« | »

Obama-Care Premiums Could Triple For Young

From the Politico:

ACA premium sticker shock could fuel foes

By BRETT NORMAN | February 4, 2013

The federal health care law could nearly triple premiums for some young and healthy men, according to a forthcoming survey of insurers that singles out a group that might become a major public opinion battleground in the Obamacare wars.

The survey, fielded by the conservative American Action Forum and made available to POLITICO, found that if the law’s insurance rules were in force, the premium for a relatively bare-bones policy for a 27-year-old male nonsmoker on the individual market would be nearly 190 percent higher.

Of course, the real point of this article is to head off any of this criticism over this.

That isn’t the sticker price many of these individuals would pay, thanks to subsidies offered with the law. But the young men with higher incomes wouldn’t get subsidies, and the warning of a premium price shock for them might become a key exhibit in opponents’ argument that Obamacare won’t save Americans money over the long haul but would rather cost them.

In other words, it’s once again the so-called rich who are going to be gouged. And to think how we were ridiculed for calling Obama-Care yet another redistribution program.

The forecasts in the study are higher than most so far by allies and foes of the Affordable Care Act. But it is likely that some in the group will face increases. That’s because the same new insurance market rules that will make coverage more affordable for older and sicker people will make insurance for young and healthier people more expensive

This is not even entirely true. Under Obama-Care, insurers will still be permitted to charge older people three times the premium rates they charge the young, under its 3:1 rule.

This survey looks at individual examples in specific markets to show the itemized impact of the major Obamacare reforms. The insurers estimated that a healthy 27-year-old man in Austin, Texas, who pays $54 a month for insurance this year would have a $153 premium if Obamacare’s market regulations were in effect

Supporters of the Affordable Care Act counter: Look at the bigger picture.

Hey, young man who just had your premiums triple, ‘look at the bigger picture.’

The survey looks only at the estimated increase in cost to insurers, not consumers. It does not factor in the subsides that will offset the lion’s share of the premium cost for those who make less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level — about $23,400 in 2011…

Again, Obama-Care is just another way to ‘soak the rich.’

That’s not to say that some young, healthy and better-off people won’t see a substantial increase over premiums they are paying.

But just those ‘rich people’ making over 200% of the poverty level.

The increase will most likely be substantial for “a slice of the younger population,” said Massachusetts Institute of Technology health economist Jon Gruber, a supporter of the health law who has studied its impact on premiums…

Jon Gruber is one of the architects of this monstrosity.

On average, premiums for individual policies for young and healthy people and small businesses that employ them would jump 169 percent, the survey found.

But costs would fall for older and less healthy individuals and small groups by 22 percent on average…

So the total effect will be in increase in insurance premiums of 147%. (169% – 22% = 147%.) What a bunch of whiners these ‘foes’ are.

The main drivers were the expanded benefits the law requires, a ban on charging older people more than three times more than younger customers…

Again, they still can charge older people up to three times more.

In any case, expect to hear more from Obamacare foes about its impact on premiums for some young, healthy people.

“That’s the one group where the effect will be most obvious and expensive, so that’s a population that they’ll be talking about,” Gruber said. How that “talk” will shape the politics of Obamacare, he said, will depend largely on how the public puts that population in perspective.

Don’t worry. The news media will do their best to cover up this inconvenient truth. And get us to look at the bigger picture.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, February 5th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “Obama-Care Premiums Could Triple For Young”

  1. bousquem25 says:

    I’d love a $54 a month premium. In taxachusetts I’m paying over $200 a month for a plan through the exchange. It isn’t the lowest priced plan which ran about $170 a month but had just about every doctor out in the western end of the state where I live currently as out of network so I was footing the bill for 70% of the cost after a $5000 deductible. I’m a 27 year old male in good health, non-smoker, and the insurance is the bare-bones plan. No dental, Rx, or vision and I have a nice $5000 deductible in case I have lab tests or get admitted to the hospital. I can just seem obamacare jacking up the price even further when I have to subsidized more crap to be covered for others. There were a number of customers who came into the pharmacy I worked in before getting laid off because of falling profits who complained about the pure masshealth (medicaid) or one of the state plans that has the state subidizing it so much that it’s basically pure medicaid and how the state won’t pay for viagra, suboxone (for opioid addiction), fertility treatments, and the latest drugs that just came out. It was hard enough getting normal insurance to pay for the stuff if at all and these people thought the state needed to give them anything they wanted for free.

    And you can be a number of them didn’t wait for the doctor’s office to open to call about the sniffle they had. No, it was let’s just bring the whole posse down and everyone get expensive care on the state’s dollar. It also didn’t help that one large hospital had the policy for all the primary care doctors in the area that worked for them of that stated if a patient called in stating they were ill and wanted to be seen, send them to the ED.

  2. mr_bill says:

    Young people with low incomes get subsidies. STOP RIGHT THERE. “Young people” are already covered by their parents’ [mandated] coverage until age 26. I understand that age is a relative thing and that 27 is young to somebody who is more….er….experienced, but these people should be finished with college, trade school, vocational training, or well on their way to being supervisor of the McDonalds by 30. At what point do we stop subsidizing poor decisions?

    And if “young” 27-God knows what age people get a subsidy, where does that magical money come from? Somebody who is being forced to pay more than they ought to. Isn’t this simply a reverse Medicare/Social Security scheme (except without any ownership of the premiums paid into the system)? These nimrod politicians are so gung-ho for wealth redistribution, they have started transferring money back to the group they were taking it from in the first place, except those evil rich bastards, they still deserve to get hosed.

    Just throw the whole thing away and let people make their own decisions. Scrap the redistribution and allow people to fail. When there is no safety net for irresponsible behavior, people tend to avoid it. Would you (as a non-carnival performer) consider walking a tightrope if you wore a teathered safety harness and had redundant air bags below the rope? What about free of any harness with no net or air bags? More people say no when the risky behavior has significant consequences. The same principle applies to education and employment: if poverty were actually miserable and uncomfortable (no cell phone, no plasma tv, no Air Jordans, no car, no Nintendo, no free housing, etc.), people would make better life decisions.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »