Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In regards to premiums rising... Every insurer has to dramatically increase revenues per customer... Thus, premiums per person are going up.
Depending on the existing pool the insurer has for customers, between 60 and 100 percent of policy holders will see detrimental financial results.
Overall, it will take 2 years to compile the numbers to see, but considering the trends, it will be the rare policyholder who will find the premium decreased. (note, subsidy does not decrease the premium)
It is my PREDICTION that 90% will see premiums go up. And that's based on industry PREDICTIONS based on the models which have already appear to be wrong - things are going to be worse than predicted.
Ah, so you moved the goal post, there is no proof that 90% will see a drastic increase, it is just your prediction, we'll my prediction says that we will see some form of increase that is comparable to past increases.
Ah, so you moved the goal post, there is no proof that 90% will see a drastic increase, it is just your prediction, we'll my prediction says that we will see some form of increase that is comparable to past increases.
Not at all.
It's just your lack of reasoning ability.
You know and I know, that the implementation of Obamacare's new premium structure just started.
Any discussion of it NECESSARILY includes what happens this year, (and because of illegal delays for partisan purposes) and the next few years.
Each year will see the "selected" group of victims see the dramatic price spiral the current ones are seeing. There will be NO 'group' plans not dramatically effected, because the pricing in the future will be based on the events of the day - meaning the dramatically worse risk structure we see today will be the "new norm".
It's not like the President is ordering his minions to NOT implement the law because nothing bad will happen if they follow the law. Even those who wrote it and are still promising nothing bad will happen are now suddenly wanting to put it off into the future while promising no bad effects will happen.
And you accuse me of "moving the goalposts".
No, I'm just accurately discussing the subject. And you're trying to call that being wrong.
Oh, and I almost forgot... The same liberals who run around screaming that any bad weather event is proof of global warming already argued that dramatic increases in premiums WOULD NOT BE A BAD EFFECT OF OBAMACARE.
So explain the increases in healthcare insurance before Obama ever took office? Or don't, I don't expect you to be honest.
What on earth are you trying to do? Change the subject?
The subject is that the same people who think that a few weather events prove a simplistic theory about a complex topic... Say that when the results are inescapably bad about the results of a known event which was promised to do the reverse of reality, it proves nothing.
All this blather about historical trends, blah, blah, is just so much nonsense.
I don't recall ANYONE saying that health care costs would rise just because Obama holds an office. I'm sure nobody did.
You (and every lib) have struggled desperately to change the subject. Clearly, none of you realized that the inconsistency in reasoning was the issue... After all, someone with inconsistent reasoning would never notice...
What on earth are you trying to do? Change the subject?
The subject is that the same people who think that a few weather events prove a simplistic theory about a complex topic... Say that when the results are inescapably bad about the results of a known event which was promised to do the reverse of reality, it proves nothing.
All this blather about historical trends, blah, blah, is just so much nonsense.
I don't recall ANYONE saying that health care costs would rise just because Obama holds an office. I'm sure nobody did.
You (and every lib) have struggled desperately to change the subject. Clearly, none of you realized that the inconsistency in reasoning was the issue... After all, someone with inconsistent reasoning would never notice...
You blame me for changing the subject and then change the subject by talking about climate change.
Most likely your employer was eating the cost increases then. Seriously, health insurance had double digit increases for me on a regular basis.
I am my employer. I was buying Blue Cross/Blue Shield from the National Association of the Self-Employed. Over the last 15 years my premiums increased by 42%, or an average increase of 2.8% per year.
I am my employer. I was buying Blue Cross/Blue Shield from the National Association of the Self-Employed. Over the last 15 years my premiums increased by 42%, or an average increase of 2.8% per year.
Nice. I can assure you that doesn't match my experiences, or the experiences of anyone I personally know.
In fact, in 1999 the average cost of insurance for a family was $5,791-in 2009 it was 13,375.
Source-Kaiser/HRET Survey of employer sponsored health benefits
So your experience is atypical enough that I find it extremely unlikely.
Isn't it funny that obamabots will be obamabots no matter what?
It is difficult to grasp their constant defense of him no matter what the issue.
In fairness it is difficult to grasp the constant blaming of Obama for every little issue as well.
Our problems go much deeper then who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.