Obamacare marketplace premiums in Florida lower than expected

[oldcelt]

Less than a week before the Affordable Care Act insurance marketplaces open for business, the federal government announced that average costs in Florida and other states will be lower than it once projected.

The federal government says the national average monthly premium for a single person’s midtier “silver” plan is $328 before tax credits. That’s 16 percent lower than the Congressional Budget Office had originally estimated.

“The bottom line is that Jan. 1 will be a new day for millions of Americans,” said U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Tuesday in a call with reporters. “Coverage will be more available and accessible than ever before.”

tampabay.com/news/business/banking/obamacare-marketplace-premiums-released-for-florida/2143679

Rather important state.

 

[Jeffrey_David]

OUCH!

Andy and Amy Mangione of Louisville, Kentucky say their health insurance nearly tripled overnight from $333 a month to $965 due to Obamacare.

“When I saw the letter when I came home from work, it said ‘your action required, benefit changes, act now.’ Of course, I opened it immediately,” said Andy Mangione.

breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/24/Obamacare-Triples-KY-Family-s-Insurance-Overnight

Ouch again…

The White House on Wednesday released a report on the costs of Obamacare for most Americans, heralding its interpretation that 95 percent of the nation will be able to buy health insurance premiums below “earlier projections.”

But note the words “earlier projections.” That doesn’t mean that the insurance Americans will have to buy, or be fined, under Obamacare will be cheaper than what they pay today, before Obamacare kicks in.

We know this because at the same time the White House was releasing its broad study, Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander released his analysis of the report’s portion on his state. He found that Obamacare will cost far more than what many of his constituents are paying today, some by as much as 190 percent.

washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-report-tennesee-men-face-290-women-197-obamacare-hike/article/2536363

 

[ProVobis]

Rates will vary from state to state. But that was expected. I see Illinois rates are about half of what ICHIPS charged at the same deductibility and age. And if more sign up, they may go even lower come Jan 1.

That said, it might have been different had a public option been offered as well.

 

[po18guy]

tampabay.com/news/business/banking/obamacare-marketplace-premiums-released-for-florida/2143679

Rather important state.

How is this going to help the suffering among the stagnant, 15% poverty rate that the current regime has imposed upon the poor of America? From Yahoo:

“The latest poverty numbers present unwelcome news for President Barack Obama as he seeks credit for an economic turnaround”

And, there are probably 49 other states that fare worse as far a insurance rates. From Forbes (bolding mine):

Even In Over-Regulated Washington State, Obamacare Will Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 34-80%

You know, Einstein defined insanity as trying the same thing again and again while expecting a different result. Liberalism fails each and every time it is tried. There is supposed to be a lesson there.

 

[SMGS127]

How is this going to help the suffering among the stagnant, 15% poverty rate that the current regime has imposed upon the poor of America? From Yahoo:

And, there are probably 49 other states that fare worse as far a insurance rates. From Forbes (bolding mine):

You know, Einstein defined insanity as trying the same thing again and again while expecting a different result. Liberalism fails each and every time it is tried. There is supposed to be a lesson there.

49 states? Like in Minnesota, how the average silver plan (which isn’t even the cheapest) is $192 a month? Florida is actually the state directly in the middle of the road on rates.

 

[po18guy]

49 states? Like in Minnesota, how the average silver plan (which isn’t even the cheapest) is $192 a month? Florida is actually the state directly in the middle of the road on rates.

OK, scratch that. If there is even a single state in which the poor will suffer, is absolute federal control a good thing?

 

[SMGS127]

OK, scratch that. If there is even a single state in which the poor will suffer, is absolute federal control a good thing?

The poor suffered before the law went into effect. Rates were skyrocketing out of control even before this law went into effect. And this law institutes exactly zero federal control, unless the states refuse to make their own exchanges. Most Democratic states have state-controlled, most Republican states have federal-controlled because Republicans didn’t want to admit that the health care law was real. I’d say Democratically-controlled states are actually fulfilling subsidiarity better than Republican-controlled states. It’s no surprise that the cheapest state to have health insurance before subsidies even has Democrats in charge .

 

[St_Francis]

**lower *than projected. ***

What we were told before the bill was passed was that our insurance premiums would be lower than *before the bill was passed. *

If the government then projects the costs will quadruple, bit they only triple, that is indeed “lower than projected,” but still is way higher than the costs were before.

 

[St_Francis]

The poor suffered before the law went into effect. Rates were skyrocketing out of control even before this law went into effect. And this law institutes exactly zero federal control,

Except for the fact the federal government requires it and sets the coverage levels.

Except for the fact that the federal government is employing people with no background checks who will be getting *all *the information we are not supposed to give to strangers, like Social Security numbers, bank account numbers, etc.

Except for the fact this will be a portal for voter registration (does this mean they actually won’t require id?).

Except for the fact that the IRS will be the offical monitor of compliance.

Naaawwww, nothing to worry about there…

unless the states refuse to make their own exchanges. Most Democratic states have state-controlled, most Republican states have federal-controlled because Republicans didn’t want to admit that the health care law was real.

And what is the deal for the states? The feds will subsidize most of the costs the first year, then less and less until by year 10, the states will be shouldering the entire burden of this bill, which required bribes and finagling to pass.

The states were already having trouble taking care of their share of Medicaid. That problem is only going to get worse.

I’d say Democratically-controlled states are actually fulfilling subsidiarity better than Republican-controlled states.

That is not how subsidiarity works. Subsidiarity is where the lower levels of governance have *control *as well as responsibility.

It’s no surprise that the cheapest state to have health insurance before subsidies even has Democrats in charge .

 

[SMGS127]

**lower *than projected. ***

What we were told before the bill was passed was that our insurance premiums would be lower than *before the bill was passed. *

If the government then projects the costs will quadruple, bit they only triple, that is indeed “lower than projected,” but still is way higher than the costs were before.

Do you think $2300 a year before subsidies is an enormous rate for good, mid-level health insurance? Because that’s what Minnesota’s rate is after they decided to keep control of their own exchanges rather than hand the keys to the federal government like most Republican states. And again, we’re seeing what we’ve always seen happen. Taxpayers in Democratic-controlled states are forced to pay for Republican-controlled states’ extremely high intake of federal funds.

 

[St_Francis]

It’s no surprise that the cheapest state to have health insurance before subsidies even has Democrats in charge .

Which state are you talking about? I didn’t reply to this part of your post before because I wanted to try to find out, but was unable to quickly.

Do you think $2300 a year before subsidies is an enormous rate for good, mid-level health insurance?

For a young single person who might normally spend only $200 or less during the course of the year on health care? Yes. The cost is much higher than it should be acturarily since altho the elderly have 6x the health care costs of young people, the premiums can only be 3x those of young people.

Because that’s what Minnesota’s rate is after they decided to keep control of their own exchanges rather than hand the keys to the federal government like most Republican states.

I think there’s a little more to the rates than whether there is an exchange or the color of the state!

Most of what I have read show that the states with the lowest rates will be those with the most insurance companies. I would suggest that the insurance companies decided to enter the states where they could make the most money…

And again, we’re seeing what we’ve always seen happen. Taxpayers in Democratic-controlled states are forced to pay for Republican-controlled states’ extremely high intake of federal funds.

First, how accurate is that now? It was based on the 2004 election and 2005 financial figures.

And secondly, what are all those dollars about?

And thirdly, why would Democrats complain about this, seeing as they are the ones who are interested in seeing all this happen?

 

[DeniseNY]

**Obamacare Will Increase Health Spending By $7,450 For A Typical Family of Four **

It was one of candidate Obama’s most vivid and concrete campaign promises. Forget about high minded (some might say high sounding) but gauzy promises of hope and change. This candidate solemnly pledged on June 5, 2008: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year…… We’ll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States.” Unfortunately, the experts working for Medicare’s actuary have (yet again[1]) reported that in its first 10 years, Obamacare will boost health spending by “roughly $621 billion” above the amounts Americans would have spent without this misguided law.

What this means for a typical family of four

$621 billion is a pretty eye-glazing number. Most readers will find it easier to think about how this number translates to a typical American family—the very family candidate Obama promised would see $2,500 in annual savings as far as the eye could see. So I have taken the latest year-by-year projections, divided by the projected U.S. population to determine the added amount per person and multiplied the result by 4.

Simplistic? Maybe, but so too was the President’s campaign promise. And this approach allows us to see just how badly that promise fell short of the mark. Between 2014 and 2022, the increase in national health spending (which the Medicare actuaries specifically attribute to the law) amounts to $7,450 per family of 4.

Let us hope this family hasn’t already spent or borrowed the $22,500 in savings they might have expected over this same period had they taken candidate Obama’s promise at face value. In truth, no well-informed American ever should have believed this absurd promise. At the time, Factcheck.org charitably deemed this claim as “overly optimistic, misleading and, to some extent, contradicted by one of his own advisers.” The Washington Post less charitably awarded it Two Pinocchios (“Significant omissions or exaggerations”). Yet rather than learn from his mistakes, President Obama on July 16, 2012 essentially doubled-down on his promise, assuring small business owners “your premiums will go down.” He made this assertion notwithstanding the fact that in three separate reports between April 2010 and June 2012, the Medicare actuaries had demonstrated that the ACA would increase health spending. To its credit, the Washington Post dutifully awarded the 2012 claim Three Pinocchios (“Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.”)

Read the entire article (and the author’s responses to the continuing absurd defenses of this dog of a law )here:

forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/23/its-official-obamacare-will-increase-health-spending-by-7450-for-a-typical-family-of-four/

 

[_Abyssinia]

‘Lower than projected’ what does that mean? Does that mean healthcare insurance plans are lower than they were before the Affordable Care Act? ‘Lower than projected’ may mean insurance premiums are lower than what was previously thought but that does not mean that insurance premiums are not and have not increased.

CNN reported premiums would go up 35% average in Florida, their source being the state insurance departments

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130802171131-obamacare-premiums-rise-620xa.jpg

---

Behind the numbers in 3 key states. In Florida, for instance, officials constructed a hypothetical silver-level plan based on the offerings available today. Then they looked at how the cost of that plan compares to the average silver plan that will be available on the exchange. Florida found premiums will rise between 7.6% and 58.8%, depending on the insurer. The average increase would be 35%.

The main driver of the premium increases is the Obamacare mandate that coverage be offered to everyone, said Kevin McCarty, Florida’s insurance commissioner. There are just short of a million enrollees in the individual market in Florida, while 3.8 million are uninsured. The state does not allow new entrants into a “high-risk pool,” which provides coverage to the sick.

“People who are in their 50s with high blood pressure have no coverage options,” he said.

money.cnn.com/2013/08/06/news/economy/obamacare-premiums/index.html

 

[St_Francis]

Do you think $2300 a year before subsidies is an enormous rate for good, mid-level health insurance? Because that’s what Minnesota’s rate is after they decided to keep control of their own exchanges rather than hand the keys to the federal government like most Republican states. And again, we’re seeing what we’ve always seen happen. Taxpayers in Democratic-controlled states are forced to pay for Republican-controlled states’ extremely high intake of federal funds.

Oops… California will have 10th highest rates in US and in the article it says that Texas will come in below average…

 

[SamH]

tampabay.com/news/business/banking/obamacare-marketplace-premiums-released-for-florida/2143679

Rather important state.

So you project a 80% increase and only get a 40% increase. Yeah that’s reason to party.

 

[Jeffrey_David]

Yup… good ol political double speak from the left. Don’t know why i’d expect them to stop now lol… sigh

**lower *than projected. ***

What we were told before the bill was passed was that our insurance premiums would be lower than *before the bill was passed. *

If the government then projects the costs will quadruple, bit they only triple, that is indeed “lower than projected,” but still is way higher than the costs were before.

 

[Least]

The OP and half of the rest of you must be getting paid to spout this cr_p.

Obamacare hasn’t even hit yet, you have no idea what it will cost in eventuality but it will undoubtedly be as bankrupt as Medicaid and Medicare. States like NY and CA cannot even afford the Medicaid and Medicare/welfare costs that they have saddled themselves with, Obamacare will only add to it.

You are a bunch of communists, all communists are evil.

 

[seekerz]

You are a bunch of communists, all communists are evil.

Seriously? Name-calling only discredits the name-callers.

 

[seekerz]

OK, scratch that. If there is even a single state in which the poor will suffer, is absolute federal control a good thing?

The poor have not suffered since the dawn of time? When was poverty ever a cakewalk? At least now the poor have more options when they are sick (at least in the states where Governors care enough to expand Medicaid).

 

[seekerz]

**lower *than projected. ***

What we were told before the bill was passed was that our insurance premiums would be lower than *before the bill was passed. *

Remind me when we were told that again?