More broken promises
Obama promised that under ObamaCare your insurance premiums would drop $2,500.
The IRS recently reported that insurance (under ObamaCare) for a family of four (for you liberals that’s a husband, wife, and two of their own children) the cost will be $20,000.
I contacted two different insurance agents in Brainerd. Both confirmed that insurance for that family of four would be in the $12,000 range.
More Obama “magic” math. More change we can do without.
Art Becker
Pillager
Comments (18)
Add commentWell, since the bill doesn't
Well, since the bill doesn't become law till January 1, 2014, you have plenty of time to immigrate to another country.
grandpatax
The rates are going up and this information is everywhere.
As I have stated many times on here, our insurance policy was cancelled due to this coming legislature. It was a Blue Cross policy and was cancelled for everyone on it. Our new policy cost more as does the drug coverage. No eye coverage or dental coverage.
So the B as in b, S as in s about keeping the same policy and the price not going up was and is plain wrong.
Of course, companies had to prepare for a year from now,
it doesn't just happen you know.
Sadie
Yes, you have mentioned the Blue Cross cancellation before, but I have never found any reasons for those changes or what specific policy was cancelled. I wonder why they advertise lots of other policies for seniors. Do you have a source for more information, such as an insurance agent?
How many families of four in the Brainerd Lakes Area can afford
$12,000 a year for insurance? And why, if the government is so great at keeping costs down, will the cost for insurance through the exchange be $8,000 more expensive for the same coverage that is available privately?
Is anyone who voted for Obama paying attention to the fact that the people who are being hurt most by his policies are the very people he's claims to be trying to help?
Southie
It was a PPO, and I will not send a copy of the letter we received or the name of our insurance agent. That would be silly. We are now on one of those other Blue Cross policies that you mentioned.
The policy we were on was Medicare Blue PPO (regional PPO). We received a letter saying " due to blah, blah,
we are no longer offering your policy, it has been terminated and here are your options if you wish to remain with Blue cross.
Of course, I'm writing what I remember of the letter.
I'm ok with what happened and what we now have but, that is not the point. I know our policy was not the only one that was terminated so we all just move on and adjust to what our options are.
Hope this answers your questions.
Hmmm...
In 1999 the average annual cost of family health insurance was $5,791; by 2009 it had risen to $13,375. Did anyone really think ObamaCare would reduce insurance costs before the plan even went into effect?
BTW, what kind of health coverage does Art Becker have? Medicare you say? Didn't Ronald Reagan warn that if Medicare passed, by the end of the century we would all cease to be free men.
So let's see a show of hands. How many of you seniors would like to do away with Medicare?
Yes, here is my hand up
If I would have been given the choice in the first place not to be in it and not to have paid into it. We paid the employer and the employee part and have paid plenty into the system.
But, we didn't have the choice, did we?
Most of us didn't think Obamacare would reduce the cost before or after it was implemented. It is also the care in the future that we are concerned about, not so much for us but,
for younger people.
So how long have you been
bilking Medicaid, Otter?
What's Medicade?
Is that a typo, a hybrid or what?
medicaid
The grammar/spelling police strike again.
Is that better Otter?
Answer the question that you know I asked.
To be honest...
I wasn't sure what you asked. Medicade is much closer to Medicare than it is to Medicaid, isn't it? Could easily have been a typo, and I couldn't answer honestly without knowing which one you're talking about.
So you accuse me of "bilking Medicaid," and you're offended that I asked for a clarification of your question so I knew how to answer correctly? Actually I'm on Medicare, like virtually everyone else my age. Is there a reason you asked?
otter
I guess it all depends on your definition of "free men".
Maybe your definition of free men would be different than that of Ronald Reagan.
'Obama promised that under
'Obama promised that under ObamaCare your insurance premiums would drop $2,500
"Obama promised that under ObamaCare your insurance premiums would drop $2,500.
The IRS recently reported that insurance"
Gosh! You don't suppose the guy running the most transparent shell game in US history deliberately lied to you, just to get his healthcare takeover enacted.
Watch for barry's next assault on the insurance industry. They unfairly have all that cash in reserve and Barry would just love to redistribute it.
Let's be certain there's enough money left to cover Michele's vacations.
lordy, lordy, what a bunch of costly losers. Love to all - Steve
'
More good news...
The pools that were supposed to take care of people who had been denied insurance for pre-existing conditions is running out of money a year ahead of schedule.
“What we’ve learned through the course of this program is that this is really not a sensible way for the health-care system to be run,” Cohen said." (That would be Gary Cohen, director of he Department of Health and Human Services’ Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight)
They were warned by people in the insurance field that this wouldn't work, but they did it anyway. Truly, the Obama administration's arrogance is going to be the financial ruin of all of us.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2013/02/15/cb9d56a...
Eye opener?
The National Republican Congressional Committee released a video showing that Obamacare taxes puppies and babies.
A record number of (expensive) misleading and outright false attack ads have been funded by "pop-up" right wing organizations so follow the money... and open your eyes wide enough to see past the good-evil, black-white, red-blue of politics.
Republicans need to blame themselves here
As it is THEIR PLAN!
Democrats have pushed the universal health care model--where there is just one government run policy for everyone in the country, similar to Canada's system (which works a lot better than detractors say) forever. In fact when "obamacare" was passed, many democrats were extremely upset as it wasn't the government run system they wanted.
Republicans lined up to support the coming new system years ago, in droves!
Only after they refused to support a universal government run program--and democrats gave in to push the program which was passed--did republicans start claiming it was a democratic, socialistic program to be attacked at every turn. This was all political, and remains so.
The new system is not government run--it has incentives and penalties and requirements that are new, but you still will be able to have some choice in your policy, and through that policy--who you see for your care.
Cost--despite the intentionally misleading $20,000 scare spin--is truly an unknown at this point.
My best guess is that those that have a Cadillac plan for Yugo prices--government workers, health care facility employees, etc.--will see their cost go up, whereas many in the middle class who struggle to find affordable insurance today will see their cost go down.
The core economic drivers of this plan are sound.
Everyone understands that it's generally cheaper to join a very large insurance group, right? The more insured under a plan, the cheaper the plan can be--it costs insurers less.
Well, with the mandate to be insured, there is no question that more will be insured than are today. This by the way is a boon to struggling rural clinics and hospitals who are being eaten up by "must serve" mandates and decreases in medicare payments.
More people insured coupled with more shopping for insurance and more choice will act like it should--it's Econ 101. Downward pressure will be put on insurance prices. But insurance companies will be insuring more people--thus if they are willing to compete for value, it doesn't have to hurt their bottom line. I talked to one person who thinks it will be a boon for them.
No question it has some issues and could be better, but with the political gridlock driven by POLITICs (not what's best for the people or the cheapest overall) it was the best that could be agreed to. And it fixes many of the worst problems in our old system.
And again--it really is a republican idea and was supported by republicans strongly--until it become politically convenient for them to back away from their own idea!
Dear Art
So much to refute, yet I will stick with one for simplicity purposes. I'd say it wasn't Obama who had the 'magic' math . . . . . . .http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/021513-644675-obamacare-cheapest-plan-wont-cost-20000.htm
BTW, I am no fan of Obamacare. Its perverse incentive on business expansion is not good. But lets stop resorting to lies in one's contempt for the plan.
We all have to ask ourselves
We all have to ask ourselves just one question. How much profit in a sick person?
Did you read the whole article Smart Guy?
I found this bit interesting: "The most current information from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation put the cost of a family policy purchased through an employer in 2016 at $20,000 vs. $15,745 last year." The fact that the Obama administration expects the cost of insurance to be less in the future under their plan is meaningless. They've been wrong in all their projections. My earlier link to the overruns in the "sick person" insurance pool is a perfect example of their profound lack of understanding of insurance economics. And RINO, more people in a pool does not inherently make it more cost effective--especially if the people you are adding are sick and require lots and lots of expensive treatments.