It isn't Free.....The Democrats Lied

It's not a more comprehensive plan for less than the current price of a less comprehensive plan, it's a more comprehensive plan for a lower cost than that same plan sells for today. This stems from a CBO analysis from last November of the Senate health care legislation that eventually became law. Their work suggested that an apples-to-apples comparison of similar plans (i.e. plans of similar actuarial value) in the non-group market before and after reform implementation would show those plans were cheaper after reform:

They elaborated further down:

They also identified increased competition in the health insurance exchanges and an influx of new, relatively healthy enrollees in the exchanges as further modest downward pressures on premiums in the non-group market post-reform.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The claim is that they would be 4-10% less than otherwise.

As premiums have been projected to rise as much as 30% in the five year span involved, the benefit would be seen in smaller increases, not decreases.

This miserable compromised legislation has far too little in cost control, and no serious restructuring or scrapping of the insurance system, so we can look forward to the same accelerating trend of cost increases we've been seeing for years - only now, blamed on Obama for some reason.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually I was just told by one guru that

And the other guru says

Why don't you two hash it out and come up with an answer you can agree with?

LOL

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You seem confused. Nothing here is contradictory. Non-group plans of a given actuarial value are projected to be cheaper after reform implementation. Average non-group premiums, however, will be higher than they are today because the actuarial value of the average plan will be considerably higher under reform than it is today--in attempting to stamp out underinsurance and medical bankruptcy, the ACA ensures that plans meet certain comprehensiveness requirements. That has a certain cost to it, though the rise in value of the plans is more than commensurate with that cost increase.

I do disagree with the poster above that there's no attempt at cost control in the ACA but the reality is that it's entirely correct to say that cost control in the long run (provided we don't simply indiscriminately cut benefits) involves stabilizing and reducing cost growth relative to GDP and personal income growth, not outright reducing costs.

 

I'm not confused, I was told two different things.

So now you are saying the non-group gets a slighty lower premium, mainly because of savings in Administration costs.

Everyone else pays more, but supposedly gets a little bit more coverage for their money.

That's your story and you are sticking with it?

Arthur

 

This seems to be a reoccuring theme with you Arthur. You are not confused, the rest of the world is confused, everyone else is telling you lies. As Startraveler says, there is nothing contradictory here.

 

Stay out of the conversation if you can't add anything but personal insults.

 

Just a statement of fact my friend. There is no contradiction.

 

Then you could have explained the apparent contradiction of the two claims I quoted, as Startraveler did, instead of just posting personal insults.

If you want to discuss issues with the grown-ups, then act like one.

Arthur

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2632211&postcount=184

 

that actualy pretty good I read an article on line somewhere that predicted in most states the the average health insurance premiums would be between 40% and 60% of the states median income by 2020.

 

I haven't read this thread yet, but I just found out my group rates are going up 40%.

Yeah, 40%.

When I asked the rep why he said three words: "health care reform".

 

Gouging.

 

How is it you have access to your group rep? How do you know he/she is being honest? These folks have a lot at stake with the heatlhcare reform act....like their jobs.

 

Yeah, but aren't you GLAD, because according to iceaura that's less than it would have gone up without health care reform.


Arthur

PS, I'm kidding, most big changes are years away (as in after the next presidential election), so there's no chance that this huge rate increase is due to the changes created by the new plan.

 

You might want to ask for a slightly better explanation.

 

maybe he didnt have one.