If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Insurance exchange premiums lower than expected. And they said Obamacare wouldn't work   (money.cnn.com) divider line 227
    More: Spiffy, obamacare, California, premiums, Blue Cross Blue Shield, out-of-pocket costs, Kaiser Permanente, health insurers  
•       •       •

2047 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 May 2013 at 6:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



227 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-23 11:49:25 PM
That is based upon the expectation that healthy people will sign up. I'll wait to see how things play out.
 
2013-05-24 12:05:16 AM
$304 a month is not cheap for health insurance for an individual.  If I had to pay that at my current company I'd drop it altogether.
 
2013-05-24 12:15:13 AM

Lsherm: $304 a month is not cheap for health insurance for an individual.  If I had to pay that at my current company I'd drop it altogether.


Your employer probably does pay that amount (or close to it); your contribution towards it is masked by your employer's huge contribution.
 
2013-05-24 12:53:01 AM

themindiswatching: Your employer probably does pay that amount (or close to it); your contribution towards it is masked by your employer's huge contribution.


THIS.

If you were self-employed, shopping on the open market, you'd be paying close to $500 a month for whatever coverage you have now through a corporate plan.. Your employer probably pays close to 2/3 of that in bulk discount purchases, and then absorbs 80% of the remainder and you only pay 20% of the total cost.  The rest is considered a benefit of employment.
 
2013-05-24 06:15:04 AM
Good.
 
2013-05-24 06:20:24 AM
"They" only said Obamacare (which is really Romneycare, but whatever) wouldn't work, because it was politically expedient to 'Oppose the Black Guy'. This plan is exactly what the GOP wanted, and they damn well know it.

Bunch of racist hypocrites.
 
2013-05-24 06:28:30 AM
Once this is all in place, we'll be hearing what an awesome Republican initiative it was. Give it two, three election cycles, tops.
 
2013-05-24 06:31:30 AM

feckingmorons: That is based upon the expectation that healthy people will sign up. I'll wait to see how things play out.


I heard somewhere about some kind of mandate that everyone buys insurance.
 
2013-05-24 06:37:29 AM

MmmmBacon: "They" only said Obamacare (which is really Romneycare, but whatever) wouldn't work, because it was politically expedient to 'Oppose the Black Guy'. This plan is exactly what the GOP wanted, and they damn well know it.

Bunch of racist hypocrites.


...as evidenced by the harmonious relationship the GOP had with the last white Democratic president.
 
2013-05-24 06:38:06 AM
It's not single-payer, so it's a continuation of the broken system. The question at the end of the day is: if you have a terribly costly sickness or injury, are you at risk of going bankrupt?

That there are things like limits to coverage amounts shows that someone of limited income could get sick and costs could exceed the coverage amounts.

Obamacare (or Romneycare) is a way to make private insurance companies rich at the expense of the average American.
 
2013-05-24 06:38:44 AM

MmmmBacon: "They" only said Obamacare (which is really Romneycare, but whatever) wouldn't work, because it was politically expedient to 'Oppose the Black Guy'. This plan is exactly what the GOP wanted, and they damn well know it.

Bunch of racist hypocrites.



Thanks for clearing that up.

www.frugal-cafe.com
 
2013-05-24 06:39:52 AM
They use the words "could" and "may" instead of "will." Of course, this is an "estimate." Which, in government-speak, means that the actual number will be closer to twice that.
 
2013-05-24 06:40:01 AM

Lyonid: MmmmBacon: "They" only said Obamacare (which is really Romneycare, but whatever) wouldn't work, because it was politically expedient to 'Oppose the Black Guy'. This plan is exactly what the GOP wanted, and they damn well know it.

Bunch of racist hypocrites.

...as evidenced by the harmonious relationship the GOP had with the last white Democratic president.


They didn't try to sabotage the entire nation back then.
 
2013-05-24 06:46:27 AM
This is CNN.
 
2013-05-24 06:57:32 AM

diaphoresis: MmmmBacon: "They" only said Obamacare (which is really Romneycare, but whatever) wouldn't work, because it was politically expedient to 'Oppose the Black Guy'. This plan is exactly what the GOP wanted, and they damn well know it.

Bunch of racist hypocrites.


Thanks for clearing that up.

[www.frugal-cafe.com image 443x505]


They sell a cream for your hurty butt at the store, you know. Also, you could probably get actual facts that weren't made up by FOX if you tried. Or cared.
 
2013-05-24 07:00:31 AM
I'm still curious about how all this will affect those of us with employment-provided health plans.
 
2013-05-24 07:03:59 AM
Meanwhile in Texas

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-05-24 07:06:15 AM

Alphax: Lyonid: MmmmBacon: "They" only said Obamacare (which is really Romneycare, but whatever) wouldn't work, because it was politically expedient to 'Oppose the Black Guy'. This plan is exactly what the GOP wanted, and they damn well know it.

Bunch of racist hypocrites.

...as evidenced by the harmonious relationship the GOP had with the last white Democratic president.

They didn't try to sabotage the entire nation back then.


Yes... they did.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-24 07:06:45 AM

WhyteRaven74: Meanwhile in Texas


Technically he is in my chain of command so I'm not allowed to say that I just want to punch his smary face.
 
2013-05-24 07:07:19 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: The question at the end of the day is: if you have a terribly costly sickness or injury, are you at risk of going bankrupt?


No.  Coverage is not limited and costs are limited for an individual based on their income.
 
2013-05-24 07:10:16 AM

clkeagle: Alphax: Lyonid: MmmmBacon: "They" only said Obamacare (which is really Romneycare, but whatever) wouldn't work, because it was politically expedient to 'Oppose the Black Guy'. This plan is exactly what the GOP wanted, and they damn well know it.

Bunch of racist hypocrites.

...as evidenced by the harmonious relationship the GOP had with the last white Democratic president.

They didn't try to sabotage the entire nation back then.

Yes... they did.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x265]


Well, they're much more broad in their attacks on the nation now.
 
2013-05-24 07:12:55 AM

themindiswatching: Lsherm: $304 a month is not cheap for health insurance for an individual.  If I had to pay that at my current company I'd drop it altogether.

Your employer probably does pay that amount (or close to it); your contribution towards it is masked by your employer's huge contribution.


you still pay for it. that money your employer pays is just not on your check it goes the the insurance company.
 
2013-05-24 07:23:14 AM

Lyonid: MmmmBacon: "They" only said Obamacare (which is really Romneycare, but whatever) wouldn't work, because it was politically expedient to 'Oppose the Black Guy'. This plan is exactly what the GOP wanted, and they damn well know it.

Bunch of racist hypocrites.

...as evidenced by the harmonious relationship the GOP had with the last white Democratic president.


This is true, the republicans will flush the country if a democrat is president no matter what his skin color is.

The fact that most racists are republican is a coincidence.
 
2013-05-24 07:25:19 AM
Cost now has a variable meaning. Like how those bidding sites say that it will only "cost"* you $20 for a new 70" flatscreen TV. It will only "cost"** $304 a month for your health insurance.

*=not including the price of the bid itself
**=not including the amount subsidized by state and federal agencies..
 
2013-05-24 07:25:20 AM

themindiswatching: Lsherm: $304 a month is not cheap for health insurance for an individual.  If I had to pay that at my current company I'd drop it altogether.

Your employer probably does pay that amount (or close to it); your contribution towards it is masked by your employer's huge contribution.


In a sense, it's still coming out of your pocket.  That's money that your employer is paying for your services that you aren't seeing go to your wallet, whether it's $60/month or $600/month.  The only difference is how much gets shown on your paystub.

I have 100% employer contribution for my health insurance, but I'm under no illusion that it's "free" on my end.
 
2013-05-24 07:29:41 AM

Mrbogey: Cost now has a variable meaning. Like how those bidding sites say that it will only "cost"* you $20 for a new 70" flatscreen TV. It will only "cost"** $304 a month for your health insurance.

*=not including the price of the bid itself
**=not including the amount subsidized by state and federal agencies..


No shiat. Everyone already knows this.
 
2013-05-24 07:30:59 AM

Alphax: Well, they're much more broad in their attacks on the nation now.


It's all about spin. In '95-'96, journalists actually investigated stories.

Now, the GOP's echo chamber owns most of the nation's media. So they are free to roll us back to the 1890s, as long as they fabricate a story about how much good it will do the nation.
 
2013-05-24 07:37:00 AM

markfara: Once this is all in place, we'll be hearing what an awesome Republican initiative it was. Give it two, three election cycles, tops.


That era's version of the Tea Party will be riding around on their disability scooters protesting with signs that read: "Keep your government hands off of my Obamacare".  Although with their penchant for revisionist history, like calling Reagan's "Lifeline" program "Obamaphones", they will probably call it "Reagancare".  That, or claim Obama was a Republican like with MLK and how they say GW Bush, who they labeled as the "Second coming of Reagan" when elected POTUS, is now a "liberal".
 
2013-05-24 07:39:50 AM

WhyteRaven74: Meanwhile in Texas

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 784x712]


Rick Perry knows three things which are broken in that system.
 
2013-05-24 07:48:32 AM

MmmmBacon: "They" only said Obamacare (which is really Romneycare, but whatever) wouldn't work, because it was politically expedient to 'Oppose the Black Guy'. This plan is exactly what the GOP wanted, and they damn well know it.

Bunch of racist hypocrites.


I oppose both
 
2013-05-24 07:50:11 AM
Well, it's not single-payer, but it's better than nothing.
 
2013-05-24 07:50:40 AM

Hobodeluxe: themindiswatching: Lsherm: $304 a month is not cheap for health insurance for an individual.  If I had to pay that at my current company I'd drop it altogether.

Your employer probably does pay that amount (or close to it); your contribution towards it is masked by your employer's huge contribution.

you still pay for it. that money your employer pays is just not on your check it goes the the insurance company.


Some people actually believe that if their employer didn't pay for their insurance they would pay their employees more.
 
2013-05-24 07:51:35 AM
Subby, "they" say a lot of things and literally none of it is true.
 
2013-05-24 07:53:14 AM

feckingmorons: That is based upon the expectation that healthy people will sign up. I'll wait to see how things play out.


That's the beauty of the Death Panels.  Their job is to go around killing sick people so that premiums stay low.
 
2013-05-24 08:01:09 AM

cirby: They use the words "could" and "may" instead of "will." Of course, this is an "estimate." Which, in government-speak, means that the actual number will be closer to twice that.


...which is still lower than the old estimate (and hopefully, uses the same assumptions and formulae, otherwise, it's a useless comparison).

And I don't know about CA, but in some states, HI companies can't raise rates without approval, so their rates are known months in advance - these may be "published" rates, as set in stone as such things can be.
 
2013-05-24 08:03:22 AM
I'm getting a kick out of all these people witching about prices for health insurance.

The last contract house I worked for charged us consultants $1650 a month for health insurance for a family of 3 (me, wife, crotchfruit).  Yes, I could have gotten better coverage for less, but the insurers wouldn't actually work with me because I had 'access to employer provided health insurance'.

/The place I am at now charges about $200 a month for great coverage
//no longer a contracted consultant.
///slashies!
 
2013-05-24 08:13:12 AM

MmmmBacon: "They" only said Obamacare (which is really Romneycare, but whatever) wouldn't work, because it was politically expedient to 'Oppose the Black Guy'. This plan is exactly what the GOP wanted, and they damn well know it.

Bunch of racist hypocrites.


What a bunch of crap. What a great way to elevate the argument past the point of disagreement. It was all about Oppose the Black Guy. It wasn't because people disagree with him or his policies, because that's not possible. It has to be racism. It can only be racism. See, by doing this you get to remain above all criticism and get to shout racism and your argument gets to remain pure and true.

Give me a break.
 
2013-05-24 08:24:01 AM

Mrbogey: Cost now has a variable meaning. Like how those bidding sites say that it will only "cost"* you $20 for a new 70" flatscreen TV. It will only "cost"** $304 a month for your health insurance.

*=not including the price of the bid itself
**=not including the amount subsidized by state and federal agencies..


If I'm reading the article correctly, the $304 is the cost without subsidy.

The article identifies this as a 'silver' plan. For background, the silver level is a plan which pays 70% of healthcare costs for an average enrollee. This is not exactly catastrophic-only coverage, but it's a plan with fairly substantial copays and deductibles.

With employer-provided insurance, most people are insulated from how much insurance costs. $304 per month is fairly cheap according to current standards. Between my and my employer's contribution, my individual insurance is almost double that. But most people only pay attention to their payroll deduction and think that's how much it costs (like in my case, $100/month). They'll see $300 and think that's expensive. It's not. (I mean, well, it is, but that's where healthcare costs have gone in this country. It's not out of the ordinary.) It's just that people are accustomed to paying a tiny fraction of the real cost.
 
2013-05-24 08:24:07 AM

RevRaven: It wasn't because people disagree with him or his policies, because that's not possible.


Heritage opposed Obamacare, after Heritage supported a plan that looks shockingly like Obamacare. The mid-90s GOP supported the individual mandate (as did many "luminaries" in the party as recently as 2007ish). Conservatives have been talking about the shameful state of health insurance in the US since the 60s.

So why oppose a plan to fix what is clearly broken, using the specific means they suggested, to achieve an overall plan that looks like something they proposed? Either they collectively decided that those were all bad ideas and told no one until 2009ish, or they reflexively "had to" oppose whatever Obama proposed.

// it could be "because Democrat", but the volume of the disagreement suggests more at play
// so it might not be racism, but other explanations become less and less likely
 
2013-05-24 08:29:41 AM
I heard this on the news and the Republican response was, sure its cheaper now but that won't last.

sour grapes

/same people who fought social security and medicare as commie plots
 
2013-05-24 08:32:49 AM
Of course employers will have to pay a higher wage: it might not be equivalent to the cost for the worker to obtain private insurance, but companies offer benefits packages in lieu of higher wages because risk pooling and the tax code make giving an employee insurance cheaper than giving them a higher salary usually. That's why the "companies will get rid of their existing health plans and just pay the fine since it's cheaper than the cost of their health plans" argument is ridiculous: they won't just have to pay the fine, they'd also have to deal with the fallout of telling their workforce that they are getting a significant compensation cut or the costs of giving their employees a pay increase to at least partially offset the loss of coverage.

I'm still betting the insurance companies all try to jack up their rates for 2014 an insane amount anticipating only the costs of preconditions and not the benefits of the individual mandate (and some of them hoping it will destroy the bill to be able to say "insurance premiums up 30%!") Then after a midterm election year of getting battered over it the insurance companies will sheepishly have to send checks out in 2015 for how much they raised over the profit cap.
 
2013-05-24 08:34:10 AM
Monthly premium is only a tiny part of what matters.  You can adjust that up or down as much as you want and all you're doing is hiding the true cost.
 
2013-05-24 08:38:47 AM

RevRaven: MmmmBacon: "They" only said Obamacare (which is really Romneycare, but whatever) wouldn't work, because it was politically expedient to 'Oppose the Black Guy'. This plan is exactly what the GOP wanted, and they damn well know it.

Bunch of racist hypocrites.

What a bunch of crap. What a great way to elevate the argument past the point of disagreement. It was all about Oppose the Black Guy. It wasn't because people disagree with him or his policies, because that's not possible. It has to be racism. It can only be racism. See, by doing this you get to remain above all criticism and get to shout racism and your argument gets to remain pure and true.

Give me a break.


No one buys the act.
 
2013-05-24 08:40:25 AM

themindiswatching: Lsherm: $304 a month is not cheap for health insurance for an individual.  If I had to pay that at my current company I'd drop it altogether.

Your employer probably does pay that amount (or close to it); your contribution towards it is masked by your employer's huge contribution.


Yep. Check out that new line on your 2012 W2. That's what your employer is paying for your insurance. Also, get ready to be taxed on that when it's included as your income, courtesy of Farbongo.
 
2013-05-24 08:56:29 AM

diaphoresis: MmmmBacon: "They" only said Obamacare (which is really Romneycare, but whatever) wouldn't work, because it was politically expedient to 'Oppose the Black Guy'. This plan is exactly what the GOP wanted, and they damn well know it.

Bunch of racist hypocrites.


Thanks for clearing that up.

[www.frugal-cafe.com image 443x505]


What? No citation. I'm shocked. SHOCKED!!! Just say whatever you want. Are these people in default with the government. It would be difficult for Warren Buffett to owe $1 billion in taxes.
 
2013-05-24 08:57:46 AM
Our Insurance broker said his is seeing renewal rates of +50% for other clients. If ours comes in at 30% in August should we be happy?

It's bad, but it is not as bad as it could be, You are lucky. You got off easy.
 
2013-05-24 08:59:49 AM
We won't know for sure until they go live, but the exchanges SHOULD lower prices, simply because they put everyone on the same page where they can be compared next to each other easily. In other words, something like a free market... So the insurance companies have to compete.

If I was king, I would put mandatory posting of prices for services at hospitals in there (big menu boards like fast food, right in the lobby - 30 most common posted, all others available in a book right there), and ban company provided health care. Markets work really, really well when you have transparent prices and open competition. When you put up every possible barrier to open competition, hide prices from the consumer, etc., then you get what we have.

The current system has none of the advantages of either real capitalism (competition reducing prices) or real socialism (equal treatment for all regardless of wealth). Obamacare has the possibility of injecting a bit more of both into US healthcare. We will see - I am cautiously optimistic because I find it hard to imagine worse.
 
2013-05-24 09:09:32 AM

ManRay: Our Insurance broker said his is seeing renewal rates of +50% for other clients. If ours comes in at 30% in August should we be happy?


Odd, I just sat on the renegotiation committee, and our renewal increase was under 10%. You're getting taken to the cleaners, and not by Obama.
 
2013-05-24 09:14:51 AM
Obama expected premiums to lower by 3k a family... they didn't.
 
2013-05-24 09:15:31 AM

RevRaven: MmmmBacon: "They" only said Obamacare (which is really Romneycare, but whatever) wouldn't work, because it was politically expedient to 'Oppose the Black Guy'. This plan is exactly what the GOP wanted, and they damn well know it.

Bunch of racist hypocrites.

What a bunch of crap. What a great way to elevate the argument past the point of disagreement. It was all about Oppose the Black Guy. It wasn't because people disagree with him or his policies, because that's not possible. It has to be racism. It can only be racism. See, by doing this you get to remain above all criticism and get to shout racism and your argument gets to remain pure and true.

Give me a break.


Not a single one could actually articulate what it is they're actually opposed to. Instead, we get garbage about how the Kenyan usurper is going to create death panels to kill your grandma. Frankly, racism is the charitable assumption; the alternative is dementia.
 
Displayed 50 of 227 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report