Of course it is false, because it doesn't say the same things you keep insisting are true. Obamacare is a disaster and it is increasing rates for most Americans.
if you can't afford healthcare just go to ben taub when you're in an emergency. Otherwise go to a free clinic. The taxpayers still pick up your bill, this obamacare is a travesty, poor people will have to pay for their own insurance....o wait they get subsidies for that too. So it's really just a tax grab.
Or it's false if you can read simple English. Did you even read or understand what the article stated? Or are you just repeating headlines with no understanding of the topic?
No, I read it. And it clearly shows that rates are rising for men and women. The numbers released by HHS were compared to the original projections. It's bad, but not as bad as we thought!
In your mind, is this statement true? Obamacare Will Increase Avg. Individual-Market Insurance Premiums By 99% For Men, 62% For Women That's the statement you quoted in your original post. I'm curious because you say you read the article (which explains why it's false).
Premiums went up because the ACA put in minimum requirements for health insurance plans. So states with bare bones plans that cover very little with low premiums threw off averages. Those high deductible plans barely qualified as insurance and ultimately still burdened most care onto ERs and subsequently passed on health insurance costs.
lol trueroxfan don't remind them the president said premiums won't go up and you can keep your doctor if you want bc plenty of people are finding out it's not true. Best of all the rising student debt interest rates lol I remember all the kids at school promoting obama like he was the coolest thing ever and now lucky for them they have higher student debt meanwhile I have none so I could care less
It is true for the available data. HHS did not release data for older men and women. That is acknowledged in the article. The article uses the available data for a 27 year old and a 40 year old.
Except it's not. Again, look at the plans they compared. They didn't look at average plans - they looked at the cheapest available. The article's data and the title DO NOT MATCH AT ALL. That's why it's wrong - not because I said so, but because the facts did. If you had read and understood it before you posted it, you'd know that. So, we conducted two comparisons between pre-ACA data and post-ACA data, as reported by HHS. The first comparison is between the cheapest plan available to 27-year-olds pre- and post-Obamacare. The second is between the cheapeast plan available to the average exchange participant, and to the typical 40-year-old pre-Obamacare. A comparison of cheapest plans does not imply or even remotely connect to average premiums. The article says nothing about whether average premiums went up. It doesn't even say anything about whether the cost for an identical plan went up or down. All it tells us is that the cheapest plans are not accredited under the exchange (though they may still be available outside of the exchange).
Aren't those the plans that will be purchased most?! Those who can't afford insurance, wouldn't they be purchasing those plans? Wouldn't it be illogical to compare the costs of the most expensive plans, the ones that most people affected by this bill won't be purchasing?
That doesnt make it a comparison between today and the future. most people have what their employer providesu
This isn't entirely accurate. Premiums went up for all sorts of reasons. Across the board in Texas groups got about 4% simply due to taxes and fees. The minimum standard rules aren't even in place yet. Those are January 1 issues. Things like mandatory pediatric dental on all plans, even for people who have better dental coverage through their employer. There's a lot of good stuff in Obamacare. It's too bad we can't make it better because we have two parties who are only concerned about playing to election talking points and not really about fixing the bill. If Republicans would stop moaning about defunding it or repealing it, two things that aren't going to happen for at least another 2 years if EVER (likely never) and would actually come to the table to improve the bill and Democrats would actually admit that things in here are severely flawed and stop trying to pretend like it's not as bad as people say, we could hammer out improvements and fixes in 30-60 days that would make this thing hum. Instead we are stuck with something that is going to do a lot of damage to a lot of people and benefit a lot of people. The damage is coming mainly from unforeseen catches and glitches. They could be fixed!
No. The vast majority of people don't buy catastrophic health care plans. No - because those plans don't really benefit the poor since you have to pay most of the costs. Catastrophic plans are good for healthy people who can afford to pay their day-to-day health care expenses but want to be protected in case of cancer or whatnot. They are not helpful for the poor, though, because they don't cover regular care and chances are the poor will have to declare bankruptcy regardless in a cancer type scenario. That's why these plans don't fit under the exchange system or qualify for subsidies. Not at all. If you're trying to figure out whether prices are going up or down, wouldn't you want to compare plans that are similar?
This is part of the reason why healthcare costs so much to begin with. People who can't pay for insurance driving up costs for everybody else due to resorting to emergency services. If a treatable illness is neglected to the point that emergency services are required, but not afforded, then our system has failed. That cost is passed off to you.
I dont disagree with anything you said. I'm just saying people who say stuff like "premiums went up 95%" are doing some very sketchy math.
