How much will your premiums go up under Obamacare? See table for each state

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
The bureaucrats fumbling their way through Obamacare have come up with complicated formulas to decide how much each of us will pay for Obamacare, once the mandate forces us to comply. The formulas have not been released, having been kept secret for some reason.

But some people have sat down and gone through the Federal and State exchanges to find the rates required for a young person, an older person, and a family of four, for each state.

Most people in most states will see large increases. A few will see decreases.

119648d1382196907-how-much-will-your-premiums-increase-ocarepricesvsfreeent19oct2013.gif


http://www.heritage.org/research/re...exchanges-how-will-your-health-insurance-fare
 
Werbung:
Looking at California, one state with which I'm familiar, according to the chart a 50 year old adult can buy health insurance for $225. I'm not sure just what sort of a policy that might be, but it would have to be a high deductible that isn't good just anywhere. The premium is predicted, by the makers of the chart, to increase by $30. A premium for a family of four is predicted to increase by the same dollar amount, but a lesser percent.

Compared to annual premium increases over the past few years, that amount is pretty minimal.

And now people with pre existing conditions can actually get insurance.

I see Obama care as a sort of mixed bag, just like most compromises.
 
Looking at California, one state with which I'm familiar, according to the chart a 50 year old adult can buy health insurance for $225. I'm not sure just what sort of a policy that might be, but it would have to be a high deductible that isn't good just anywhere. The premium is predicted, by the makers of the chart, to increase by $30. A premium for a family of four is predicted to increase by the same dollar amount, but a lesser percent.

Compared to annual premium increases over the past few years, that amount is pretty minimal.

And now people with pre existing conditions can actually get insurance.

I see Obama care as a sort of mixed bag, just like most compromises.

yes, in states where rates were already high the increase won't be as much compared to states where the rates were relatively low. the better solution would have been to foster competition between states so that the rates in high states would have gone down.

regarding those with pre-existing conditions, a poor but better solution would have been to simply create a one line law that said insurance companies could not deny insure people with pre-existing conditions.

Regarding the 45 million without insurance, first subtract those that have health care, then provide a means for them to join medicaid and pay what they can. At a super low relative cost they would all have health care which would have been a far cry better than the 30 million who will still not have health insurance under the ACA.

Obama care is a mixed bag in the same way the prohibition was a mixed bag!
 
yes, in states where rates were already high the increase won't be as much compared to states where the rates were relatively low. the better solution would have been to foster competition between states so that the rates in high states would have gone down.

regarding those with pre-existing conditions, a poor but better solution would have been to simply create a one line law that said insurance companies could not deny insure people with pre-existing conditions.

Regarding the 45 million without insurance, first subtract those that have health care, then provide a means for them to join medicaid and pay what they can. At a super low relative cost they would all have health care which would have been a far cry better than the 30 million who will still not have health insurance under the ACA.

Obama care is a mixed bag in the same way the prohibition was a mixed bag!

Competition between states

Selling insurance across State lines has long been proposed as an option to increase competition and choices in health insurance, but there are serious pitfalls with this approach when it is not coupled with adequate consumer protections. The Affordable Care Act allows health care to be sold across State lines when both States agree and consumer protections are maintained. Without the consumer protections included in the Affordable Care Act, we run the risk of creating an environment where there is a “race to the bottom” in which insurers have an incentive to sell plans from the State with fewest consumer protections.

Pre existing conditions: Insurance companies would never have gone along with that one without something in return, such as the individual mandate, for example.
 
yes, in states where rates were already high the increase won't be as much compared to states where the rates were relatively low. the better solution would have been to foster competition between states so that the rates in high states would have gone down.

regarding those with pre-existing conditions, a poor but better solution would have been to simply create a one line law that said insurance companies could not deny insure people with pre-existing conditions.

Regarding the 45 million without insurance, first subtract those that have health care, then provide a means for them to join medicaid and pay what they can. At a super low relative cost they would all have health care which would have been a far cry better than the 30 million who will still not have health insurance under the ACA.

Obama care is a mixed bag in the same way the prohibition was a mixed bag!

Rates are higher in some states due toeach states insurance requirements. People already buy across state lines but since those mandated coverages still have to be in the policy, no savings and marginal savings at best.
 
yes, in states where rates were already high the increase won't be as much compared to states where the rates were relatively low. the better solution would have been to foster competition between states so that the rates in high states would have gone down.

regarding those with pre-existing conditions, a poor but better solution would have been to simply create a one line law that said insurance companies could not deny insure people with pre-existing conditions.

Regarding the 45 million without insurance, first subtract those that have health care, then provide a means for them to join medicaid and pay what they can. At a super low relative cost they would all have health care which would have been a far cry better than the 30 million who will still not have health insurance under the ACA.

Obama care is a mixed bag in the same way the prohibition was a mixed bag!

Rates are higher in some states due toeach states insurance requirements. People already buy across state lines but since those mandated coverages still have to be in the policy, no savings and marginal savings at best.
 
Competition between states



Pre existing conditions: Insurance companies would never have gone along with that one without something in return, such as the individual mandate, for example.

If you chose to live in a flood zone, you have to buy flood insurance. This is where spreading the costs around to everyone in a one size fits all market, makes insurance not available to everyone.

Should it be available? Yes. But like anything it comes in degrees. Is having high blood pressure more expensive than diabetes? Does one cost more than the other?

What about treatment of substance abuse. Should a health nut have to pay for someone who abuses themselves?
 
Competition between states



Pre existing conditions: Insurance companies would never have gone along with that one without something in return, such as the individual mandate, for example.


The objections to insurance commerce across state lines in that link are ridiculously easy to overcome. By the way there are now less options available to consumers than there were before the ACA.

If not giving people with pre-existing conditions insurance is wrong then who cares what the insurance companies think or would go along with. A role of gov is to stop evil business from doing wrong things, right?

If on the other hand there is nothing wrong with denying insurance to people with pre-existing conditions then there would be no reason to make insurance companies go along with such a law. A system in which gov GIVES things to companies so that they cooperate with unecessary regulations is inherently corrupt. And here we have a sitution in which the thing that was given to insurance companies is the forcing of Americans to buy a product. That is inherently evil. the supreme court only allowed it because the method of coercion was a tax as if that makes it any better. Meanwhile I heard today that it just might be a federal crime to not buy insurance even if one pays the penalty, paying the penalty would be a "proof" that the crime was committed.
 
If you chose to live in a flood zone, you have to buy flood insurance. This is where spreading the costs around to everyone in a one size fits all market, makes insurance not available to everyone.

Should it be available? Yes. But like anything it comes in degrees. Is having high blood pressure more expensive than diabetes? Does one cost more than the other?

What about treatment of substance abuse. Should a health nut have to pay for someone who abuses themselves?

In a country where easily over half of all disease is due to lifestyle the logical end to all this is government coercion to live a healthy lifestyle. The law already paved the way to using the tax code as a means to coerce people to buy insurance so obviously the tax code can be used to curb smoking and the consumption of saturated fat. Nevermind that the experts disagree on whether or not saturated fat is a health food humans have been eating for a million years and is in fact released every time one loses weight or if it is the worst kind of fat that should be replaced with refined, deoderized, filtered, superheated oil made from poisonous rapeseeds (canola oil). Wow, we could generate enough political bickering to keep the AMA and politicians paid forever.
 
In a country where easily over half of all disease is due to lifestyle the logical end to all this is government coercion to live a healthy lifestyle. The law already paved the way to using the tax code as a means to coerce people to buy insurance so obviously the tax code can be used to curb smoking and the consumption of saturated fat. Nevermind that the experts disagree on whether or not saturated fat is a health food humans have been eating for a million years and is in fact released every time one loses weight or if it is the worst kind of fat that should be replaced with refined, deoderized, filtered, superheated oil made from poisonous rapeseeds (canola oil). Wow, we could generate enough political bickering to keep the AMA and politicians paid forever.

Like the argument between vegans and meat lovers. The Inuits (Eskimos) have a diet of mostly fat and game, yet they rarely get heart disease or cancer.

Go figure.
 
Like the argument between vegans and meat lovers. The Inuits (Eskimos) have a diet of mostly fat and game, yet they rarely get heart disease or cancer.

Go figure.

Which demonstrates the central flaw in central planning!! I have no doubt that a centrally run gov planned health system will use the tools at its disposal (namely force) to encourage healthy lifestyle choices. And presently the erroneous conventional wisdom is that saturated fat is evil. Logically, the millions of dollars presently being spent on public service ads to encourage people to eat wisely will be replaced by a smaller millions of dollars spent on legislation and regulation to coerce people to eat wisely. Meanwhile, the mistakenly preferred low-fat diet will lead to hundreds of thousands of less healthy people who had little choice in the matter rather than the lesser hundreds of thousands who blindly followed the diet offered by "experts".

Going back to two words in that paragraph above: "namely force" I would like to emphasize that a central government has a few tools by which to accomplish its goals but the fall-back tool will always be force in the name of law enforced by the gun held by the sherrif.
 
Meanwhile, the mistakenly preferred low-fat diet will lead to hundreds of thousands of less healthy people who had little choice in the matter rather than the lesser hundreds of thousands who blindly followed the diet offered by "experts".

Did you ever read the Paleo Diet? Very interesting. He had foods broken down chemically and how the body digests them and uses them.

He said that most seeds like wheat are poisonous to humans. He made a lot of sense. When you watch what animals eat in the wild through their instincts, it even makes more sense. Grazing animals have two stomach chambers, yet we only have one. We aren't designed to disgest grasses and their seeds.
 
Werbung:
Did you ever read the Paleo Diet? Very interesting. He had foods broken down chemically and how the body digests them and uses them.

He said that most seeds like wheat are poisonous to humans. He made a lot of sense. When you watch what animals eat in the wild through their instincts, it even makes more sense. Grazing animals have two stomach chambers, yet we only have one. We aren't designed to disgest grasses and their seeds.

I read "Mark's Daily Apple" daily and am making progress at eating more like he suggests all the time. Under Obamacare the diet Mark Sissson advocates would cause its proponents to be penalized greatly, especially after he called the FDA's food pyramid the "best way to get diabetes".
 
Back
Top