Healthcare Premiums to Rise According to Obama Advisor

[SC_RNDude]

"With the Presidential election one week away, it's worth reviewing how Obamacare will impact the residents of key swing states. In Wisconsin, as elsewhere, Obamacare will drive up the cost of private health coverage, especially for those who buy insurance on their own. One of Obama's key health-care advisers, Jonathan Gruber, found that by 2016, individual premiums in Wisconsin will increase by an average of 30 percent. In addition, Obamacare will deeply cut Medicare Advantage for more than 300,000 Wisconsin seniors enrolled in the program. And 27 percent of Wisconsin physicians say that they will place new or additional limits on accepting Medicare patients."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/10/29/in-wisconsin-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-30-says-obama-adviser/

"With the Presidential election one week away, it's worth reviewing how Obamacare will impact the residents of key swing states. In Ohio, as elsewhere, Obamacare will drive up the cost of private health coverage, especially for those who buy insurance on their own. A non-partisan study found that, by 2017, individual premiums in Ohio will increase by as much as 85 percent. In addition, Obamacare will deeply cut Medicare Advantage for more than 700,000 Ohio seniors enrolled in the program. And more than 30 percent of Ohio physicians say that they will place new or additional limits on accepting Medicare patients."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/10/29/in-ohio-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-55-85/

[Mindful, RN]

...Medicare for All... Vote Obama 2012

[SC_RNDude]

Common sense dictates that premiums would rise in the absence of the ACA. The ACA, among other things, will implement cost-controlling measures to address it. Everyone, including the young & healthy folks who often opt out of purchasing health insurance, will now be participating. That's what makes health insurance work, just like any other insurance. If only wreckless drivers bought car insurance, auto insurance companies would be bankrupt. Having everyone participate is a cost-controlling measure.

Increasing healthcare costs are a big problem. Having everyone purchase insurance does zilch to controll costs. It may bring in more money to help pay for things, but that does nothing to keep costs from increasing.

The way health insurance works is NOTHING like car insurance, or home insurance, or life insurance, etc. Auto insurance works because they operate in a free market, they can charge more and even compete for higher risk customers, they don't pay out for (and aren't forced to by the gov't) routine care of the car that most people could and would pay for on their own, and they don't spend money managing every aspect of the care of the car.

So, even if everyone is forced to purchase it, health insurance will not work the same way those other types of insurance do.

[SC_RNDude]

I had the misfortune, a few years ago, of needing to buy health insurance as an individual. I needed to renew the policy twice. Each time, the monthly premium went up just under 15% -- and this was when I had no claims, and had not cost them a single penny (other than the costs associated with billing me for the premiums ...), during the prior year. You cannot convince me that anything that happens under the ACA would be worse than what the insurance companies are already doing.

Of course, again, I'm not saying I'm any great fan of the ACA -- I would have much preferred a true single-payer system, and not just minor tweaking "around the edges" of our current, seriously dysfunctional system.

I can understand your point of view based on your experience.

When people buy individual insurance, it is usually for a short-term until you get a new job. The insurance company knows that you will likely be a short-term customer, but they are exposing themselves to a big risk. They sometimes have to pay big claims to people who pay premiums for only a couple of months.

Even when you have health insurance through a job, many people are only paying premiums for a few years before they get a different job, or their employer changes health insurance providers. Compare that to your auto or home insurance where many people are customers for much longer periods of time.

This is one of the many many reasons that health insurance is expensive. A simple fix to this specific problem is to open up health insurance to a competitve market and not have it be tied to your job. There are also many other ideas people have to fix our current system that are more feasible then Obamacare or a single-payer system.

[SC_RNDude]

You left out an important quote from the article: "(DISCLOSURE: I am an outside adviser to the Romney campaign on health care issues. The opinions contained herein are mine alone, and do not necessarily correspond to those of the campaign.)" Forbes is already known to have a conservative bias.

Here are some legitimate resources on what will happen with Medicare and Ohio:

Scrutinizing unreasonable premium increases in Ohio:

"In every State and for the first time under Federal law, insurance companies are required to publicly justify their actions if they want to raise rates by 10 percent or more. Ohio has received $5,091,507 under the new law to help fight unreasonable premium increases." How the Health Care Law is Making a Difference for the People of Ohio | HealthCare.gov

Medicare: Medicare Beneficiary Savings and the Affordable Care Act | HealthCare.gov

LOL...I love how you imply the information is wrong just because a outside advisor to the Romney campaign wrote the article and it appeared in Forbes. Yet, a "legitimate resource" is the White House controlled US Dept of Health website about the ACA. Have you considered that resource might be just as or more biased?

Over $5 million to "fight unreasonable premium increases"? What does that even mean? How do they "fight it"? They have to "publicy justify their actions"? What does that mean? And anyway, why would that stop them? Call your insurance company right now and ask them why their rates are what they are. I'm sure they will be happy to justify them to you.

And, care to take a guess as to where that $5 million (and the other millions mentioned in your "legitimate resource") comes from?

[mariebailey, MSN, RN]

Increasing healthcare costs are a big problem. Having everyone purchase insurance does zilch to controll costs. It may bring in more money to help pay for things, but that does nothing to keep costs from increasing.

The way health insurance works is NOTHING like car insurance, or home insurance, or life insurance, etc.

So, even if everyone is forced to purchase it, health insurance will not work the same way those other types of insurance do.

I agree that health insurance works nothing like other types of insurance; otherwise, it would be more affordable. I was making an analogy that apparently didn't get my point across. The point I was making is that the "individual mandate" will keep premiums down b/c it won't be only the sick and unhealthy paying for coverage. Everyone needs to participate for it to work.

[mariebailey, MSN, RN]

Obama 2012!

[SC_RNDude]

I agree that health insurance works nothing like other types of insurance; otherwise, it would be more affordable. I was making an analogy that apparently didn't get my point across. The point I was making is that the "individual mandate" will keep premiums down b/c it won't be only the sick and unhealthy paying for coverage. Everyone needs to participate for it to work.

OK, we agree. The analogy was bad.

That aside, the mandate won't work as intended either.

Edward Zelinsky: The Individual Mandate Won't Work

[mariebailey, MSN, RN]

OK, we agree. The analogy was bad.

That aside, the mandate won't work as intended either.

Edward Zelinsky: The Individual Mandate Won't Work

If you & Edward Zelinsky say it won't work, then it must be true.

[SC_RNDude]

If you & Edward Zelinsky say it won't work, then it must be true.

I'm willing to listen.

The tax penalty costs people much less then it would be to buy insurance, and at the same time the only way they can collect on that tax penalty is to take it out of your refund, and the Obama administration itself admits millions will choose to still not buy insurance.

I don't understand how the mandate will work as intended and as sold as to the American public. Please enlighten me.

BTW, there are many others who also say it won't work. I chose the article I did for my post because it is from a liberal-leaning website which I know is one of your criteria for a "legitimate resource".

[mariebailey, MSN, RN]

I'm willing to listen. Please enlighten me.

BTW, there are many others who also say it won't work. I chose the article I did for my post because it is from a liberal-leaning website which I know is one of your criteria for a "legitimate resource".

No, no, no...that's not my criteria. I am hopeful that it is a step in the right direction to cover the uninsured/underinsured. To say with certainty that it will work flawlessly would be foolish. It looks like our points will be moot b/c the individual mandate is headed our way. We'll see how it goes.

[SC_RNDude]

No, no, no...that's not my criteria. I am hopeful that it is a step in the right direction to cover the uninsured/underinsured. To say with certainty that it will work flawlessly would be foolish. It looks like our points will be moot b/c the individual mandate is headed our way. We'll see how it goes.

Yep we will see. Hopefully I am wrong.

[MunoRN, RN]

Increasing healthcare costs are a big problem. Having everyone purchase insurance does zilch to controll costs. It may bring in more money to help pay for things, but that does nothing to keep costs from increasing.

The way health insurance works is NOTHING like car insurance, or home insurance, or life insurance, etc. Auto insurance works because they operate in a free market, they can charge more and even compete for higher risk customers, they don't pay out for (and aren't forced to by the gov't) routine care of the car that most people could and would pay for on their own, and they don't spend money managing every aspect of the care of the car.

So, even if everyone is forced to purchase it, health insurance will not work the same way those other types of insurance do.

I agree that ACA is mainly cost shifting and does little to control costs, although most attempts to control costs have been met with claims of "death panels" and "socialism".

The car insurance/homeowners insurance example is actually a pretty good analogy. My car insurance company doesn't get involved in routine care of the car, but that's because they aren't covering the car in case it breaks down. My homeowner's insurance doesn't cover a remodel either, but they do require that I replace the roof when it's lifespan is up, they do require that I change my washing machine hoses every three years, maintain my smoke alarms, etc because those do affect what they are covering, because as an insurer it only makes sense to try and avoid whatever it is they are covering rather than just letting it happen.

Medicare covers everyone at some point, they have a clear interest in encouraging basic maintenance to avoid major breakdowns. Imagine you are liable for fixing any mechanical problems in your friends car once it hits 65,000 miles. If your friend was avoiding putting oil in it even though it's near empty because he won't have to pay the bill after 65,000 miles (age 65), don't you think you'd have some interest in making sure oil gets put in the car so you don't have to pay for a new engine?