Town Square

Post a New Topic

Obamacare to more than double premiums for individual insurance in the Bay Area

Original post made by John on May 31, 2013

Despite recent attempts to portray the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) as a winner for California citizens, regarding premiums, it is exactly the opposite.

Web Link

Individual payers are in for a real shock.

Comments (14)

Posted by obamacare, a resident of Stanford
on May 31, 2013 at 11:18 am

The Affordable Cara Act forced my insurance company to refund over $400 to me last year, and $80 to me this year.

So, as an individual (I'm a business consultant,) I'm already ahead. And that doesn't count that my kid can come on my plan until age 26, cannot kick me off the plan if I get in trouble, or penalize me as a woman. Or hit me with the dreaded "per-exisiting conditions".

The Forbes article makes a bad assumption -- comparing an individual to group rates. That is apples to oranges. A better comparison and more balanced information is here Web Link#

- - - - - - -

** California Will Be Spared the Obamacare Apocalypse No sticker shock here—just affordable insurance premiums **

"Predictions of an Obamacare apocalypse seem a little less credible today, thanks to California.

On Thursday, officials in that state offered the first detailed glimpse of what consumers buying health benefits on their own can expect to pay next year. And from the looks of things, these consumers will be getting a pretty good deal.

Based on the premiums that insurers have submitted for final regulatory approval, the majority of Californians buying coverage on the state's new insurance exchange will be paying less—in many cases, far less—than they would pay for equivalent coverage today. And while a minority will still end up writing bigger premium checks than they do now, even they won't be paying outrageous amounts. Meanwhile, all of these consumers will have access to the kind of comprehensive benefits that are frequently unavailable today, at any price, because of the way insurers try to avoid the old and the sick."

Look it up yourself without Forbes' big business filet Web Link





Posted by John, a resident of Midtown
on May 31, 2013 at 11:44 am

>The Forbes article makes a bad assumption -- comparing an individual to group rates. That is apples to oranges.

That is exactly the point of the Forbes article that I linked to. The California exchange PR piece was doing exactly that. Individuals will pay much higher premiums, compared to what was already available in the private individual market. Please read the article again.

Another thing that is rarely discussed, although it is the elephant in the room, is that small businesses can simply cancel their group plans, and pay a relatively small penalty, thus dumping their employees onto the state exchange. This would save them a lot of money. Of course, the premiums on individuals would need to rise, accordingly. There is no free lunch.


Posted by Glengarry , a resident of Downtown North
on May 31, 2013 at 1:01 pm

Why would small businesses, that already have decided to have insurance for competitive reasons, cancel now? They could have already decided to (supposedly) "save them a lot of money" by not having insurance, but they already decided to do the right thing for their employees.

Just scare tactics.

Silly. Like having 37 stupid votes to repeal obamacare, when we need 37 jobs programs instead.


Posted by John, a resident of Midtown
on May 31, 2013 at 1:16 pm

>Why would small businesses, that already have decided to have insurance for competitive reasons, cancel now?

Because they are now seeing the actual rates and possibilities. They will be more competitive by getting out of the health insurance business, including all the administrative costs, dump their employees onto the state exchange. If they do this, they will be advantaged, compared to their direct competition.


Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 31, 2013 at 1:26 pm

Alternate argument is that a small business may choose to continue funding insurance in order to keep and attract superior employees.


Posted by Glengarry , a resident of Downtown North
on May 31, 2013 at 1:27 pm

"they will be advantaged, compared to their direct competition"

I disagree. They would be disadvantaged, compared to their direct competition being a better employer who offers competitive benefits.

The reasons your hypothetical business offered health care in the first place didn't suddenly evaporate, just because the fringe decided is scared.

Dumb.


Posted by Single Payer Medicare, a resident of Los Altos
on May 31, 2013 at 1:39 pm

I'm one of the half of America that doesn't like Obamacare.

Of that half, I'm in the third that doesn't think it went far enough.

We should have a single payer or Medicare buy-in for all system.

CNN Web Link

43% "of the public says it supports the health care law"
16% "saying they oppose the measure because it isn't liberal enough"

so, 59% say Obamacare should stay or be more liberal

35% "oppose the health care law because it's too liberal"

That's the third of America that still thinks Bush did a great job. You know they'll never support it until Fox tells them to and that ain't happening.

Figures.


Posted by John, a resident of Midtown
on May 31, 2013 at 2:01 pm

>Alternate argument is that a small business may choose to continue funding insurance in order to keep and attract superior employees.

I understand the argument, but the small businesses can simply increase their salaries, somewhat, then pay the penalty to the exchange, eliminating their entire health care burden...their employees should get the same coverage (according to Obama). I think it would be irrational for small businesses to stay in the business of health insurance.


Posted by Edward David, a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 31, 2013 at 2:24 pm

"but the small businesses can simply increase their salaries"

And who's living in a fantasy world now?!? If you're going to just make (stuff) up, why with the small stupid fantasy? How about make up (stuff) that matters, like: "John Boenher promised us in 2010 he would create jobs, so with the 40 million new jobs Beonhner created, we don't need no obamacare"

See how your lies can really work, if you just go big?

"(according to Obama)" - post a link to those quotes; like I said, now you're just making (stuff) up.


Posted by Medicare is better, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on May 31, 2013 at 2:48 pm

The ACA has made Medicare more sustainable, than any other health sector these days, and far lower overhead than for-profit health insurance. Agree with the poster about Medicare buy-in for all, that is what we/they should have done but the private health insurer blood suckers have bought too many members of congress, including many CA delegates.

The annual Medicare trustees' report came out today - Medicare viability has been extended by two years, projected to remain fully solvent until 2026; last year's projection was 2024. The extension is attributable to the ACA.

"The Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund is projected to be solvent for longer, which is good news for beneficiaries," said Marilyn Tavenner, who runs the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. "Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, we are taking important steps to improve the delivery of care for seniors with Medicare."

"These reforms aim to reduce spending while improving the quality of care, and are an important down payment on solving Medicare's long term financial issues," Tavenner said.

Web Link

"These long-run gains are matched by short-term relief: the Trustees also project that the Part B premium will not increase between 2013 and 2014, keeping out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries down. Medicare cost growth has remained at historically low levels over the past three years even as new benefits for preventive care and prescription drugs have helped tens of millions of beneficiaries access care at lower cost. The law reduces prescription drug costs by closing the donut hole, a policy that has already saved more than 6 million seniors more than $700 each. And more than 32 million seniors have accessed a free preventive service under the law, helping them stay healthy and avoid future illness."

As @EdwardDavid would say... "this is good ("stuff")!

;-)



Posted by John, a resident of Midtown
on May 31, 2013 at 5:30 pm

The single payer model ignores the pain that it causes to individuals in strong need. It works on the surface level, but when a person is in significant need, he/she is kicked out to wait in line. This is why Canadians buy U.S. private insurance policies, then come acroos the border to get significant care, when they need it.


Posted by Sherrry, a resident of College Terrace
on May 31, 2013 at 5:51 pm

Every time a Canadian hears the American fringe right blast their healthcare system, they point at Canadian vs US Healthcare RESULTS (Canada less expensive, better outcomes than US from infant mortality to life expectancy) and LAUGH.

John is making things up. Or to stick with poster E David... 'stuff'

>>>>> Expensive without the results: Health care in the U.S. costs the most, not the best in the world Web Link


Posted by John, a resident of Midtown
on May 31, 2013 at 6:02 pm

>they point at Canadian vs US Healthcare RESULTS

Until they have a serious problem, then they come done here to get serious solutions. In other terms, RESULTS.

Whichever way you want to look at the models, individual payers are going to pay a lot more for Obamacare, in California. That PR piece by the California element was a real doozy.


Posted by maguro_01, a resident of Mountain View
on Jun 19, 2013 at 4:25 pm

maguro_01 is a registered user.

@Edward David, medical insurance through employment is compensation like base salary or free pizza and coffee. Drop the medical insurance and an employee's compensation is substantially reduced. So are employer expenses and opportunity costs caused by the distraction of being in the insurance business at all.

Medical insurance is quite a diversion from the business that Main Street could well do without. They often go through agencies for insurance, adding yet another layer of expense to the system which is already highest in the world by a large margin.

Between US medical care overall and the financial sector, the US uses about 1/4 GDP. That is not sustainable. It's not a coincidence either - that portion is bought in Washington and the state capitols. Capital allocation by markets does not have much to do with either.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

To post your comment, please click here to login

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Gourmet hot dogs, sausage food truck coming to the Peninsula
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 2,547 views

Allowing Unauthorized Immigrants to Learn and Earn Legally Will Help the Economy
By Steve Levy | 29 comments | 2,029 views

College applications: round three
By Sally Torbey | 24 comments | 1,523 views

Is HBO's Silicon Valley Any Good?
By Anita Felicelli | 14 comments | 1,461 views

PAUSD Leadership Challenges
By Paul Losch | 14 comments | 1,019 views