Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The White House today released a report on the costs of Obamacare for most Americans, heralding their 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 290 percent.

Today, a 27-year-old man in Memphis can buy a plan for as low as $41 a month. On the exchange, the lowest state average is $119 a month-a 290% increase.

— Today, a 27-year-old woman in Nashville can also buy a plan for as low as $58 a month. On the exchange, the lowest-priced plan in Nashville is $114 a month-a 197% increase. Even with a tax subsidy, that plan is $104 a month, almost twice what she could pay today.

— Today, women in Nashville can choose from 30 insurance plans that cost less than the administration says insurance plans on the exchange will cost, even with the new tax subsidy.

— In Nashville, 105 insurance plans offered today will not be available in the exchange.

Ibanez wrote:That is essentially what it is saying.

The White House today released a report on the costs of Obamacare for most Americans, heralding their 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 290 percent.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-hou ... le/2536363" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Some examples:

Today, a 27-year-old man in Memphis can buy a plan for as low as $41 a month. On the exchange, the lowest state average is $119 a month-a 290% increase.

— Today, a 27-year-old woman in Nashville can also buy a plan for as low as $58 a month. On the exchange, the lowest-priced plan in Nashville is $114 a month-a 197% increase. Even with a tax subsidy, that plan is $104 a month, almost twice what she could pay today.

— Today, women in Nashville can choose from 30 insurance plans that cost less than the administration says insurance plans on the exchange will cost, even with the new tax subsidy.

— In Nashville, 105 insurance plans offered today will not be available in the exchange.

We're screwed.

kalm wrote:

Ibanez wrote:That is essentially what it is saying.


http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-hou ... le/2536363" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Some examples:




We're screwed.

As stated ad nauseum, I'm no fan of Obamacare...but $41/month for health insurance? Sounds like there might be more to these numbers than what you posted.

dbackjon wrote:Yeah, who gets a mid-level plan for 41 a month.


It also looks like they are not taking into account the subsidies that most will recieve.


As a nation, we should be providing universal health coverage. We are the only western nation that doesn't. If the Republicans truly cared about their fellow Americans, they would have worked with the Democrats to provide single payor, universal health care.

We pay more in America already for less healthcare. The Free market is a failure when it comes to healthcare.

dbackjon wrote:Yeah, who gets a mid-level plan for 41 a month.


It also looks like they are not taking into account the subsidies that most will recieve.


As a nation, we should be providing universal health coverage. We are the only western nation that doesn't. If the Republicans truly cared about their fellow Americans, they would have worked with the Democrats to provide single payor, universal health care.

We pay more in America already for less healthcare. The Free market is a failure when it comes to healthcare.

The ACA, also known as Obamacare, mandates that most Americans who are currently uninsured purchase their own health insurance by Jan. 1, 2014. To make the process a little easier, state-based health insurance marketplaces will open around Oct. 1, offering plans at various price points. To make sure that plans stay affordable, individuals and families whose total annual income falls between 100 percent and 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) will be eligible to receive tax credits (also called subsidies) to help them pay for insurance. For most consumers, the subsidies will be paid directly to the insurance companies, to offset premiums.

With companies like IBM, Home Depot, Walgreens and Time Warner pushing retirees and employees out of their companies' group insurance plans and into the state-run marketplaces, thousands of additional consumers will be expecting subsidies, unaware that they may be forced to give some of the money back to the government.

dbackjon wrote:Yeah, who gets a mid-level plan for 41 a month.


It also looks like they are not taking into account the subsidies that most will recieve.


As a nation, we should be providing universal health coverage. We are the only western nation that doesn't. If the Republicans truly cared about their fellow Americans, they would have worked with the Democrats to provide single payor, universal health care.

We pay more in America already for less healthcare. The Free market is a failure when it comes to healthcare.

dbackjon wrote:Yeah, who gets a mid-level plan for 41 a month.


It also looks like they are not taking into account the subsidies that most will recieve.


As a nation, we should be providing universal health coverage. We are the only western nation that doesn't. If the Republicans truly cared about their fellow Americans, they would have worked with the Democrats to provide single payor, universal health care.

We pay more in America already for less healthcare. The Free market is a failure when it comes to healthcare.

dbackjon wrote:Yeah, who gets a mid-level plan for 41 a month.


It also looks like they are not taking into account the subsidies that most will recieve.


As a nation, we should be providing universal health coverage. We are the only western nation that doesn't. If the Republicans truly cared about their fellow Americans, they would have worked with the Democrats to provide single payor, universal health care.

We pay more in America already for less healthcare. The Free market is a failure when it comes to healthcare.

The third tragic outcome of Obamacare is what it will do to marriages and families. In January 2010, two months before Obamacare’s passage, the estimable Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation gave the impact a name: the “wedding tax.”

To illustrate, let’s start with the 60-year-old married couple with no children whose situation I illustrated at the end of Part 1:



If they have identical earnings totaling $65,000, which will usually net down to $50,000 or below after all income and payroll taxes, their Obamacare exchange Silver Plan premium next year with the same earnings will be $16,382, or about one-third of what used to be their take-home pay. (And they call it the “Affordable Care Act”?)

What can this couple do? Well, they could decide to earn a few thousand dollars less, which will negate the five-figure premium hit. Encouraging ordinarily willing workers to put in less effort isn’t good in any economy, but especially not this one. But if either spouse’s earnings are unpredictable or hard to precisely track, they could still “mess up” and get socked with a premium they can’t afford.

The “easiest” solution would be to avoid the “wedding tax” entirely by getting divorced while still living together. Here’s what would happen if they make that choice:



Instead of facing an exorbitant premium increase once their combined earnings hits $62,041 if they were to stay married, each cohabiting adult can earn up to $45,960 before Obamacare’s “tax credit”-free premiums kick in. Their annual after-tax savings at age 60 if they shack up and keep their individual earnings between $31,021 and $45,960 will range from $7,650 to over $11,000. The annual savings will slightly increase every year until Medicare kicks in at age 65. That kind of money can buy a lot of gifts for the grandkids

dbackjon wrote:Yeah, who gets a mid-level plan for 41 a month.


It also looks like they are not taking into account the subsidies that most will recieve.


As a nation, we should be providing universal health coverage. We are the only western nation that doesn't. If the Republicans truly cared about their fellow Americans, they would have worked with the Democrats to provide single payor, universal health care.

We pay more in America already for less healthcare. The Free market is a failure when it comes to healthcare.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that the lowest cost “bronze” plan available for South Carolinians to purchase on the Affordable Care Act’s new health insurance marketplace will cost an average $267 a month. The national average for a similar “bronze” plan is $249.

“Silver” health insurance plans available through the marketplace may also cost a little more in South Carolina. The department estimates the lowest cost “silver” plan in the state will be an average $333, while the national average is $310.

More expensive “gold” and “platinum” plans will also be available to purchase. All plans must include the same essential health benefits, but deductibles may vary.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Yeah, who gets a mid-level plan for 41 a month.


It also looks like they are not taking into account the subsidies that most will recieve.


As a nation, we should be providing universal health coverage. We are the only western nation that doesn't. If the Republicans truly cared about their fellow Americans, they would have worked with the Democrats to provide single payor, universal health care.

We pay more in America already for less healthcare. The Free market is a failure when it comes to healthcare.

And still, the entire free world comes to AMERICA for their healthcare.

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Yeah, who gets a mid-level plan for 41 a month.


It also looks like they are not taking into account the subsidies that most will recieve.


As a nation, we should be providing universal health coverage. We are the only western nation that doesn't. If the Republicans truly cared about their fellow Americans, they would have worked with the Democrats to provide single payor, universal health care.

We pay more in America already for less healthcare. The Free market is a failure when it comes to healthcare.

We have a free market when it comes to health care in this country? Who honestly believes that? Kalm should be ashamed to be shaking his head in agreement with that sentiment. He should know better. Cappy shouldn't so he gets a pass.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Yeah, who gets a mid-level plan for 41 a month.


It also looks like they are not taking into account the subsidies that most will recieve.


As a nation, we should be providing universal health coverage. We are the only western nation that doesn't. If the Republicans truly cared about their fellow Americans, they would have worked with the Democrats to provide single payor, universal health care.

We pay more in America already for less healthcare. The Free market is a failure when it comes to healthcare.

And still, the entire free world comes to AMERICA for their healthcare.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
We have a free market when it comes to health care in this country? Who honestly believes that? Kalm should be ashamed to be shaking his head in agreement with that sentiment. He should know better. Cappy shouldn't so he gets a pass.

There's no such thing as a free market, Weisenheimer.

GannonFan wrote:Still not sure how this is going to fly in the initial years. Right now, just out of pocket (and not including co pays or deductibles) a basic plan will cost something like $150/month, or more. So let's just round it to $2k per year for a plan. Since the penalty/tax to not have a plan is going to be around $400-$600 per year, why would anyone who doesn't regularly see a doctor (i.e. young males at least) ever sign up for a plan until they actually go to an ER or a doctor? You can't be denied treatment so why fork over the extra $1500 a year just to cut down on paperwork when you get treatment? The problem has been, and probably always will be, how do you get healthy people to voluntarily, or unwittingly, pay even more for the unhealthy than they do today?

ASUG8 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Still not sure how this is going to fly in the initial years. Right now, just out of pocket (and not including co pays or deductibles) a basic plan will cost something like $150/month, or more. So let's just round it to $2k per year for a plan. Since the penalty/tax to not have a plan is going to be around $400-$600 per year, why would anyone who doesn't regularly see a doctor (i.e. young males at least) ever sign up for a plan until they actually go to an ER or a doctor? You can't be denied treatment so why fork over the extra $1500 a year just to cut down on paperwork when you get treatment? The problem has been, and probably always will be, how do you get healthy people to voluntarily, or unwittingly, pay even more for the unhealthy than they do today?

The same situation as funding Medicare/SS, except it's mandated that everyone participate - there are no outs in those programs vs. the penalties with ACA. The youngsters have to pay for those older than them. I read somewhere that the penalties will increase annually so that there will be little or no benefit to refrain from coverage and pay the penalty.

Cluck U wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Yeah, who gets a mid-level plan for 41 a month.


It also looks like they are not taking into account the subsidies that most will recieve.


As a nation, we should be providing universal health coverage. We are the only western nation that doesn't. If the Republicans truly cared about their fellow Americans, they would have worked with the Democrats to provide single payor, universal health care.

We pay more in America already for less healthcare. The Free market is a failure when it comes to healthcare.

How much time and money do YOU spend giving to other people for their health care?

Conk f*ck.