Re: NY individual rates set to fall 50% due to exchanges; plans also available to small businesses
posted at 7/17/2013 7:16 PM EDT
In response to skeeter20's comment:
In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
"Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see their premiums tumble next year in New York State as changes under the federal health care law take effect, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced on Wednesday.
State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for 2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those currently available in New York."
Of course, to express any doubt or critique the criticality of some anonymous New York state bureaucrats 'approving' rates for Obamacare, means I believe "ObamaCare is a socialist grandma-killing scheme from Kenya"... but what the heck.
The same headlines were out in California, but it turned out to be apples and oranges...
"the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange. But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.
“The rates submitted to Covered California for the 2014 individual market,” the state said in a press release, “ranged from two percent above to 29 percent below the 2013 average premium for small employer plans in California’s most populous regions.”
That’s the sentence that led to all of the triumphant commentary from the left. “This is a home run for consumers in every region of California,” exulted Peter Lee.
Except that Lee was making a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples—the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market—and oranges—the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical.
If you’re a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month.
... But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com (NASDAQ:EHTH), the median cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92.
In other words, for the typical 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.
Ya, why believe the people who actually underwrite the insurance policies.
They're obviously lying and using some kind of bait-and-switch plan, as in the switch the plan to better coverage and lower cost.
Comparing the proposed rates for next year with current premiums is difficult, officials and experts agree, because the healthcare law mandates next year's plans to offer richer benefits and to limit consumers' out-of-pocket expenses.
These rates "came in below what people legitimately expected them to be," said Paul Markovich, Blue Shield's chief executive.
Richer benefits like free birth control for all.
The truth is Obamacare is producing more expensive health care that is less adept at meeting individual needs.
Throw in that there is about two trillion in tax dollars paying for this whole mess, and, yah, I can see why the libs are for it. Better to crush healhtcare than to truly fix it.
We've been down that road already. The cost of birth control is covered by the premiums that the woman pays. Birth control is considered preventative medicine. The pills are also used to treat an abundance of non pregnancy related conditions that would otherwise require more expensive care such as surgery, etc. You need to move past this silly notion you have of free birth control once and for all.