Rivers

Until recently, the House was scheduled to v**e on the American Health Care Act, the GOP leadership’s proposal to repeal and replace parts of Obamacare. That v**e has been postponed.

Obamacare caused premiums to rise for various reasons, chief among them being the vast new regulations the law imposed on insurance markets.

While the American Health Care Act does repeal some Obamacare regulations, it does not go far enough. The following chart provides estimates of the average impact that various Obamacare regulations have had on premiums.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/03/23/to-lower-premiums-congress-must-roll-back-obamacare-regulations/

Most of these averages vary state by state, depending on demographic differences.

Take the example of Oregon. While reinsurance may have driven up rates nationally, in Oregon they initially reduced premium rates by 8 percent, followed by a decreasing impact from then on, lowering rates by 2 percent.

Changes in morbidity (or the sickness of the population) due to newly uninsured by itself caused 4 percent increases in premiums nationally, but in Ohio it raised premiums by 35-40 percent.

Age is also a factor in premium prices, and Obamacare disrupted the natural order by dictating the age banding, which disproportionately harmed young people. (Age banding here refers to how much the most expensive plans can be in comparison to the cheapest.)

Before Obamacare, the national rate of age banding was 1-to-5. In other words, the most expensive plan was five times more costly than the cheapest plan, with expense increasing with age.

Obamacare mandated that the rate be set at 1-to-3, so that the most expensive plan could be no more than three times as expensive. While elderly people’s premiums might have seen fewer increases—which is both due to banding and the fact that Obamacare is close to a death spiral—young people have suffered.

Overall, young people can expect to have rate increases between 58.9 percent and 91.8 percent using national averages. However, not every state had a 1-to-5 age band.

In places like Ohio, the effects are far worse—it had a 1-to-6 age band. Even accounting for the differences in its population from the national average, young people in Ohio can still expect to pay an average of 7.7 percent more on top of other increases.

In addition to this “youth tax,” mandates like the “essential health benefits” and actuarial requirements further punish all Americans with benefits that they don’t need, at prices they can’t afford. While in places like Maryland these mandates might only contribute 8 to 10 percent to premium increases, nationally they raise premiums by an average of 16.5 percent, up to 32 percent.

Overall, accounting for g****r, age, and the relative proportions of all those groups, Americans are paying 44.5 to 68 percent more in premiums owing just to Title I regulations. That number is even higher when factoring all the other adverse effects of Obamacare.

Obamacare’s Title I regulations bid up the price of premiums drastically for many Americans. While the current House bill begins to repeal Obamacare, it does not go far enough, as many of the most damaging regulations are left in place.

Alleviating this pain should be strongly considered at every step of the process.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Insurance regulations had no effect on premiums - LACK of regulations on the healthcare DELIVERY system DID. Basic business principle "supply and demand" - there is a limited supply of money to pay for health care - health care providers demand it all and then some. See the difference? The ACA did not go far ENOUGH.

The ACA was written by the hospital lobbyists, insurance lobbyists weren't invited - big mistake. Trumpcare was written by insurance lobbyists, hospital lobbyists weren't invited - big mistake. What we need are politicians smart enough to hire professionals to write these laws, not lobbyists - none of whom have OUR best interests at heart, or even consider them at all,

Nary a one of my Doctors has ever asked me what party I belong to, or what my political philosophy is, so why is that a valid question NOW? Stupid is as stupid does. This is stupid.

Ricko Loc: Florida

ipn-makes sense to me. Believe the GOP is going at this the wrong way. Ryan wants a bill that can pass the Senate with 51 v**es so it has to be limited to comply with their Rules. He would then include more details in phases 2 and 3 which would require 60 v**es. If they use the NO for the skeleton bill, do not believe the dems will give them 60 v**es for phases 2 and 3 so they will not have accomplished anything. Krauthammer suggested writing an all inclusive bill and if the democrats filibuster then the onus is on them as the ACA will remain. Rand Paul suggested that buying groups be formed. The AARP as a large buying group could get much lower premiums than could individual buyers. That too makes sense. As you pointed out in other posts, health care/prescription drug costs have to be address if insurance premiums are to be reduced. What am I missing ? America First !!!

buffalo Loc: Texas

There is ample money to pay for health CARE. It is not the health CARE providers that demand it all, private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations extract $500 BILLION annually in profits, not one cent of which is spent on health CARE. Health CARE providers spend and inordinate amount of money and man hours dealing with a myriad and navigating the maze set up by health INSURERS to "insure that $500 Billion annual profit and drive up the cost of medical CARE.. That is why doctors are leaving private practice and becoming salaried hospitalists. Hospitals employ 3 personnel in billing to every 1 in the delivery of medical CARE.

Ricko Loc: Florida

buffalo-somewhat like the Pentagon/DOD 3 civilians for every active duty military member. What you posted makes sense and that is why I like the Rand Paul proposal of "buying groups" to lower premiums. An MRI which costs a medicare patient about $300.00 costs the average insured person $1800.00, why ??? America First !!!

buffalo Loc: Texas

That's what the ACA was supposed to do. It didn't work because the health INSURANCE corporations want to keep the system fragmented. They do not want to cover the elderly or Poor because they are not profitable. Covering everyone with Medicare for All would create a huge pool of 320 MILLION to bargain with big Hospitals and big Pharma for huge cost savings.

No matter what is proposed or enacted to "fix' the health CARE dilemma in the US, greedy health INSURANCE and PHARM corporations will have to be eliminated from buying the support of greedy politicians. It is the same with the same with the military industrial corporations and their politician puppets that keep us in a constant state of warfare and/or military action. McCain is their biggest monkey.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Lets be clear. The major reason for rate increases were pre-existing conditions and keeping kids on the parents insurance till they are 26. Lot's of kids decided to have babies while on the folks ins plan.

One of the funny things about it is that most states had the high risk pools for those with pre-existing conditions. People who are type I diabetics were paying rates within these high risk pools which were less than it cost them for coverage under the Obamacare plans.

buffalo Loc: Texas

The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 1.1 million females are covered under their parents plans. How many of them do you think got pregnant just because mommy and daddy's insurance would pay for it? I'd wager that just another excuse health INSURANCE corporations use to justify raising premiums.

Did it ever occur to anyone that private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations do not want premiums to be controlled and will use any excuse, even LIES, to justify raising them. And most politicians are just monkeys for them.

Ricko Loc: Florida

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

No doubt insurance companies misrepresent information all the time. All the time.

theotts

ACA was, first and foremost, a program to subsidize insurance for those who couldn't afford it. Saying it made insurance too expensive requires a very powerful reality-dispelling incantation, or, it can target those who have always thought reality is a left-wing conspiracy. One of the provisions of the ACA was a guarantee to insurance companies they would be made whole in high risk pools and markets where prices were escalating. This worked so well, it pissed the f*****ts off. So, when they had a majority in congress, they made it known that provision would not be honored. Presto! Rising prices, a delicious talking point made irresistible by its fundamental dishonesty.
Doesn't the fun of deceit and low cunning just get better and better alice?

buffalo Loc: Texas

Why does an industry, private, for profit health insurance corporations, that extracts $500 BILLION in profits annually from the US health CARE system by only insuring healthy people for the most part need a subsidy? Because subsidizing the poor and those with pre-existing health conditions who could not afford their over priced products with more taxpayer money was designed by the very health INSURANCE industry they expected to benefit from. Both dimwits and repulsives in Congress act as mere monkeys for organ grinding big health INSURANCE, big PHARMA, and big MILITARY INDUSTRIAL corporations to ensure they continue to rape the US taxpayers either directly or through confiscation and t***sfer of wealth to them by their monkeys.

It is done by both parties, dips**t.

Health INSURANCE is not a right! Health CARE is a right by necessity. Sooner or later EVERYONE will need health CARE. Helath INSURANCE corporations only want to collect higher and higher premiums and then shove those that are not profitable onto the backs of the taxpayers. With single payer like, HR676, (Improved and Expanded Medicare for All), eliminating the $500 private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations rob the US health CARE system of, eliminating the failing VA health system and eliminating, Medicare everyone would be ASSURED of access to quality health CARE for less, and goddamn it, it would NOT be free, just as Medicare now is NOT free. A family of 4 that is out $600/month on health INSURANCE premiums and $6000.00 in deductions would be out around $200/month with NO deductions or co-pays. The difference between that $200/month and $600/month would stop going to the private, for profit health INSURANCE corporation. People would no longer fear using up their life savings or even going bankrupt due to excessive medical bills not covered or that high deductible and co-pay.

When are you sheople going to wake up and demand that the monkeys in Congress quit serving the interests of their corporate organ grinders and serve the interests of their constituents?


,

theotts

It took you really a long time to get around to your non sequitur.

buffalo Loc: Texas

theotis, I cannot help it if your comprehension sk**ls are only third grade level.

Simply put the ACA nor the AHCA were/are NOT answers to the health CARE dilemma in the US. Any solution that still keeps private, for profit health INSURANCE as the profit extracting middleman will NOT solve that dilemma. Got that?

The 2 party political system in Congress is merely an illusion. There is only ONE political party and that is the corporate party. Dems are merely its left arm and repubs merely its right arm. Both arms act as monkeys for their corporate organ grinders. Got that?

Notice that both arms' solution to the health CARE dilemma involves "insuring" private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations maintain the necessary control, influence, wh**ever, over the US health CARE system to ensure they continue to have the ability to extract $500 BILLION (or more) in annual profits whether that profit comes directly from the taxpayer in the form of huge premiums or indirectly from the taxpayer through government subsidies. Got that?

Do you think that a family of 4 would rather pay a private, for profit health INSURANCE a $600/monthly premium with a $6000.00 annual deductible or $200.00/month tax into a single payer universal health CARE system with no deductible or co-pay and have access to quality health CARE? Simple yes or no question.

So, in conclusion, any real solution to the health CARE dilemma must not include private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations or the American sheople will still get fleeced and a patchwork and fragmented health CARE system. Got that?

theotts

Fulminate all you will and, for good or ill, a single-payer health care system is not on the cards.
It isn't a question of right or wrong. Now pay close attention, sally; the political means to get such a reform doesn't exist.. It simply will not happen, no matter how many times you or anyone else says it should. Should means s**t. So spew the tincture of bile. It's ruining only your health.