Phase One of Obamacare Repeal and Replace is Over...

[Shabibilicious]

1 hour ago, RV ME said:

As Spock would say, “Highly illogical.”  A problem cannot be remedied if it is not acknowledged and confronted.  If not, it’s kind of like treating a skin rash and ignoring the cancer causing the rash.  As you treat the symptoms, the underlying disease continues to destroy the patient.

Interesting take.....actual cancer patients being treated by a rash (ACA).    Live long and prosper.

GO RV, then BV   

[bostonangler]

12 hours ago, RV ME said:

Interesting take BA, but as Jax pointed out, quite anecdotal.  Not surprising that those getting subsidies would be happy with their Obummercare, and those who get their insurance from work would notice little difference between now and pre-Obummercare.  Did you ask any of them if they know what their out of pocket cost will be before their “insurance” kicks in?  Did you talk to any of their employers, you know, the one’s that are actually paying the bills for their employees insurance?  Maybe ask if their hiring processes have been altered because of this intrusive law?  I know in my business, the costs have been astronomical to keep some semblance of the insurance we offered pre-ACA.  Did you talk to anyone who is working part time jobs because they cannot get hired full time because of the current law?  How about any doctors regarding the costs they have to incur to comply with the law?  Liberals / progressives are well known for saying that the government should stay out of their bedrooms, so why is it that you don’t care if the government is in your doctor’s office?  More intimate than your bedroom if you ask me.

 

The progressives / liberals have successfully framed the argument in the terms of “health care insurance”, but the tentacles of Obummercare go much deeper than that.  As Jax pointed out, it is (and should have been ruled) unconstitutional.  By what right does the government use to help some while hurting a larger number of others?  You said before that you blame Nixon for the problems in the economy, presumably for taking us off the gold standard.  But I blame FDR and Johnson.  They were the Presidents who cemented the “entitlement” mindset above all others.  Tell me, how has that Social Security program worked out after all these years.  Answer, it is so bad the politicks will not even include the "obligation" in the national debt (makes a thinking person wonder if they really are going to live up to their promise).  And how did Johnson’s war on poverty work out?  More poverty now even after billions of dollars taken form some and given to others, but Johnson was correct when he said “I’ll have those n*****s voting Democrat for 100 years.”

 

I do believe we should help those that truly cannot help themselves, but not so much for those who choose not to help themselves.  My objection to Obummercare is not because I am against “health care for all”.  It is my core belief in the founding principles of this great Country and the Constitution on which it was codified.  The further we get away from those founding principles, the more we become just another failed country in the ash heap of history.  It won’t be long before “the shot heard around the world” will be considered just another bump in the night.

 

You and Jax are true constitutionalist. That is my understanding from what I read. And we all agree our founding fathers were brilliant. If we are to follow their guidance, we need to remove personal income tax. Their vision was for business to pay taxes not individuals. We need to remove The Fed. We need to remove every government agency that is not related to national security. Their vision was to allow states to government themselves. That means no federal highways, no federal drug laws, no federal education standards, no federal social programs, no federal gun laws, no federal health standards, no federal game wardens, no federal speed limits, no federal air quality standards, no federal banking laws, no federal parks, no federal money for housing, no federal disaster assistance. No federal programs at all. No federal regulations outside of national security. No limits on pricing, pollution, hunting endangered species. No help when some sick child molester takes your kid and crosses state lines. Only things that affect national security. Outside of military spending to defend our borders, not those of England, France, Iraq, Japan or whoever, just our borders. It seems pretty simple.

 

B/A

[Jaxinjersey]

3 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

You and Jax are true constitutionalist. That is my understanding from what I read. And we all agree our founding fathers were brilliant. If we are to follow their guidance, we need to remove personal income tax. Their vision was for business to pay taxes not individuals. We need to remove The Fed. We need to remove every government agency that is not related to national security. Their vision was to allow states to government themselves. That means no federal highways, no federal drug laws, no federal education standards, no federal social programs, no federal gun laws, no federal health standards, no federal game wardens, no federal speed limits, no federal air quality standards, no federal banking laws, no federal parks, no federal money for housing, no federal disaster assistance. No federal programs at all. No federal regulations outside of national security. No limits on pricing, pollution, hunting endangered species. No help when some sick child molester takes your kid and crosses state lines. Only things that affect national security. Outside of military spending to defend our borders, not those of England, France, Iraq, Japan or whoever, just our borders. It seems pretty simple.

 

B/A

Stay focused, B/A... we're talking about the ACA... period.  The ACA is the only one of these intrusions that leaves a citizen with ZERO options for participation.  It is in essence, extortion.  My only participatory "qualification" is that I'm breathing.  I am afforded ZERO opt-out opportunities.  Let's address that, specifically... we can discuss your other observations later.  Perhaps you could respond to my earlier post...

I will "paint" you a detailed personal picture... if you need further clarity in understanding how this is a violation of personal choice... that there is NO choice.

BTW... I am a constitutionalist as it applies to the individual default.  In that, I am afforded opt-out opportunities from collective mandates, good or bad.

[bostonangler]

2 minutes ago, Jaxinjersey said:

Stay focused, B/A... we're talking about the ACA... period.  The ACA is the only one of these intrusions that leaves a citizen with ZERO options for participation.  It is in essence, extortion.  My only participatory "qualification" is that I'm breathing.  I am afforded ZERO opt-out opportunities.  Let's address that, specifically... we can discuss your other observations later.  Perhaps you could respond to my earlier post...

I will "paint" you a detailed personal picture... if you need further clarity in understanding how this is a violation of personal choice... that there is NO choice.

BTW... I am a constitutionalist as it applies to the individual default.  In that, I am afforded opt-out opportunities from collective mandates, good or bad.

Sorry Jax, as a constitutionalist I now see no reason to debate any federal programs other than to say dump them. If it is not for our national security it has no place in our federal government. Obamacare, Trumpcare, Ryancare, they all are off the board. Americans need to start the fight to repeal every federal agency and program. We can not spend our tax dollars helping people, countries, animals, agriculture, or anything else. In fact we need to eliminate the marching bands and football teams associated with our armed forces. They have no impact on national security.

 

B/A

[Jaxinjersey]

4 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

Sorry Jax, as a constitutionalist I now see no reason to debate any federal programs other than to say dump them. If it is not for our national security it has no place in our federal government. Obamacare, Trumpcare, Ryancare, they all are off the board. Americans need to start the fight to repeal every federal agency and program. We can not spend our tax dollars helping people, countries, animals, agriculture, or anything else. In fact we need to eliminate the marching bands and football teams associated with our armed forces. They have no impact on national security.

 

B/A

Nothing to be sorry about... I don't think we're disagreeing, B/A.  I'm just attempting to stay on topic, as well as differentiate it from any other mandate/law... how it, specifically is destroying lives... and why people don't see that.  I do... because it is happening to me.  So, please forgive my personal angst... it is elevated, beyond reconciliation.

[bostonangler]

25 minutes ago, Jaxinjersey said:

Nothing to be sorry about... I don't think we're disagreeing, B/A.  I'm just attempting to stay on topic, as well as differentiate it from any other mandate/law... how it, specifically is destroying lives... and why people don't see that.  I do... because it is happening to me.  So, please forgive my personal angst... it is elevated, beyond reconciliation.

No problem we have all suffered hard times, just stay on course and you will prevail.

 

B/A

[Jaxinjersey]

3 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

No problem we have all suffered hard times, just stay on course and you will prevail.

 

B/A

I always desire more from you... and you always come up short.  You are providing encouragement, but without understanding the true circumstances... which I've offered.

As much as I appreciate your thoughts, that's not the purpose of this thread... that's what you fail to see.  All concern is empty, unless it addresses the true premise, which I am willing to reveal and discuss.  Why do you think many of us feel this is so important to discuss truthfully, exposed, and transparent?  There is no way to prevail is this ACA arena... only hopefully survive.  This is also why I (and others} are so vigilant towards the Umbertino issue.  It's self-preservation.

I'm sure there are some "friends" here that would take some sick pleasure in my personal demise.  It is quite evident by their failure to respect and understand the personal suffering caused by such apathy... and their failure to engage in genuine concern.  All they see is a collective battle... not an individual's battle.  They have revealed themselves.  It's a sickness, that I have true empathy for...  but, they are no longer friends...  that's on them, their agenda, and their duplicity.

So, thank you B/A for at least engaging...  but don't gloss over it.  Surviving is not living.

[bostonangler]

2 minutes ago, Jaxinjersey said:

I always desire more from you... and you always come up short.  You are providing encouragement, but without understanding the true circumstances... which I've offered.

As much as I appreciate your thoughts, that's not the purpose of this thread... that's what you fail to see.  All concern is empty, unless it addresses the true premise, which I am willing to reveal and discuss.  Why do you think many of us feel this is so important to discuss truthfully, exposed, and transparent?  There is no way to prevail is this ACA arena... only hopefully survive.  This is also why I (and others} are so vigilant towards the Umbertino issue.  It's self-preservation.

I'm sure there are some "friends" here that would take some sick pleasure in my personal demise.  It is quite evident by their failure to respect and understand the personal suffering caused by such apathy... and their failure to engage in genuine concern.  All they see is a collective battle... not an individual's battle.  They have revealed themselves.  It's a sickness, that I have true empathy for...  but, they are no longer friends...  that's on them, their agenda, and their duplicity.

So, thank you B/A for at least engaging...  but don't gloss over it.  Surviving is not living.

Truly Jax, I hope the best for you. I'm not trying to gloss over anything. I consider you very intelligent from what I've read in your writings. That is the reason I offer a positive wish of well being for you and your family. Discussing politics is engaging and even entertaining, but I do not wish ill will to anyone. Good luck I do hope things turn the direction you need for them to turn.

 

B/A

[Shabibilicious]

10 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

Truly Jax, I hope the best for you. I'm not trying to gloss over anything. I consider you very intelligent from what I've read in your writings. That is the reason I offer a positive wish of well being for you and your family. Discussing politics is engaging and even entertaining, but I do not wish ill will to anyone. Good luck I do hope things turn the direction you need for them to turn.

Please, allow me to interject.....if you don't see that WE ALL need things to turn in the right direction, then you are complicit and therefore, part of the problem.  Simply wishing somebody good luck is not enough.  As always, this is how it was put to me months ago.  

GO RV, then BV

Edited March 28, 2017 by Shabibilicious

[Jaxinjersey]

3 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

Truly Jax, I hope the best for you. I'm not trying to gloss over anything. I consider you very intelligent from what I've read in your writings. That is the reason I offer a positive wish of well being for you and your family. Discussing politics is engaging and even entertaining, but I do not wish ill will to anyone. Good luck I do hope things turn the direction you need for them to turn.

 

B/A

Fair enough, B/A... we are strangers.  I'll keep you and other members that care, informed as to my status.  But when you want to comprehensively discuss a subject like the ACA (specifically, not compared to anything else), and have a more genuine impact... let me know.  Meanwhile, I could only advise you to tread lightly in subject matters you don't fully understand.  It's too important to those that do.

Of course, I wish you and your family the best, as well.

Jax

[bostonangler]

1 minute ago, Shabibilicious said:

Please, allow me to interject.....if you don't see that WE ALL need things to turn in the right direction, then you are complicit and therefore, part of the problem.  As always, this is how it was put to me months ago.  

GO RV, then BV

I don't wish bad things on anyone, not even those who see things otherwise. I may not agree from time to time, but wishing ill will like some I see here just isn't my style!

 

B/A 

[Shabibilicious]

2 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

I don't wish bad things on anyone, not even those who see things otherwise. I may not agree from time to time, but wishing ill will like some I see here just isn't my style!

 

B/A 

Trust me, I understand more than you could possibly ever fathom.  

GO RV, then BV 

[Jaxinjersey]

2 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

Please, allow me to interject.....if you don't see that WE ALL need things to turn in the right direction, then you are complicit and therefore, part of the problem.  As always, this is how it was put to me months ago.  

GO RV, then BV

This was a personal response and sentiment from B/A to me, so F-off.  Stay away from my posts and/or referencing my content.

[Shabibilicious]

Hey?!!....What's "F-off" mean?....Anybody?...Bueller?....Bueller?   

GO RV, then BV

[Whatshername]

 

Alabama Congressman Files One-Sentence Bill to Repeal Obamacare

Carter Mar 27th, 2017

Short, sweet and to the point . . .

A bill filed in the House of Representatives by Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama cuts to the heart of the Obamacare problem with more brevity than most would expect.

Over the course of just two pages, the congressman from Huntsville laid out what is to be called the “Obamacare Repeal Act”. In even more tact, the meat and potatoes of the bill are boiled down to one sentence:

“Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.”

You can read Rep. Brooks’ bill in full here:

Obamacare Repeal Act  (open in browser)

 

[Jaxinjersey]

6 minutes ago, Whatshername said:

 

Alabama Congressman Files One-Sentence Bill to Repeal Obamacare

Carter Mar 27th, 2017

Short, sweet and to the point . . .

A bill filed in the House of Representatives by Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama cuts to the heart of the Obamacare problem with more brevity than most would expect.

Over the course of just two pages, the congressman from Huntsville laid out what is to be called the “Obamacare Repeal Act”. In even more tact, the meat and potatoes of the bill are boiled down to one sentence:

“Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.”

You can read Rep. Brooks’ bill in full here:

Obamacare Repeal Act  (open in browser)

 

That's what I'm talking about!  A pragmatic simplistic formula, over the quagmire of irrelevant details.  Go Mo!  Pragmatic Warrior!  

Thank you WHN... today could be a great day to remember! 

 

[RV ME]

8 hours ago, Whatshername said:

 

Alabama Congressman Files One-Sentence Bill to Repeal Obamacare

Carter Mar 27th, 2017

Short, sweet and to the point . . .

 

“Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.”

 

 

   

[Shabibilicious]

8 hours ago, Whatshername said:

 

“Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.”

You can read Rep. Brooks’ bill in full here:

Obamacare Repeal Act  (open in browser)

 

Honest questions.....What would actually happen if a bill like this came to fruition for the people who had joined through the exchanges?....would their coverage cease to exist?....could their insurance company say, sorry about your luck, never happened, you're on your own, we don't know you and you're not covered?.....would a hospital bill for the entire amount show up in the mail?.....or could a person simply and lawfully walk away from any financial obligation to the health provider?  Will everybody get their money back since it never happened?....if so, who would pay for that?.....How would it work?  

GO RV, then BV

Edited March 29, 2017 by Shabibilicious

[Whatshername]

On 3/27/2017 at 0:53 PM, Jaxinjersey said:

... I am one of the harmed.  It is unconstitutional to me.  It is destroying my life, at the shameless "benefit" of others....

 

Jax, I'm very sorry to hear about your healthcare experience.  I'm a good listener... if you want to share;)  We were all lied to that Obummercare would be "affordable".  You seem to have suffered the extreme consequences of that lie.  I think the most insulting and damaging part was that they had to disrupt 300+ million people to insure 20 million. No, it was "if you like your doctor or plan, you can keep it".  Or maybe it was that we're too stupid to see that single-payer was the true goal of the leftist government interference.  Hard to pick since the entire law had no redeeming quality.  

 

These leftist are squealing loudly about all the 'cancer patients, womyn's health "issues", blah blah blah'... as though we really are the heartless ones they've been told (nobody wants sick people to be denied care).  But where's their compassion for you and the tens of millions like you who have been priced out of the market?  They wanted you to PAY...so THEY could redistribute your wealth, and to suffer for your success... it's immoral.

 

[Whatshername]

9 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

Honest questions.....What would actually happen if a bill like this came to fruition for the people who had joined through the exchanges?....would their coverage cease to exist?....could their insurance company say, sorry about your luck, never happened, you're on your own, we don't know you and you're not covered?.....would a hospital bill for the entire amount show up in the mail?.....or could a person simply and lawfully walk away from any financial obligation to the health provider?  Will everybody get their money back since it never happened?....if so, who would pay for that?.....How would it work?  

GO RV, then BV

Great questions, Shabs.  I'd read this piece a few weeks ago but couldn't remember where... I had to sift through 6 pages of liberal google BS articles to find it!  I don't pretend to understand all the ramifications of ripping off the bandaid but this doesn't sound bad (and is way cheaper because the author hasn't even factoring in that, without Obamacare’s mandates, premiums would drop)...

What Would Happen to People Under an Obamacare Alternative?

Jeffrey H. Anderson 

There has been a lot of speculation about what will happen to various people if Obamacare is repealed and replaced with a conservative alternative. Would millions lose coverage, as some have claimed, because they couldn’t keep their plan and couldn’t afford a new plan? Or would people be freed up to buy more affordable insurance than is available under Obamacare? In light of such questions, let’s take five representative individuals or families and see what would happen to them:

Example #1: Maria Richards, a 34-year-old single woman living in Tucson, Arizona and making $42,000 a year

Maria liked her health plan and doctor, but she lost both when Obamacare was passed and the insurance that she’d freely chosen violated its mandates. Maria is healthy and had a plan that cost $1,424 a year in premiums—exactly the median premium on the eve of Obamacare’s implementation (according to the Government Accountability Office) for a healthy 30-year-old woman (Maria’s age then) in Arizona. (Maria’s plan didn’t cover routine care that she could easily pay for out of pocket without a middleman taking a cut—that’s where her plan ran afoul of Obamacare—but it provided wide doctor and hospital networks and good coverage in case she ever got seriously ill or injured.)

Maria isn’t eligible for an Obamacare subsidy—she’s too young and too middle class—and the 2nd-cheapest “silver” plan (Obamacare’s benchmark plan) would cost her almost $4,000 a year ($3,980). Maria doesn’t want to spend four grand on insurance—and while she’d rather be insured, she knows Obamacare’s “community rating” mandate makes it easy to game the system and still be protected if she ever really gets sick. So instead of paying the extravagant premiums under Obamacare, she’s paying the individual mandate penalty—$1,050 for her in 2017. In other words, she’s paying almost as much under Obamacare for the privilege of being uninsured as she paid for insurance in the pre-Obamacare era.

If Obamacare were repealed and replaced with a conservative alternative, Maria would likely have a 1-time buy-in period (a feature of the House Republicans’ “Better Way” plan), during which time she couldn’t be charged more, or denied coverage, because of a preexisting condition that she might have acquired while being priced out of the insurance market under Obamacare. If that alternative had tax credits in the amounts proposed by new Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, she’d get a tax credit for $1,200.

If this tax credit is really a tax credit (Obamacare’s “tax credits” are really direct subsidies to insurance companies), it would come to Maria purely in the form of a tax cut (as she currently pays almost $4,000 in federal income taxes). If she were to use that $1,200 tax cut and supplement it with even half the money she’s currently paying for violating the unconstitutional individual mandate, she’d have $1,725 available for insurance ($301 more than she spent pre-Obamacare), plus another $525 left in her pocket.

So, Maria would get a $1,200 tax cut instead of a $1,050 fine, and she’d be insured. For her, repeal and replacement would be a win-win-win—and that’s before even factoring in that, without Obamacare’s mandates, premiums would drop.

Example #2: the Millers, a family of four that lives in Chicago, makes $34,000, and has 50-year-old parents and two college-aged kids—one of whom, Denny, has an expensive medical condition

The Millers are among the minority of Americans who have benefitted from Obamacare. Fully $12,067 worth of the taxpayer-funded subsidies that Obamacare pays to insurance companies funnel the Millers’ way. The 2nd-cheapest “silver” plan ($13,242) therefore costs them only $1,175. They greatly value their insurance, as their son Denny needs regular, expensive care.

Under the alternative described in the previous example, the Millers wouldn’t need to worry about being denied coverage, or being charged more, because of Denny’s condition. Even apart from the 1-time buy-in period, they’d be protected from such denials or upcharges because they’ve been maintaining insurance all along. Even though they don’t pay any income taxes, they would get a refundable tax credit of $7,800 ($3,000 per adult plus $900 per child) to use to buy insurance of their choice—or $7,800 more than they would have gotten before Obamacare was passed. They could use it to buy their Obamacare plan, which would then cost them $5,442 of their own money, or they could shop for value and buy a plan for closer to $9,000, which would cost them almost exactly as much—$1,200—as they pay under Obamacare.

As for out-of-pocket costs (copays, deductibles, etc.), if the alternative were to follow a Price-like model, the Millers would get an additional 1-time, $1,000-per-person tax credit if they chose to open an health savings account. That would give them $4,000 in seed money for covering out-of-pocket costs.

The Millers might not be better off under repeal and replacement (although they might), but they would fare quite well. They’d remain insured, they’d have more choice of plans, and the American taxpayer would be extremely generous in funding their $7,800 in assistance.

Example #3: Joe and Lisa Jackson, a 40-year-old married couple living in San Francisco and making $65,000

The Jacksons’ neighbors who get health insurance through their jobs get it tax-free, but the Jacksons not only don’t get a tax break for buying their own health insurance, they get $0 in Obamacare subsidies. Under Obamacare, they bought the 2nd-cheapest “silver” plan, which costs them $10,652, about a fifth of their after-tax income (but at least they get “free” birth control!)

Under the alternative described above, the Jacksons would get a $4,200 tax credit ($2,100 apiece) to use to buy insurance of their choice. Since they pay more than $5,500 in federal income taxes (and about $12,000 including payroll and state income taxes), this tax credit would be a $4,200 tax cut—giving them about an 8 percent boost in their after-tax income (the rough equivalent of an extra month’s pay). In addition, they’d have more choices of plans, and the plans would be more affordable. If they changed plans, as they likely would, they couldn’t be charged more—or denied coverage—for a preexisting condition, because they have been buying (overpriced) insurance all along.

Example #4: Jim and Pam Baker, a 55-year-old married couple living in Wilmington, Delaware and making $22,000 a year

Under Obamacare, the Bakers are on Medicaid, like most of the “newly insured” under Obamacare. The Bakers don’t really consider Medicaid to be “insurance,” but it is coverage of some sort. The Bakers are not poor—they’re some $6,000 above the poverty line—but they are of modest means. They’re frustrated by the long wait times and limited doctor access under Medicaid, and they’d like to be on real insurance.

Under the alternative discussed above, they’d get a $6,000 refundable tax credit ($3,000 apiece) to use to buy insurance of their choice, and they’d get a 1-time, $2,000 tax credit ($1,000 apiece) if they were to open an HSA. In addition, because of the 1-time buy-in period, they couldn’t be charged more, or denied coverage, because of a preexisting condition.

On the eve of Obamacare’s implementation, the median annual premium for a healthy 55-year-old couple in Delaware was $7,246, per the GAO, meaning half the plans were cheaper than that. With a $6,000 tax credit, the Bakers would be able to buy real insurance.

Example #5: the Garcias, a family of four that lives in Canton, Ohio, makes $89,000, and has 44-year-old parents

Before Obamacare, the Garcias had insurance for $5,219—the exact midpoint between the median and cheapest plan for a healthy family of four with 40-year-old parents (their age then) in Ohio, according to the GAO. They liked their plan but lost their plan because of Obamacare. Now their insurance, the 2nd-cheapest “silver” plan, costs $8,147—or 56 percent more than their prior plan, which had a wider doctor network. They get $0 in Obamacare subsidies, and while their neighbors get a tax-break for their job-based insurance, the Garcias wonder why they don’t get a tax break for buying their own insurance.

Under an alternative like the one discussed above, the Garcias would get a $6,000 tax credit ($2,100 per adult, $900 per child) to use to buy insurance of their choice. Since they pay slightly more than $6,000 in federal income tax, this tax credit would come entirely in the form of a tax cut. If the Garcias found insurance at their old price—$5,219—they could deposit the $781 in savings from their $6,000 tax credit into an HSA that they would control. They’d be far better off in this scenario than under Obamacare.

These examples suggest what would be true writ large: The vast majority of Americans—especially the middle class and the young—would benefit from having Obamacare be repealed and replaced with a well-conceived conservative alternative. And even the few who have benefitted under Obamacare would do just fine under such an alternative.

Scoring by the nonpartisan Center for Health and Economy found that a similar alternative (released by the 2017 Project, which I ran) would cut federal spending by more than $1 trillion over a decade, reduce premiums substantially, and lead to more people having private insurance than under Obamacare.

[bostonangler]

How ObamaCare Affects Health Insurance Premium Rates

ObamaCare Insurance premiums are a sore subject with many readers; however, ObamaCare insurance premium increases are a response to the protections contained within the law, such as the mandate for insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Other parts of the law like the rate review provision and the creation of the health insurance marketplace help to reduce premium costs.

Before we discuss how the Affordable Care Act’s provisions both increase and decrease premiums, it’s important to understand that health insurance premium rates have been rising at alarming rates over the past decade due to the rising cost of health care in the U.S. In fact premium rates are rising faster than income which is part of the cause of Americans lacking access to Affordable Health Insurance.

Let’s take a in-depth look at ObamaCare insurance premiums, how the law both increases and decreases premium rates, what new protections you have against rate hikes, why your provider may be raising your rates, and how to Acquire Affordable Health Insurance that is protected under the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare).

Why Are Health Insurance Premiums Rising Under ObamaCare?

The primary cause of the insurance premium rate hikes under ObamaCare is the requirement for insurers to cover high-risk consumers. Insurance companies can no longer deny Americans with pre-existing conditions and can’t charge higher rates based on health status or gender. These factors, along with a few other required benefits, rights and protections (like the elimination of lifetime and annual dollar limits) led to rate increases between 2010 and 2014.

By 2015 a lot of the premium growth has slowed, and health care spending is curbed for the first time in the decade in many instances. On top of that, many Americans can now Get Reduced Premium Rates and lower out-of-pocket costs by enrolling in a plan on their State’s health insurance marketplace.

The need for healthcare reform is obvious, the real question is, “does the ObamaCare (The Affordable Care Act) do enough to make insurance more affordable through it’s mandates, marketplace, and it’s new provisions, like the medical loss ratio and rate review provision, to protect consumers against insurance premium rate hikes moving forward.”

FACT: Some regions saw bigger premium hikes than others under the ACA. Also lower-income adults (under the 400% Federal Poverty Level) are the most likely to see a reduction in what they pay. Those with high-end plans, who had been in exclusive groups due to being healthy, saw the biggest premium increase. Post 2015 fluctuations, common as the law was transitioning to it’s new protections, are projected to curb and remain curbed over time.

ObamaCare Premiums in 2015

Reports are showing that premiums seeing average increase in premium growth of only 4% in 2015.  In some major cities rates are even going down before subsidies. The cost of insurance premiums varies wildly by region, so not everyone is expected to see rates go down or stay about the same.  Regardless of rate increases specific to your insurer and your region you’ll want to sign into your states marketplace and check out the new plans being offered in 2015 and make sure all of your information is up to date before December 15th, 2014.

 

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-health-insurance-premiums/

 

 

Sounds like you should be angry at insurance companies more than the politicians... JMHO

 

B/A

[Jaxinjersey]

4 hours ago, Whatshername said:

 

Jax, I'm very sorry to hear about your healthcare experience.  I'm a good listener... if you want to share;)  We were all lied to that Obummercare would be "affordable".  You seem to have suffered the extreme consequences of that lie.  I think the most insulting and damaging part was that they had to disrupt 300+ million people to insure 20 million. No, it was "if you like your doctor or plan, you can keep it".  Or maybe it was that we're too stupid to see that single-payer was the true goal of the leftist government interference.  Hard to pick since the entire law had no redeeming quality.  

 

These leftist are squealing loudly about all the 'cancer patients, womyn's health "issues", blah blah blah'... as though we really are the heartless ones they've been told (nobody wants sick people to be denied care).  But where's their compassion for you and the tens of millions like you who have been priced out of the market?  They wanted you to PAY...so THEY could redistribute your wealth, and to suffer for your success... it's immoral.

 

Thank you, WHN, for your care and attention.

I have posted my relative experience here on DV at least half a dozen times over the past couple of years when the subject came up... Yet, I received no responses.

My posts were not to complain or whine, but merely to emphatically attempt to educate others to what had TRULY occurred, and is occurring to many many citizens.

And, as you noted, I was affected at the extreme level... hence I have the MOST accurate understanding of the dynamics, above and beyond even the professionals in healthcare and insurance carriers/brokers/salespeople...

It has become a mantra among my peers of professionals, friends and family when (IF) they're looking for answers concerning the ACA... "ask Jax..."

The initial reaction is ALWAYS disbelief... turned to outrage, and of course, condolences.  But, I remind them... it's not just me.  It's the country.

With all that, as it further translates to the current narrative...

I am finding it outrageously ironic, and a bit hypocritical, that all of a sudden people (even here on DV) are wondering how a repeal/replacement is going to affect all those on Obamacare.  Really?  As WHN noted... where was all the concern when millions of lives were turned upside down BECAUSE of the ACA?

Perhaps it will affect them the same as it affected me, and millions of others... that's all I'd like to say about that right now.

So, for those who knew... those who cared... and those yet willing to learn and understand... THANK YOU.

Jax

[Whatshername]

4 hours ago, bostonangler said:

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-health-insurance-premiums/

Sounds like you should be angry at insurance companies more than the politicians... JMHO

Well, you know what they say about opinions.  I think after all the lies we can call     on your source there, BA.  Really... it's just insulting.  

[Whatshername]

14 minutes ago, Jaxinjersey said:

... The initial reaction is ALWAYS disbelief... turned to outrage, and of course, condolences.  But, I remind them... it's not just me.  It's the country...

Hang in there Jax (and take extra good care of yourself)... this nightmare is almost over.  I'll tell you what... we celebrated the day our oldest turned 26!  It was like getting a raise!  1 down, 2 to go...  

[Jaxinjersey]

7 minutes ago, Whatshername said:

Well, you know what they say about opinions.  I think after all the lies we can call     on your source there, BA.  Really... it's just insulting.  

It is insulting, because the truth is just too far over peoples' heads when they stick them in the ground...

I'm not the biggest fan of the insurance companies, but I did have competitive choices pre-ACA.  My pre-ACA plan was under $300/mo.

Further, due to ACA, the insurance companies are MANDATED to provide insurance under a universal metric, raising premiums as a FACTORED result.  There was (is) not much they could do about it.  The tiered PLANS are "one size fits all".  Really... I have the same needs as a woman?  I have the same needs as a parent with dependent children?

For example, my premium (the lowest/cheapest... BRONZE PLAN) was $700/mo.  I HAD TO pay for pediatric dental care, even though I don't have child dependents...

I also HAD TO pay for women's care/preventive care insurance!

These are just two of the metrics that raised premiums!