What will health insurance cost in 2014?

Will the new health insurance exchanges be ready on time or will the law have to be delayed?

There Will Be Sticker Shock! 

First, get ready for some startling rate increases in the individual and small group health insurance marketplace due to the changes the law dictates.In a November 2009 report, the CBO estimated that premiums in the individual market would increase 10% to 13% on account of the health insurance requirements in the ACA. In the under 50 employee small group market, the CBO estimated that premiums would increase by 1% to a decrease of just 2% compared to what they would have been without the ACA. All of these differences in premium would be before income based federal subsidies are applied to anyone’s premiums.

In recent weeks, the Obama administration issued a series of proposed regulations for the health insurance market. Since then, I conducted an informal survey of a number of insurers with substantial individual and small group business. None of the people I talked to are academics or work for a think tank. None of them are in the spin business inside the Beltway. Every one of them has the responsibility for coming up with the correct rates their companies will have to charge.

Hold onto your hat.

On average, expect a 30% to 40% increase in the baseline cost of individual health insurance to account for the new premium taxes, reinsurance costs, benefit mandate increases, and underwriting reforms. Those increases can come in the form of outright price increases or bigger deductibles and co-pays.


In states with the least mandates or for health insurance companies with the tightest underwriting now, the increase could be a lot more.But when you add the impact of the requirement that older consumers can be charged no more than three times as much as the youngest consumers (the usual standard is now a five times difference), premiums increase dramatically for the youngest. 

For example, expect individual health insurance rates for people in their 20s and early 30s to about double.

People in their late 50s and 60s might see net decreases because of the benefit they will get from the rate band compression.

Small group rates won’t increase by quite as much as for those in the individual market––a baseline increase of 10% to 20%. Small group policies won’t be as hard hit as individual policies because the underwriting reforms aren’t as big a leap in this market. But small groups with lots of young people will be hit disproportionately since each person in the group has to be rated on an individual basis and then all of those covered rolled up into an average rate. Older groups might see rate decreases.

And, the new regulations require that insurance companies have to treat their old and new business the same. Most existing business will not come under the “grandfather” rules. That means most existing individual and small group customers can expect pretty much the same thing. That will be a shock to those who already have insurance and don’t think the new law will impact them.

The health law also sets a maximum individual deductible of $2,000 for the “Silver” plan in the small group market. However, the new proposed rules gave insurance companies flexibility to make the deductible higher if they can’t reasonably price such a deductible into a plan and still hit the coverage targets (i.e. covering 70% of all medical costs in the “Silver” plan). That flexibility is there for only one reason––it’s looking more and more like the health plans will have to put higher deductibles on at least some of these plans so that they can comply with the overall cost and coverage requirements.

Come October 1, consumers will find that they will be faced with very comprehensive health plans but those plans––including the lower cost “Bronze” and “Silver” plans––will have very high deductibles. Middle class families (300% to 400% of poverty), who aren’t fortunate enough to be in employer-sponsored plans and will be eligible for only partial federal premium subsidies, will still have to pay many thousands of dollars in premiums. They will also be confronted with a choice––pay the big premiums for a plan that will cover only 60% or 70% of their health care costs, with a big upfront deductible, or pay a fine equal to 1% of their income for each adult in the family.

Consumers with incomes in excess of 400% of poverty ($46,000 single and $92,000 family of four in 2014) are going to have to pay the full cost of these health insurance policies. But consumers who make less than 400% of poverty will have their premiums capped at a percentage of their income. So, anyone getting a subsidy will be insulated from the very highest premiums. Who will pick up the rest of the premium? Federal taxpayers.

Will the Health Insurance Exchanges Be Ready On Time?
In ten months, Americans without access to employer health plans are due to be able to purchase their own health insurance on the new health insurance exchanges.

So far, only 18 states have said they will run their new insurance exchange––and that does not necessarily mean they will all be ready. The feds are required to run the exchange if the state won’t do it––20 have already said they won’t do it and five more are “partnering,” which essentially means they are leaving most of the work to the feds.

Complicating this even further, ten months out we are still waiting for the detailed rules on how those insurance exchanges are supposed to operate.

Will the feds be ready to provide an insurance exchange in all of the states that don’t have one on October 1, 2013?

I have no idea. And neither does anyone else I talk to inside the Beltway. We only hear vague reports that parts of the new federal exchange information systems are in testing.

The former CIA director couldn’t get away with an affair in this town but the Obama administration has a complete lid on just where they are on health insurance exchanges and haven’t shown any willingness to want to talk about their progress toward launching on time––except to tell us all not to worry.

We are all worried. I would not want to be responsible for the work that remains and only have ten months to do it.

The feds keep extending the states’ deadlines but there is one deadline that isn’t moving––October 1, 2013.

Another Big Date
Given the big rate increases that are coming because of the ACA and the political risk the Obama administration faces if they don’t get the exchanges up on time, I would suggest there is another big date they need to be worried about––November 4, 2014.

The Republicans said this would not work. If it does not launch on time, or does with serious problems, I would not want to be an incumbent Democrat.

I told them not to call this the “Affordable Care Act.”

Robert Laszewski has been a fixture in Washington health policy circles for the better part of three decades. He currently serves as the president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates of Alexandria, Virginia. You can read more of his thoughtful analysis of healthcare industry trends at The Health Policy and Marketplace Blog, where this post first appeared.

Share on Twitter

72 Responses for “The (Not So) Affordable Care Act – Get Ready For Some Startling Rate Increases”

  1. BobbyG says:

    This is one HUGE [bleeping] Cluster[bleep] awaiting in the wings. I can’t even get my head around how much money that could otherwise got to ACTUAL health care will be diverted to administer this Welfare / Corporate Welfare program.

  2. spike says:

    Republicans: Committed to the idea that government doesn’t work and to proving it.

    Obviously the implementation would be smoother if Republicans didn’t go “scorched earth” on very reasonable reforms to the health insurance market.

    Also, Mr. Laszewski concedes that many people will see health insurance premiums drop. One also wonders what the long-term trend in out-of-pocket costs will be. Of course there will be a one-time jump in prices when there’s a one-time jump in quality of product being purchased. Does the long-term trend line indicate higher or slower rate of increase in out-of-pocket costs?

    Mr. Laszewski doesn’t say, because his role, for whatever reason, is not to provide insight or valuable information, but to be a cheerleader for the healthcare status quo, as he as been since the Affordable Care Act was first proposed.

    • Kevin says:

      Lets be very clear here, this was never reform. Tort Reform would have been included, 1/3 of the costs. Also de regulation would have been included. They all completely missed the boat. Should have gone back to 1993 and look at what Rostenkowski did, Catastrophic Health Insurance for all is the real answer. Every has the big stuff covered and everybody pays. Then let people buy whatever insurance they want to cover whatever they want in an unregulated market with a capped risk.

    • stillafreeamerican says:

      Spike, I have attended 22 hours of formal training on the health care bill. Federal assistance is calculated on the houshold income not the individuals income. So, add up everyone who lives in your home to get your household income. Then the federal government will let you know if you owe money or will get some level of assitance. If your household income hits 99k everyone in that household will be told they can afford health insurance and they could owe money back to the fed – this means everyone in the household. The democrats and obama put a loop hole in the bill that allows business to take a $166 a month penalty per employee and not offer health care insurance. Walmart, applebees, and the rest of the big chain resturants have already started doing this which means their employees will now fall under the household income rule to determine their level of assistance. The health care bill is a tax increase bill period. Just to be clear I am an independent voter and will never be a democrat or republican so this is not a political statement just the truth.

  3. Shirie Leng says:

    Lets wait and see what happens before scaring everyone.

    • Kevin says:

      Are you scared yet? Do you now understand this whole mess was by design. The plan was to get everyone off existing plans and force everyone to buy more expensive plans with options they do not want or need.

      This will go down as one of the biggest frauds every.

  4. spike says:

    Another thing to consider: What Mr. Laszewski is measuring is out-of-pocket costs associated with covered health care services.

    What about the fact that due to the mandatory coverages associated with ACA there will be a dramatic reduction in non-covered services? Therefore, either patients will be accessing more service now that they’re covered, or they’ll be accessing the same service and ultimately paying less for them because at least now they’re getting partial coverage for those services, which they weren’t getting before on their bargain-basement insurance plan.

  5. Hank P. says:

    Great post Robert, but I think it’s only the beginning.

  6. Peter1 says:

    Not sure how accurate Laszewski’s predictions are but I’ll not be surprised in this profit driven system if he is right.

    I have stated I am in favor of a mandate but not when we are forced to buy into the most expensive system in the world. I’ll just either not buy or pay the penalty if rates are unreasonable.

    It’s clear that providers (including insurance) corporate or otherwise, will as usual continue to rack it in while the middle class are left to spin in the wind.

    Individual taxpayers don’t stand a chance against the 1000s of corporate lobbyists bribing politicians to enact law in their favor. Don’t count on Democrats for ethical behavior either.

  7. Cynthia says:

    What we need is a more efficient healthcare system. The most efficient would be a government-run single payer system. It would save huge amounts of money, because [1] the government does not need to make a profit for investors, just break even; [2] the government does not need to pay exorbitant fees to top executives and huge bonuses; [3] with a single payer system, an enormous number of manpower hours, office bookkeeping staff, and paperwork could be reduced, whereas at present, with so many different insurance companies involved, each with different computer programs and different criteria, doctors’ offices and hospitals require a lot of bookkeeping and staff to deal with communications. The insurance companies would still have a significant role to play, providing supplemental insurance to those who are willing and able to afford it. But basic healthcare would be covered for everyone by the single-payer system. This would be the most efficient, most cost-effective, most rational, and most caring way to deal with the problems we currently face.

    • Peter1 says:

      It was called the “public option”, but Obama and the dems bowed to corporate interests.

    • OLDRN says:

      I can tell you from working in the trenches that govt run insurance (mCare & mCaid) is the most bureaucratic, inefficient and confusing payer when compared to the private Blues, et al. My hospital system has a team of nurses, physicians & attorneys on retainer to wade through and fight the CMS nightmare of changing and conflicting regulations. Whereas, the commercial insurance companies have a profit motive to be streamlined and efficient. My job in “audit recovery”, helping to fight medicare denials, exists to do clinical battle with MCare, not Blue.

      • Peter1 says:

        But have checked on how efficient single-pay/government run/controlled systems are in other countries.

        Don’t look to the U.S. for efficient government run – at least not yet.

    • Maxwell says:

      Nicely stated. The key elements of the single payer systems from very successful health care systems like Germany, France, Taiwan, England is that a) everyone has access, 2)the goverment determines essential health benefits/procedures that every insurer must cover, 3) the government sets the price for all these procedures. There is still lots of room for private insurers and private, for profit, healthcare providers. Also, the goverment would decide on a uniform data collection system that all providers would use….this would save billions…because providers and data systems could actually talk to eachother. Neat ideas…..Im not holding my breathe however.

      Its interesting that many of these countries actually have more provider choice than we do and the waiting time argument doesnt hold water im most cases either.

    • Kevin says:

      You are kidding right? We gave them 1 Billion dollars and 3 1/2 years to built a website and it still does not work. Government is the problem not the solution.

  8. Well, single payer systems are not efficient either. Ultimately, they become bogged down by their own bureaucratic weight, and cause long waits for essential services. This is evidenced time and time again by systems like the Canadian healthcare system. These kinds of problems are evidenced in the medical literature-long waits to see specialists, have colonoscopies, etc. etc. In fact, the Canadian system is starting to go the other way, from a single payer, to actually allowing privatizaion.

  9. DeterminedMD says:

    I break my silence for this one comment on PPACA: all you fraudulent supporters of this legislation, I hope you choke on it!

    Yeah, but we won’t hear from them, will we? Liars are first out the door.

    Like I said earlier, Obama wanted 4 more years, well, I hope he chokes the most! Oh, and he’s still a smoker too?

  10. Maggie Mahar says:

    Now that it has become clear that Obamacare will happen, the fear-mongering is becoming truly hysterical..

    Just a few facts that this post ignores:

    Insurers will have to pay out 80% (to small groups) to 85% (to large groups) of the premiums they receive to providers and patients for actual health care– or send rebates to customers.
    Administrative items like the fees that they pay out to agents and brokers don’t count.

    If premiums go up 30% this means they would have to increase the amount they spend on healthcare by 25%. HOW?

    Already they’re giving customers rebates.

    Older Americans who live in states where insurers can charge them 5 times more than they charge 25-year-olds for the same policy will see their rates go down. (Under the ACA insurers can charge them a max of 3 times more.)

    Those suffering from “pre-existing conditions” will see their rates fall.

    In the Excahnges, individuals and small businesses will become part of a “large group” and qualify for significantly lower rates.

    Women now pay up to 30% more than men for a policy that doesn’t even cover maternity.
    Women are also much more vulnerable to being labeled as suffering from a “pre-existing condttion”– because they have had a C-section, because they have been the victim of domestic violence, because they are infertile . .

    A great many women will see their premiums fall. At the same time they will see their health care expenses fall because they will no longer have to pay for conctraception (the Pill is now very expensive) OB-GYN check-ups and other items listed as “preventive care.”

    Under Obamacare, some people will see their premiums rise, others will see them fall.

    Meanwhile, most will find that their insurance offers far better protection than ever before. Better financial protection (caps on out of pocket expenses) and better physical protection (all essential benefits and
    free preventive care.)

    • MD as HELL says:

      And most still do not need any of this coverage or care.

      • stillafreeamerican says:

        Your rates and coverage costs will be calculated by the houshold income – if you do not have health insurance. Some insurances does not qualify and the federal government will have a list of approved providers. Since the penalty for not offering insurance is only $166 per employee per month many companies have already told their employees that they will cancel the company health insurance. So, the number of people that will be forced on the federal program will go up. Please stop believing what you hear on TV and the radio go to any tax or cpa web site and find out the truth.

    • stillafreeamerican says:

      Maggie, please go to any CPA or TAX web site to find out the truth about the health care law. Stop believing the democrats, republicans or most if not all of the main stream media they are all bias. Your posts sound like a comercial for NBC or FOX. The IRS issued a 159 page clarification on 1 page of the health care law. —- Dont be fooled this is a tax increase bill……..

  11. Indeed, public opinion polls in Cananda do indicate that given the choice, many citizens would choose a mixed model-privat/public. Many in the US do not realize that one payer systems do not always accomodate all of the preventive types of programs that we are so accustomed to. This is simply because it is not cost effective. For example, mammography, considered the gold standard for breast cancer detection, is recommended at age 50 (in Canada). Provinces do differ on this, but it is not like here in the US where mammos are automatically recommended at the age of 40. Here in the US, colonoscopy is considered the procedure of choice (and the most definitive) for diagnosis and screening of colon cancer. In Canada, is being for colon cancer is now being promoted-but through the use of fecal occult blood tests. Waits for colonoscopies are still unacceptably long. The point being, many people do not realize that the “universal” model does not assure high level preventive care at all. In fact, it probably diminishes it.

    • Peter1 says:

      Margot, Canadians wishing to jump the so called “queues” want to because they are financially able to – maybe a testament to their better performing economy. Are Americans getting better off financially that they want to keep spending over double what other countries spend on health care?

      As well with the public system as competition private pay health care in Canada is less than private pay U.S.A. I know, because I have paid for private care in Canada (cataracts) that was out of reach here in U.S.

    • BobbyG says:

      Part of the problem with all these empirical arguments — including yours — is that of shooting at a moving target.

  12. DeterminedMD says:

    I guess it all depends on how you define “some”, easy to hide behind vague terms when later facts demand specificity. “Some” politicians and political hack supporters don’t tell the truth, “some” just fudge the numbers, and “some” are just inconveniently disingenuous. The “some” who are watching out for the public interest, well, that is just random chance, could be called “some” by some. Ain’t that something!?

  13. Sorry, meant to say the screening for colon ca in Canada is being promoted, but through the use of fecal occult blood tests. This is not definitive at all and falls far short of colonoscopy. Universal, or one payer systems struggle to maintain high quality, true preventive type screenings. Cost is prohibitive.

  14. MFreeman says:

    Since insurers are forced to contain their profit as percentage of expenditures, with a healthy competitive environment, escalating costs will and should be placed on the bureaucratic disaster whose march is just advancing toward us from the horizon. It made no sense, it still makes no sense. How much suffering do we need to see in this world to learn that socialist systems can not work…period…human nature will never, ever allow it. Man isn’t evil….he’s just human. Get over it. Do the best we can with capitalism, the best of the imperfect worlds we must choose from.

    • Peter1 says:

      “How much suffering do we need to see in this world to learn that socialist systems can not work…period”

      Which “socialist system”? Medicare, Medicaid, tax free employer subsidized health care. How’s the uninsured free market working for you?

    • BobbyG says:

      What is the moral basis for an economy, in your view?

  15. mfreeman says:

    Peter1,

    Wake up.
    Believe me, I will personally not suffer for what is to come as our government engineers health care as it sees fit. I’m already getting paid the tens of thousands of dollars from our federal government with every man’s tax dollars, as long as I jump through the hoops of employing an immature EHR industry product. I’m approved for a big federal check in the coming weeks. As a manipulated doctor I am baffled by what we’re becoming, disheartened, but I have a little more cash for my compliance. In the meantime, since implementing the EHR, in order to meet “meaningful use”, I have had to hire an additional employee specifically to meet the government requirements. At some point, this new employee multiplied by thousands of medical practices will be one more huge non-essential cost which will only come out of care dollars, entirely due to federal mandates. Perhaps I will take home a little less money with a new employee, but the real tragedy…patient’s will pay even more…the system will pay even more. I see it day after day…less care, less professional judgment, less productivity, more central control.

    The free market works. I have no obligation to subsidize my employee’s healthcare…but I do. That is capitalism. if I didn’t, they could choose to stay with me or not. It’s that simple. Human’s (including myself) only function by way of improving by competition (it’s in the brain). No competition means no generativity and societal death. We compete for a mate, for financial stability, for our children’s opportunities, etc.
    The government doesn’t make our problems better, it just complicates them with unintended consequences. making them MORE difficult to solve. In my view, it is an arrogant and foolish game to empower government to control the behavior of humans. One powerful entity will never be as smart as the result of fair competition between individuals. Competition between individuals will outperform government any day. Programs to help the poor and disabled are entirely consistent with capitalism. Capitalism does not mean lack of caring and love for man. In my view, subsidizing the healthcare and retirement of able-bodied people promotes helplessness, passivity, and societal failure. Time (unfortunately) will reveal this truth.

    • Peter1 says:

      “Competition between individuals will outperform government any day. Programs to help the poor and disabled are entirely consistent with capitalism. ”

      Delusional mfreeman, does this “competition” include the thousands of corporate lobbyists bribing politicians to enact legislation that works against individual citizens? And does this “competition” also include corporate ownership of related industries selling under different names but with one corporate owner giving the illusion of competition?

      Conceptually your views have merit, in reality you need to get your head out of the ideology hole it’s buried in.

      • MFreeman says:

        Not ideology at all, just human behavior. If humans could do well with a socialized system, I’d be all for it. They don’t. The human mind is necessarily survival oriented, like any other animal. Capitalism harnesses the natural drive of humans to survive while setting basic parameters. Companies, government, unions, all of these subvert the will of the individual. I would put severe restrictions on all of them with regard to political involvement, with crippling punishments. If the Supreme Court continues to support the consolidation of corporate and union power, I will be willing to suffer knowing that we tried to do the right thing. Just because it is difficult, if the views “have merit” as you say, they should NEVER BE LET TO DIE, in my opinion. Otherwise, it would be very easy to lose hope for the future of our children.

        • Peter1 says:

          MF, it’s not that you will let those ideas die, they will be taken away from you in practice by political power and you will be left with only ideas. You will still get the vote as give the illusion of a say, but for the most part your elected officials will work against you in favor of their corporate sponsors.

          If only this was a result of Supreme Court decisions, this is the day to day functioning of a political process given birth in the late 70′s when corporations and their business partners/cohorts launched their lobbying onslaught of DC. The Unions have largely been helpless to stop it proven by their massively reduced influence and membership over the last 30 years.

          It is no accident (or fate of competition) that the plight of the middle class is as it is.

          • MFreeman says:

            I appreciate the respectful exchange. We have somewhat similar viewpoints, but very different views of a solution which won’t be reconciled here. Anyway, best wishes to us all and have a nice holiday Peter1.

  16. Peter,
    This is a recent set of recommendations:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3004442/

    With regard to colonoscopy screening in Canada, I am referring to “population based colon cancer screening”. Here in the US, colonoscopy is often the first type of screening done on persons of average risk for colon cancer. In Canada, colonoscopy is not recommended for population based colon cancer screening; instead, fecal blood tests are first line for those age 50 and older. Big difference between the two.

    • Peter1 says:

      Margot, I don’t think you read he whole link. There are a number of risk factors and strategies discussed for best outcomes. Contained in the article, which by the way is not Canadian Government policy on who can get what when outside your doctors advice, is this:
      “All US guidelines recommend a yearly FOBT, which may be easier to perform as an add-on at the annual physical examination with primary care physicians.”

      Are you saying U.S. insurance will pay for a colonoscopy once per year for all risk groups and Canada will not pay for any high risk patients?

      • Peter1,
        In the US, colonoscopy is a highly promoted first line screening tactic. Most insurance (including medicare and medicaid) do pay for this procedure (at age 50, and younger, if deemed high risk). In Canada, the first line approach is the FOBT. I know that colonoscopy is recommended if that is positive. However, because Canada is (or has been) a true one payer system, they must promote the common good, of course. Providing colonoscopies to everyone at age 50 is not cost effective. Therefore, the FOBT method is promoted. The other problem is that, in Canada long wait times (as reflected in the medical literature) are now a big problem for gastro care. The wait times to see a gastroenterologist are long. It is a worrisome thing because I fear that, as our system becomes more “universal”, these very same problems will be seen in here. Afterall, our population is far greater than Canada’s. Appreciate the discourse! It is very important!

        • Peter1 says:

          “Most insurance (including medicare and medicaid) do pay for this procedure (at age 50, and younger, if deemed high risk).”

          The key point in your reply – high risk. Even in the U.S. cost v risk is assessed.

          Ontario has invested in reducing wait times for those who test positive in a FOBT test for a goal of 4 weeks since 2008. Not sure where they stand now, but Alberta appears to have invested more heavily in reducing wait times – maybe due to all the oil revenue they bring in.

          Wait times is not necessarily a feature of a public system, voters can choose to invest more resources where they deem necessary. Conservatives in the U.S. want to remove funding from Medicare, as they say to save it, that will mean less generous and less frequent testing, it can be argued that it will increase risk. Certainly excessive testing is a fault of the U.S. system voiced by many.

          Arriving at the optimum is always a struggle between payers and users.

  17. joe says:

    Maggie- you provide an array of wholly unsubstantiated claims…

    1. broker fees are included in MLR – you are incorrect.
    http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/page-1/HEP-273901/MLR-Final-Rule-Keeps-Broker-Fees-as-Administrative-Costs

    the result- brokers will now add on additional fees to their clients

    2. The 3x rating will not result in lower costs for older americans, but it will mean much higher costs for younger americans

    3. There is not a shred of evidence that the Exchanges will mean lower prices through pooling in the aggregate for individuals and small businesses — and when your regulations kill off individual insurance and child only insurance, it is disingenuous to tout the new availability through the exchange.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/22/childonly-health-insuranc_n_734525.html

    4. The federal exchange will charge the middle class american family an average $550 surtax on their premium — since insurers will pass this along 100% guaranteed.

    5. states running their own exchange will spend hundreds of millions of dollars just this decade on their system — Minnesota (the 21st most populous state will spend nearly 50% more than proposed in the first year alone- $54 million)

    http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2012/november/26/minnesota-health-insurance-exchange.aspx

    6. 17,000 Vermonters with low or middle income will see their out of pocket expenses skyrocket, in some cases from $7,000 to up to $16,500 per YEAR

    http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20121202/NEWS03/712029933

    7. ps- nothing is free… someone is paying for it…

    • DeterminedMD says:

      PS: nothing is free, someone is paying for it.

      Welcome to the mindset of Democrats and liberals, ’cause they ain’t paying for much if anything. This election showed plainly they are the party of handouts! And yet, someone’s got the money!

      Wow, what times we live in. One party wants someone else to keep doing all the fishing for the masses, the other wants everyone else to jump in the waters without educating them first. You figure out which party is equally offensive. But yeah, both are!

      • Peter1 says:

        “PS: nothing is free, someone is paying for it.

        Welcome to the mindset of Democrats and liberals”

        Not only is this incorrect it assumes the present system is charging us the correct prices. Where can you show Determined, that U.S. prices (the highest in the world) are, in effect, God’s decree that they represent what the price should be?

        We all understand we need to pay for services, what we (“liberals”) don’t agree with is a rigged system of price fixing orchestrated by the triumvirate collusion of corporate providers, insurance, and lobbied influenced government – absent any transparent information.

        • DeterminedMD says:

          No, let’s have some brutal candor here, your party ran for reelection solely on the premise that others owe, literally, the rest of the country.

          Unacceptable to about 50% of us, as Obama did not win by 60% of the vote, but just about 52%. Yours is a party of dependency and entitlement, and the republicans are about abandonment and selfishness.

          Wow, what choices for those who embrace independence and self sufficiency. Well, the fraud of this legislation just keeps growing every year now, so, eventually the lies catch up with you supporters.

          History shows cultures cannot support the many. Being old and being poor are difficult, but, people should not be demanded to assist. Resentment does not build bridges. It is time to humble and humiliate those with access to help the community, but, those terms don’t exist these days, do they?

          No, now it is just confrontation and entrapment. You get the representation you deserve, and the politicians get the electorate they pander to. Sums it up for me!

          • Peter1 says:

            “literally, the rest of the country.”

            No, the top 2%, to contribute their fair share that has been accumulated not through the market but through the legislature.

            Show me a successful country that has survived concentration of wealth by a very small percentage of it’s citizens.

    • Jonathan says:

      Joe, I don’t have time to fact check all your statements, but your statement #1 is flat out false. Broker costs are included in the AER (administrative expense ratio) not the MLR/MER. Your linked article makes that point, but you seem to have misunderstood it.

  18. BobbyG says:

    “transparent”
    __

    Margin is inexorably inverse to transparency. It could not be otherwise.

    See “Efficient Markets Hypothesis” — otherwise beloved of irony-free “free” marketeers.

    “In the gap between perception and reality, there’s money to be made.”

    - The now Saintly Michael Milken.

  19. DeterminedMD says:

    Wow, the liberal/socialist/entitlement minority really think you will shout and threaten us down to subservience, eh?

    Good luck with that fight! You might win today to just alienate anyone who would negotiate now. People will either find creative ways to hide their money, or, will leave. What is just so absurd of you liberals to think people with money are trapped and beholden to you. No, they have the means to flee, and they will. Just like docs will either retire early or just take cash.

    Keep burying your lame heads in that sandbox!

  20. Karl says:

    Wow, time travel really is possible:
    “First, get ready for some startling rate increases in the individual and small group health insurance marketplace due to the changes the law dictates. In a November 2009 report, the CBO estimated that premiums in the individual market would increase 10% to 13% on account of the health insurance requirements in the ACA.”

    The ACA wasn’t finalized until March 2010. Therefore, it would have been tough for the CBO to analyze four months earlier in November 2009–At least without some mechanism that allowed for time travel.

  21. DeterminedMD says:

    This is my last comment on this thread, but I make it to show how dishonest, disingenuous, and plainly disheartening your alleged representation on either side of the aisle really is at the end of the day.

    First, how hollow the democrap, er, democrat message was the economy was improving when Obama is holding out for another stimulus expense on OUR dime while demanding a tax increase, and note your buddy Dr Howard Dean says plainly taxes should be raised on ALL americans (purposely typed with a lower case ‘a’ because we are by in large small and insignificant to our alleged resentatives, er, representatives in DC). Then, we are to expect the false initial statement by Barry O back in 2009 is to be maintained to lie to such americans that health care costs will not be increased significantly with this legislation? Really, do you think true Americans with a brain do not see the handwriting on the wall with what this post proposes? God, I hate partisan hacks like the usual suspects here who just plainly lie and subterfuge with vague and nondescript “facts” and innuendos that we are all to believe. Yeah, “some” of us might benefit. Like “some” of us will live to 90 and be productive and beneficial citizens for the rest of our culture.

    Don’t worry, as attentive and respectful readers have figured out, I equally hate the repugnacant, er, Republican side of the equation as well. Yeah, no new taxes on anyone, anyone who contributes to their reelection campaigns and sets them up for life after time in Congress. Take Jim Demint for instance. You think he is leaving Congress to go back to private sector work and help his constituents more personably? Sure, dream on with that interpretation! And Mitch McConell and his usual drivel? How this guy continues in office when he is so flat faced because, if he really did show emotion for one sincere moment, he would laugh and say to the public, “you think I give a damn about the american people?!” Kentucky has to be one of the stupidest states in this country, not of all the state inhabitants, but the majority, yes, I say that without hesitation!!!

    And to my usual insulter who thinks he can cry foul after challenged when his insults and personal attacks finally do cross lines that any fair and reasonable commenter can read, well, guess what is reality for most people, sir? Consistency is the hallmark of success, but in your case, it equally is the hallmark of rudeness and lack of respect of others, because I have NOT said a specific word about any commenter here in my comments these past few months after being challenged by the owners of this post, and yet you do not disappoint in your ongoing rudeness directly to me.

    But, by the retorts by others, I guess I illuminate my opinions of who is possibly not honest and direct by their sideswipes. Truly first class examples of why we have the representation in government these days.

    I end with this, as I have said over and over since I first started commenting here over 2 years ago, this law is not going to help people as a whole, just partisan cronies, special interests, and end up hurting genuine Americans who are desperate in seeking people to represent and assist them. Here is the stat that prompted me coming here tonight in the first place, noted by Bill O’Reilly, who I watch for comedy moreso for true information, but this one I sense has possible legitimacy: 109 Million Americans work in the private sector, to support 87 million americans who are either getting public assistance significantly or fully on OUR dime, as well as more federal workers in place now since Barry O took office.

    I was challenged before about my comment how we cannot survive as a culture if we have a sizeble portion of people who just want someone to do the fishing for us, yet, to all you partisan hacks who would go down with that stupid ship we have in DC right now, give us all the examples of societies past and active that not only survive, but thrive by feeding the dependency of the many on the backs of the few.

    I look forward to 2 possible responses:

    _____ = silence, which is plentiful when someone raises a valid point, or
    more inane and vague facts and innuendos that give the illusion that a response, irregardless if not true or accurate, infers truth until people can refute the endless platitudes.

    Forget if the world ends on December 21, as far as I am concerned, it ended years ago when we accepted alleged status quos, or to me, woes, that are what this culture has eroded to as of now. The internet has dumbed as down as much as enlightened us. Do you really like being on ladders just stepping up then down over and over? Oh, I forgot, that equates to reelecting the same idiots as incumbents I bet over half of you do if active voters!!!

    But, you all keep believing the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. That is the real mantra of what is our federal, and state governments as well! Happy Holidays, yeah, right!

  22. NorEastern says:

    OK. Here is my dilemma. I retired at 50. My health care insurance costs me $16,000 a year. I have not had $16,000 of medical expenses in my life. I am sophisticated and well to do and I have no idea how to obtain a fair rate on my health insurance fees. IMHO Obama Care is my only hope.

    • Peter1 says:

      Don’t buy health insurance. Bank the $16,000 then go to India for needed health care at less than half the price.

    • joe says:

      Your costs are going up even more. And your care will decline.

      Sad, but true.

    • stillafreeamerican says:

      Your health care coverage will be calculated by your household income. If your household income is over 99k you will still pay for your own coverage and may owe additional tax. Go to your accountant/tax preparer for hope not a polotician, they only want to get re-elected.

  23. Bill S. says:

    Let’s agree to revisit this topic in two years and see what actually happens.

    My hunch is that (1) the PPACA will not be a panacea for all that ails the US health care system, and (2) the doomsday scenarios of an affordability crisis will turn out to be somewhat exaggerated.

    I do think that we will see more competition for individual and small group business as the underwriting changes and increased transparency for consumers kick in.

  24. bob hertz says:

    Having sold health insurance for several years, I can testify that there are a lot of lousy individual policies out there — cheap, maybe, but full of swiss cheese where there should be coverage. No other wealthy nation would even consider excluding maternity coverage from health insurance, as often happens in the individual market.

    So we should be glad to see the individual market disrupted or even disappear.

    But we must have something to replace it. That is where the exchanges and subsidies come in.

    Let me create an example. Right now a person pays $400 a month for a high-deductible policy with many exclusions.

    Thanks to ACA rules on guaranteed issue and benefit mandates, the premium will now go to $700 a month. This is not the fault of the insurance industry, they have to stay solvent. This is also exactly what happend in New York, New Jersey, Washington state, etc when they tried to reform the insurance market.

    Enter the ACA. If our hypothetical person makes an average wage, then after subsidies his effective premium will be less than $400, plus he will have a much better policy!!

    But if individual states can sabotage the exchanges or if the cost of subsidies explodes as businesses drop coverage…….then look out.

    Also keep an eye out whether insurance companies themselves offer products on the exchanges — this is not a sure thing.

    The ACA was ready in theory for premiums to go up. The tough part is whether it will be ready in practice.

  25. Peter1 says:

    “If our hypothetical person makes an average wage”

    What’s the “average” wage?

  26. bob hertz says:

    According to the Health Reform Subsidy Calculator, a single adult age 35 making $35,000 is expected to pay $3300 a year for health insurance, through the Exchange, which is $270 a month.

    The average married couple makes $52,000 a year, but that is often with two incomes……….and their subsidies are higher too.

  27. MD as HELL says:

    No one chooses to buy insurance for that percentage of aftertax income. It is insane.

    Pretty soon they will offer subsidies for paying your income tax if you do not make enough. Ooops. I think they already do that. It is called welfare.

  28. Rowena Pabo says:

    Insurance is critical your web site has lots of excellent facts. Thanks for discussing that which you learn.I’ll bookmark your internet site

  29. Maggie Mahar says:

    Jonathan and Bob Hertz

    Jonathan wrote::

    “Joe, I don’t have time to fact check all your statements, but your statement #1 is flat out false. Broker costs are included in the AER (administrative expense ratio) not the MLR/MER. Your linked article makes that point, but you seem to have misunderstood it.”

    Thanks, Jonathan for correcting yet another piece of misinformation.

    Bob– Thanks for a good hypothetical.
    Laszewski mentions, in passing, that of course his numbers don’t include
    subsidies.
    But most people buying insurance in the Exchanges will qualify for subsidies.
    So his numbers greatly exaggerate what it will cost the vast majority of
    people to buy insurance in the Exchanges. Moreover as you say, many of the policies now sold in the individual market really don’t deserve to be called insurance. They provide little protection.
    IN the Exchanges, many who receive subsidies will pay less than they are currently paying for individual insurance–and wind up with a far better policy.

    They will actually be insured!

  30. Tom says:

    After reading through most of the comments here I realized very quickly that many of you are feeling the pain of high prescription costs and poor prescription drug benefits. While recently helping a family friend navigate through the Prescription Assistance programs offered by the major pharmaceutical companies we developed an easy to use service for other to be able to take advantage of the free medication programs that are offered. In most cases, you can receive your meds for FREE from the pharmaceutical companies. Over 4200 medications are covered under the PAP programs.I strongly encourage you to visit http://www.redemedllc.com so you can read about the prescription drug program assistance that they offer. The folks at Redemed are a family operated organization that truly believes that you should not have chose between buying your medications and feeding your family. This is not SPAM or a scam, it’s a truly innovative approach to helping people and it works! I hope you take the time to explore your options and visit the website to see how you can save hundred if not thousands of dollars on your prescription drug costs.

  31. It’s the best time to make some plans
    for the future and it’s time to be happy. I have read this post
    and if I could I desire to suggest
    you few interesting things or suggestions.
    Maybe you could write next articles referring to this article.
    I want to read more things about it!

Leave a Reply

Masthead

Matthew Holt
Founder & Publisher

John Irvine
Executive Editor

Jonathan Halvorson
Editor

Alex Epstein
Director of Digital Media

Munia Mitra, MD
Chief Medical Officer

Vikram Khanna
Editor-At-Large, Wellness

Joe Flower
Contributing Editor

Michael Millenson
Contributing Editor

We're looking for bloggers. Send us your posts.

If you've had a recent experience with the U.S. health care system, either for good or bad, that you want the world to know about, tell us.

Have a good health care story you think we should know about? Send story ideas and tips to editor@thehealthcareblog.com.

ADVERTISE

Want to reach an insider audience of healthcare insiders and industry observers? THCB reaches 500,000 movers and shakers. Find out about advertising options here.

Questions on reprints, permissions and syndication to ad_sales@thehealthcareblog.com.

THCB CLASSIFIEDS

Reach a super targeted healthcare audience with your text ad. Target physicians, health plan execs, health IT and other groups with your message.
ad_sales@thehealthcareblog.com

ADVERTISEMENT

Log in - Powered by WordPress.