EPTOn October 15 2013 06:28 xDaunt wrote:
Have you seen what's happened to insurance premiums?
Have you seen what's happened to insurance premiums?
Can you link to any evidence please, I am quite curious myself.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 537
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8637 Posts
Can you link to any evidence please, I am quite curious myself. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Yes, US healthcare may even get as expensive as other countries in which a universal healthcare system is in place! ![[image loading]](http://www.thinkonthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/healthcarespending1.png) Oh.. wait : ( What this is hinting at: There's little correlation between how many people with whatever conditions you take into the healthcare system and the resulting prices. (Wild guess: Government healthcare spending may instead be dependent on how much healthcare costs and how heavy the prices are regulated!) Edit: And before the argument arises "Hey, these are absolute numbers, there are so many people in the US, you can't compare that!" If you break it down on healthcare cost per capita, you come to the same conclusion : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On October 15 2013 06:28 xDaunt wrote: Have you seen what's happened to insurance premiums? No, I thought that was implied in my last post. All I've seen are a couple of articles talking about how the premiums in New York on the exchanges compared to similar plans have gone down like 30%, so I was looking to get some evidence to the contrary. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
A more general national estimate from Forbes: 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/ | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21951 Posts
On October 15 2013 06:43 xDaunt wrote: Also, let's be clear on who the real losers are here: us --- generally young, healthy people who are being forced to purchase products that aren't necessarily needed. If you're fortunate enough to get insurance through a big employer, fantastic. The problem arises for those who are having trouble getting a career going. And again with the attitude of "I dont need insurance" How on earth does a young person pay for a major operation without health insurance. Do you all get a big bag of money to spend on healthcare when you become an adult? Anyone without health insurance is playing a game of russian roulette with there future. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 15 2013 06:48 Gorsameth wrote: And again with the attitude of "I dont need insurance" How on earth does a young person pay for a major operation without health insurance. Do you all get a big bag of money to spend on healthcare when you become an adult? Anyone without health insurance is playing a game of russian roulette with there future. I agree, but Obamacare doesn't just require that a young person buy "insurance." It requires that they buy a certain level of insurance, which may or may not comport with their needs given their financial situation. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On October 15 2013 06:43 xDaunt wrote: Also, let's be clear on who the real losers are here: us --- generally young, healthy people who are being forced to purchase products that aren't necessarily needed. If you're fortunate enough to get insurance through a big employer, fantastic. The problem arises for those who are having trouble getting a career going. Buying an insurance when you don't need it is why it's called 'insurance' , that's kind of the whole point. I'm not sure i can follow your point. You're not buying an insurance on your house while it's burning down, that doesn't make any sense. | ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
On October 15 2013 06:31 Doublemint wrote: Can you link to any evidence please, I am quite curious myself. Not going to link my paystubs, but mine went up along with my girlfriend's who works at disney. It wasn't triple, that is a bit of a joke, but rates are going up across the board. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On October 15 2013 06:36 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, US healthcare may even get as expensive as other countries in which a universal healthcare system is in place! Oh.. wait : ( What this is hinting at: There's little correlation between how many people with whatever conditions you take into the healthcare system and the resulting prices. (Wild guess: Government healthcare spending may instead be dependent on how much healthcare costs and how heavy the prices are regulated!) Edit: And before the argument arises "Hey, these are absolute numbers, there are so many people in the US, you can't compare that!" If you break it down on healthcare cost per capita, you come to the same conclusion : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita Problem is that ACA is NOT single payer public system. It is quite possible that insurance costs will go up, but if that is the case for sure can be claimed only by people who love to wildly speculate. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On October 15 2013 06:43 xDaunt wrote: Also, let's be clear on who the real losers are here: us --- generally young, healthy people who are being forced to purchase products that aren't necessarily needed. If you're fortunate enough to get insurance through a big employer, fantastic. The problem arises for those who are having trouble getting a career going. The popularity of the thought that health insurance is not necessarily needed is mindboggling. EDIT: Considering your followup reply, well, this just shows why ACA should have been public option from the beginning. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 15 2013 06:59 mcc wrote: The popularity of the thought that health insurance is not necessarily needed is mindboggling. Only idiots and the impoverished run around without any health insurance. The issue is how much money can an individual pay for health insurance --- ie what level coverage should they buy. Obamacare makes that decision for everybody, with some obviously mixed results. | ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
On October 15 2013 06:56 mcc wrote: Problem is that ACA is NOT single payer public system. It is quite possible that insurance costs will go up, but if that is the case for sure can be claimed only by people who love to wildly speculate. The problem is the health care insurance companies are speculating and rising prices ahead of the game. My company got a notice about a year ago warning us about increases coming due to the bill being passed. My girlfriend said hers just went up 30 bucks, got a notice this week | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On October 15 2013 07:01 xDaunt wrote: Only idiots and the impoverished run around without any health insurance. The issue is how much money can an individual pay for health insurance --- ie what level coverage should they buy. Obamacare makes that decision for everybody, with some obviously mixed results. You are right, that is the saddest part, Obama could have probably got public single payer option running, at least he could have tried. Instead he got stuck with basically Republican plan, that does have the drawbacks you describe. You could clearly see on Daily Show interview with Kathleen Sebelius, it was pretty clear that she was defending something she got stuck with and would have preferred real healthcare reform. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8637 Posts
On October 15 2013 06:53 xDaunt wrote: I agree, but Obamacare doesn't just require that a young person buy "insurance." It requires that they buy a certain level of insurance, which may or may not comport with their needs given their financial situation. I agree, this "one size fits all" insurance package including this massive blowjob for the health care industry is indeed quite a problem. What I found quite tragicomical was this CBS lady with the increased premiums that now is covered for pregnancy - at age 53 but not for what she would have liked. This really is the worst of both worlds  Neither single payer nor private insurance. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
For some people, though, it appears they'll be able to get health insurance at less than a hundred a month. It also seems to vary wildly by state. But xDaunt is right about there being losers under Obamacare. That's how the law is designed. Younger, healthier, wealthier people pay more, while older, sicker, poorer people pay less. That's the whole fucking point of health insurance to begin with. Spreading the pain more is better for the economy. It should be noted that the group which are the "losers" of the bill is a smaller chunk than was originally predicted. But yea, that's what is supposed to happen. xDaunt's other article also takes North Carolina, which is one of the states that refused the Medicaid expansion, which was one of things that was supposed to drive down costs. Remember, the Medicaid expansion was supposed to be compulsory but the Supreme Court struck that down. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 15 2013 06:36 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, US healthcare may even get as expensive as other countries in which a universal healthcare system is in place! + Show Spoiler + Oh.. wait : ( What this is hinting at: There's little correlation between how many people with whatever conditions you take into the healthcare system and the resulting prices. (Wild guess: Government healthcare spending may instead be dependent on how much healthcare costs and how heavy the prices are regulated!) Edit: And before the argument arises "Hey, these are absolute numbers, there are so many people in the US, you can't compare that!" If you break it down on healthcare cost per capita, you come to the same conclusion : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita The ACA isn't universal healthcare. Massachusetts already has a version of the ACA and average insurance premiums are the highest in the country (source). | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On October 15 2013 06:53 xDaunt wrote: I agree, but Obamacare doesn't just require that a young person buy "insurance." It requires that they buy a certain level of insurance, which may or may not comport with their needs given their financial situation. Have you looked at the requirements for coverage for bronze plans? They're really low, and the only real positives over buying the cheapest possible insurance pre-ACA are the things that the ACA forces for all plans, like covering pre-existing conditions and eliminating lifetime caps. Shit like co-insurance is still in there. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 15 2013 07:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The ACA isn't universal healthcare. Massachusetts already has a version of the ACA and average insurance premiums are the highest in the country (source). Whoa whoa whoa now. Let's not throw out numbers like this without some context here. Massachusetts had massively increasing healthcare costs for a long time, moreso than the country. Romneycare was largely responsible for bringing down the cost and slowing down the cost of healthcare. The cost is still increasing, but no one who looks at Massachusetts' situation would blame their high premiums on Romneycare. That would be silly. And no one is considering throwing Romneycare out. If anything they just want to tweak it more to bring down costs. But it's been a massive success. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
 | ||
| ||
