creates questions and concerns, the false campaign being waged by the health insurance companies is a prime example of an industry using fear as a tool to get the government to change a regulation that they don’t like.

There remain questions as to the impact the rate band limitations will have on businesses that provide health insurance to employees—particularly those with a younger employee base. However, the expectation is that—given the reality that businesses tend to have a ‘spread’ in the age of employees—things should average out. Under the current structure, businesses are paying less in premium contributions for younger employees but considerably more for older employees. Under Obamacare, the prices will rise at the younger end of the scale but decrease significantly for older workers.

For this reason, the primary concern has been focused on what the changes will mean for younger health insurance customers who purchase individual policies.

As The Urban institute study makes crystal clear, the ‘rate shock’ controversy has far more to do with insurance company lobbying efforts and far less to do with the reality of what health insurance will cost for millions of young Americans.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...shock-is-an-ugly-insurance-company-deception/

 

You guys both are focusing on rates when the real point is what to those rates buy you. Have you seen the total out of pocket costs for the cheap plans?

 

RB, so you are saying that every state is going to have the same costs and the same coverage? BTW, how many insurance companies are dropping out of Obamacare? And how many hospitals are doing the same?

 

My point exactly! BO & the left are holding these basic, cut-rate plans up as proof of Obamacare's affordability but conveniently omit the part that these exact same plans were used by the admin as examples of how insurance companies were exploiting
the uniformed public with high deductible and high co-pay plans.