• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The unofficial Obamacare thread...

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
This is just so beyond bullshit. Make the cost of insurance skyrocket. Then force everyone to buy it. Fuck the United Corporations of Greed.
 
Doesn't Damage post something like this:

Thanks-Obama.jpg



Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...ividual-market-health-premiums-by-88-percent/

Democrats continue to try to dismiss the evidence that Obamacare will dramatically increase the cost of insurance for people who buy it on their own. But on Thursday, the Ohio Department of Insurance announced that, based on the rates submitted by insurers to date, the average individual-market health insurance premium in 2014 will come in around $420, “representing an increase of 88 percent” relative to 2013. “We have warned of these increases,” said Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor in a statement. “Consumers will have fewer choices and pay much higher premiums for their health insurance starting in 2014.”

The rates that Ohio reported are proposed rates; the Department of Insurance still has to formally approve them. “A total of 14 companies proposed rates for 214 plans to the Department. Projected costs from the companies for providing coverage for the required [by Obamacare] essential health benefits ranged from $282.51 to $577.40 for individual health insurance plans.”

It’s called “rate shock,” but it’s not shocking to people who understand the economics of health insurance. In August 2011, Milliman, one of the nation’s leading actuarial firms, predicted that Obamacare would increase individual-market premiums in Ohio by 55 to 85 percent. This past March, the Society of Actuaries projected that the law would increase premiums in that market by 81 percent. Like good players on “The Price is Right,” they both came in just under the Dept. of Insurance’s figure.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QqONZAN_Us0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What are the drivers of the increase? According to Milliman, the two biggest drivers are (1) risk pool composition changes, such as forcing the young to subsidize the old, and the healthy to subsidize the sick; and (2) Obamacare’s required expansion of insurance benefits, particularly its mandated reductions in deductibles and co-pays.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VaW-2IKSwlg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is a significant concept to understand. Some people have the impression that the main reason that rates are going up under Obamacare is because of the law’s requirement that insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions. But that accounts for only a fraction—around a quarter—of the rate hike. The rest comes from all the other things that Obamacare does, such as forcing people to buy richer insurance benefits; to buy products with all sorts of add-ons they might not need; to pay Obamacare’s premium tax; and to pay a lot more, if they’re young, to subsidize older individuals.

There is an important difference between these analyses and the one I conducted for California last week. Ohio has reported average premiums across the individual market, for everyone; for California, I looked at the lowest-priced individual-market plans for 25- and 40-year-old men, both pre- and post-Obamacare. We’ll need to go through Ohio’s individual rate filings, especially after they’ve been approved by the state, to get a more detailed sense of what is going on.

But the bottom line is this: President Obama and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised that premiums would go down for those who already have insurance. And yes, for those lower-income folks who benefit from the subsidies provided by other taxpayers, the costs they see may go down. But middle-class Ohioans will pay more in taxes to pay for those subsidies, and more in premiums. It will be interesting to see how those Ohioans feel about that.

UPDATE 1: Dave Dysinger, who runs a growing manufacturing business in Dayton, is worried about being subjected to the employer mandate as premiums in Ohio rise, according to the Dayton Daily News:

“Dave Dysinger of the Dayton-based precision machine business, Dysinger Inc., said business is booming, putting pressure on the firm with just under 50 employees to expand its workforce.

But if the company crosses the 50-worker threshold, it would be forced to comply with the provisions of the health care law or pay a fine.

The cost of insurance could skyrocket if Dysinger brings on a fresh new crop of younger workers, but the law would limit how much of that cost he could pass onto his employees in the form of deductibles, co-payments, and coinsurance.

“I am very concerned about what’s going to happen with the cost of health care,” Dysinger said. “But I’m going to save my whining until I actually see what’s going to happen.”

UPDATE 2: For those who are curious about the details of the Society of Actuaries’ estimate about pre-ACA insurance costs (which were cited by the Ohio Department of Insurance), the SOA calculated that “average costs in the non-group market” pre-ACA were $223 per month. The SOA estimates that post-ACA, non-group coverage will cost $403 per month, an increase of 81 percent.

According to SOA, that $223 figure reflects a risk pool in which 21.4 percent had a chronic condition. 1.7 percent of non-group individuals who were “high risk” were outside of that pool. If you incorporate them, the average cost goes up to $254; this leads to a premium increase of 59 percent by the SOA estimates. In other words, 22 percent of the absolute increase is due to guaranteed issue, and 59 percent is due to other factors.

There is one issue to nail down with the Ohio Dept. of Insurance’s figures. The Society of Actuaries data appears to describe medical costs; the Dept. of Insurance figures appear to describe rates. Rates include administrative costs, medical costs do not. If we assume an administrative cost ratio of 20 percent, the SOA baseline would be closer to $279, which means that the rate shock would be around 51 percent, not 88 percent.

UPDATE 3: According to a spokesman for Lt. Gov. Taylor, the Ohio Dept. of Insurance figures do not include administrative costs, resolving the concern I raised in the last paragraph of Update 2. From the spokesman:

“The rates we released last week were index rates pulled from the filings after they were submitted to the Department of Insurance. These index rates only include the projected claims [per member per month] by the carriers for covering the essential health benefits. Administrative costs, risk adjustment, reinsurance, and fees were not included in the index rates we used to form our average that we then compared to the SOA baseline number.

We felt this was the fairest comparison we could make with the information we have at this time.

UPDATE 4: Philip Klein notes that plans on eHealthInsurance.com, with comparable features to those of Obamacare’s bronze plans, are far cheaper pre-ACA:

“Ohio regulators also announced that, “Projected costs from the companies for providing coverage for the required essential health benefits ranged from $282.51 to $577.40 for individual health insurance plans.” That means that the cheapest plan available under Obamacare in Ohio will be $282.51.

But according to a search of eHealthInsurance.com, a 26 year-old living in Cleveland, Ohio, could currently purchase an Anthem SmartSense Plus plan for $89.45 per month. That’s less than a third of the cost of the lowest Obamacare rate, as reported by Ohio regulators, and the annual out of pocket expenses for the Anthem plan are $6,000 — which is less than Obamacare’s bronze option.

In fact, under the current system, the same hypothetical 26 year-old could purchase a Medical Mutual plan with a $2,500 annual out of pocket limit, for $188.41 per month — still significantly cheaper than the least expensive Obamacare option.

Guess this article should end like this:

07abb398fedbacb448c42bb8f334a33e.jpeg
 
How can the government argue that every person needs to buy health insurance, when Kathleen Sabelius and HHS argued in court case C 10-4018-MWB against a raw un-pasteurized milk co-op that "There is No Absolute Right to Consume or Feed Children Any Particular Food" (page 26) and "There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health." (page 28) http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/litigation/ey100426--ds%20mtd%20memo%20in%20support.pdf

Wouldn't that extend to "There is No Generalized Right to Health Insurance"?
 
How can the government argue that every person needs to buy health insurance, when Kathleen Sabelius and HHS argued in court case C 10-4018-MWB against a raw un-pasteurized milk co-op that "There is No Absolute Right to Consume or Feed Children Any Particular Food" (page 26) and "There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health." (page 28) http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/litigation/ey100426--ds%20mtd%20memo%20in%20support.pdf

Wouldn't that extend to "There is No Generalized Right to Health Insurance"?

Health Insurance is not an illegal product and all people should have the right to purchase a legal product.
 
Two-Thirds of Americans Don't Know If They Will Insure Under Obamacare

CNBC

By: Dan Mangan | Writer

There's no assurance folks will be buying insurance under Obamacare, and that could spell trouble for the Affordable Care Act.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans who currently lack health insurance don't know yet if they will purchase that coverage by the Jan. 1 deadline set by the ACA, a new survey revealed Monday.

And less than half of those in the survey released by InsuranceQuotes.com think they'll get better health care after Obamacare takes full effect. Nearly 50 percent believe the ACA will make it more difficult for them to get tests and procedures done in a timely manner, according to the phone survey of 1,001 adult Americans conducted in early May.

And a whopping 68 percent of low-income Americans aren't sure they qualify for tax credits that would subsidize their purchase of health insurance—despite they fact that they almost invariably will qualify, the survey found. That population is most likely to benefit from government subsidies under the health-care reform law.

Laura Adams, senior insurance analyst at InsuranceQuotes.com, said public uncertainty about Obamacare—particularly a lack of commitment to signing up—could end up driving up health-insurance costs under the program because not enough healthy people will participate to offset benefits payouts.

Continued - http://www.cnbc.com/id/100783056
 
Health Insurance is not an illegal product and all people should have the right to purchase a legal product.

Raw milk is not an illegal product. It was being shared in a private co-op. It was not being transferred or sold over state lines.

Two private people should be able to have a private agreement. The federal government should not infringe if I have a cow and want to share milk with my neighbor. The ironic part is the government's defense that the plaintiff's argument of "it is better for my health and my free choice" is false unless the government tells you it is. This same agency now has control over regulations of what health care the private sector can offer to you.
 
Raw milk is not an illegal product. It was being shared in a private co-op. It was not being transferred or sold over state lines.

Two private people should be able to have a private agreement. The federal government should not infringe if I have a cow and want to share milk with my neighbor. The ironic part is the government's defense that the plaintiff's argument of "it is better for my health and my free choice" is false unless the government tells you it is. This same agency now has control over regulations of what health care the private sector can offer to you.

Then I am wrong. All people should have the right to purchase a legal product and that includes raw milk.
 
What will the real prices for insurance be available. We pay $1850/month for health insurance. When I last checked, the obamacare plans for uninsured people who were denied coverage were far less expensive than that.
 
It's not about the money...

You really don't know why people object to the individual mandate? You think it's because they don't want to pay a couple hundred bucks? Seriously?

I swear, I'm not saying that to sound condescending, but we've been talking about Obamacare for 5 years now, and prior to it's passing it was the largest topic in the news (along with the economy) for almost 8 months straight. It was the single topic that gave rise to the Tea Party Movement.

You really owe it to yourself to understand the issues behind why many people, including myself a former Obama campaign employee, are opposed to the current implementation of Obamacare. Many Americans, those who voted for him and those who didn't, feel betrayed by the outcome of the Administration's closed-door negotiations with the health insurance providers and Big Pharma.

He did exactly what he said he would never do (individual corporate mandate; closed door negotiations) and what he blasted Clinton (and later Romney) for during the campaigns. Guy's a hypocrite that has proven he'll say anything to get elected.

SO WHY IS YOUR AVATAR OBAMA BIDEN? GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER MORESO THAN YOU ALREADY HAVE, GOURI!!!!!!!
 
Went to an event and heard a CPA who speacializes in Health Care speak on Obamacare. It was about 4 months ago, so my regurgitation won't be on-point, but I am just about certain that this will be a clusterfuck. Things that I vaguely remember:
1. There's a certain threshold of full time employee equivalents that you do NOT want to cross (maybe 50, maybe 100), and the best way to not cross that point is to have more workers that work less hours. This was the most interesting to me, as my interpretation was that you will have companies that team up to "job split" - e.g. - reduce worker's hours to 1/2 time, and take on a competitior's worker 1/2 time, and give your worker to the competitor so that you each have 2 different 1/2 time employees. The problem is that I can't remember why it was such a big deal, but it has to come down to cost.
2. There isn't even a number 2. I have a horrible memory.:chuckles:
 
It's not about the money...

You really don't know why people object to the individual mandate? You think it's because they don't want to pay a couple hundred bucks? Seriously?

I swear, I'm not saying that to sound condescending, but we've been talking about Obamacare for 5 years now, and prior to it's passing it was the largest topic in the news (along with the economy) for almost 8 months straight. It was the single topic that gave rise to the Tea Party Movement.

You really owe it to yourself to understand the issues behind why many people, including myself a former Obama campaign employee, are opposed to the current implementation of Obamacare. Many Americans, those who voted for him and those who didn't, feel betrayed by the outcome of the Administration's closed-door negotiations with the health insurance providers and Big Pharma.

He did exactly what he said he would never do (individual corporate mandate; closed door negotiations) and what he blasted Clinton (and later Romney) for during the campaigns. Guy's a hypocrite that has proven he'll say anything to get elected.

I'm not saying it's everyone, but the main reason most people object to the individual mandate is they believe that since they haven't had a healthcare crisis, they won't have one anytime soon. My wife only 42 and had a major stroke at 35 and now is fighting breast cancer. We just got the bill for one cycle of chemotherapy from the Cleveland clinic, it was $43,000. She has to have 6 cycles. If we didn't have insurance, we would have 3 choices

- lose our home and business and take our 3 kids attending college out of college to attempt to pay the bill, and still fail to pay it all
- pass the buck and file bankruptcy (and ruin our credit for about a decade).
- skip the chemotherapy and give her a about a 50% chance of recurrence knowing full well that recurrence is far more deadly than the initial cancer.

THere is no way to know in advance when a healthcare crisis will hit any individual family. And there certainly is no way to guarantee it won't happen. The whole point of insurance is to spread that risk so the families that do have crisis won't be financially destroyed as well.
 
I'm not saying it's everyone, but the main reason most people object to the individual mandate is they believe that since they haven't had a healthcare crisis, they won't have one anytime soon. My wife only 42 and had a major stroke at 35 and now is fighting breast cancer. We just got the bill for one cycle of chemotherapy from the Cleveland clinic, it was $43,000. She has to have 6 cycles. If we didn't have insurance, we would have 3 choices

- lose our home and business and take our 3 kids attending college out of college to attempt to pay the bill, and still fail to pay it all
- pass the buck and file bankruptcy (and ruin our credit for about a decade).
- skip the chemotherapy and give her a about a 50% chance of recurrence knowing full well that recurrence is far more deadly than the initial cancer.

THere is no way to know in advance when a healthcare crisis will hit any individual family. And there certainly is no way to guarantee it won't happen. The whole point of insurance is to spread that risk so the families that do have crisis won't be financially destroyed as well.

Even with insurance, you still would've probably been stuck with one of those three choices. I was.
 
SO WHY IS YOUR AVATAR OBAMA BIDEN? GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER MORESO THAN YOU ALREADY HAVE, GOURI!!!!!!!

Working in the campaign, well, it was a very proud moment in my life... I will take it down soon, though.. Ugh, it just kills me that Barack Obama turned out to be a fucking shill like everyone else. "You were the chosen one!"

First LeBron, and now this... man...
 
I'm not saying it's everyone, but the main reason most people object to the individual mandate is they believe that since they haven't had a healthcare crisis, they won't have one anytime soon.

KI, I don't want to minimize anything you've said. I understand your plight, and I've been through experiencing my ex fight cancer, she's the mother of my two sons. It was tough.

But.. the above statement is false. It's not why most people are against the individual mandate. We're against it because it's not the role of government to force private citizens to buy corporate products. The government can tax, but the individual mandate is not a tax. It's a forced purchase.

Some would also argue that the government shouldn't be involved in issuing health care insurance to begin with, and for the longest time I disagreed with that sentiment. I felt, the government most of all could create a system that had affordable insurance that was best for the vast majority of people. I dunno if I still believe that. There is risk and reward, and I know believe (wrought through experience) that expanding the size, role, and authority of government, is not worth lower health insurance premiums. It's simply not wise.

To that end, I am really starting to think I've been completely wrong, from an ideological standpoint. I'm starting to question a lot of my progressive beliefs.
 
KI, I don't want to minimize anything you've said. I understand your plight, and I've been through experiencing my ex fight cancer, she's the mother of my two sons. It was tough.

But.. the above statement is false. It's not why most people are against the individual mandate. We're against it because it's not the role of government to force private citizens to buy corporate products. The government can tax, but the individual mandate is not a tax. It's a forced purchase.

Some would also argue that the government shouldn't be involved in issuing health care insurance to begin with, and for the longest time I disagreed with that sentiment. I felt, the government most of all could create a system that had affordable insurance that was best for the vast majority of people. I dunno if I still believe that. There is risk and reward, and I know believe (wrought through experience) that expanding the size, role, and authority of government, is not worth lower health insurance premiums. It's simply not wise.

To that end, I am really starting to think I've been completely wrong, from an ideological standpoint. I'm starting to question a lot of my progressive beliefs.

It all comes down to choice. I am the owner of my body and I should have the right to choose what type of health care is best for me. The number one smoke-screen and what seems to be confusing and distracting the general public is the cost. What one must realize is that the overall price is not my concern, whether it is cheaper or more expensive. My concern is that i am being forced into something that government has no right to mandate.

This is about choosing what is best for me, as an individual who owns himself.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top