Obamacare Exchange Costs Up 29% Before Program Even Starts!

One of the big features of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. health-care reform or Obamacare) is the creation of exchanges where people can buy subsidized insurance plans if they don't qualify via the workplace. There's a raft of implementation issues as states try to figure out whether they want to set up their own exchanges or go along with federal ones. Here's something that only makes 2014, the year Obamacare fully comes online, even more dread-worthy: The estimated cost of subsidizing plans through Obamacare's exchanges has grown from $3,970 in 2010 to $5,510. Here's John Merline of Investors Business:

The CBO's new baseline estimate shows that ObamaCare subsidies offered through the insurance exchanges — which are supposed to be up and running by next January — will total more than $1 trillion through 2022, up from $814 billion over those same years in its budget forecast made a year ago.

That's an increase of nearly 29%...

Last year, the CBO said the average exchange subsidy for those getting federal help when ObamaCare goes into effect next year would be $4,780. Its latest estimate raised that to $5,510 — a 15% increase. All these numbers are up even more from the CBO's original forecast made in 2010, which had the first-year subsidy average at $3,970.

The CBO also expects 7 million workers will lose their employer coverage due to ObamaCare, almost twice as many as it had previously said would be dumped. It expects tax penalties on individuals and companies who don't buy insurance to be $36 billion higher from 2014 to 2019 than it originally forecast.

Merline notes that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects that Medicaid costs to come down more than before, so it estimates that total spending on Obamacare will stay around the same. Read the whole thing here.

Yet given the track record of major health-care entitlements - which almost always cost much more than anticipated - we should all expect Obamacare's costs to spiral upwards.

Merline also points readers to this recent survey of insurers in five cities by the American Action Forum. The good news is that if you're unhealthy and/or old, your premiums will likely go down by about 22 percent on average. The bad news is for younger and healthier folks on individual or small-employer plans: You premiums will increase by 169 percent on average.

Back in 2010, Reason TV offered "3 Reasons Health-Care Reform Won't Cut the Deficit by One Thin Dime." Watch it now below and read the text here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • R C Dean||

    Somebody was asking earlier what "social justice" looks like:

    The good news is that if you're unhealthy and/or old, your premiums will likely go down by about 22 percent on average. The bad news is for younger and healthier folks on individual or small-employer plans: You premiums will increase by 169 percent on average.

  • ||

    I'm sure there's an Iron Law in here somewhere...

  • Lord Humungus||

    169 percent. Jeebus!

  • Restoras||

    RC, and mad libertarian guy if you're out there, here's an update on the tortuous process to get a pistol in NY state.

    The Kimber I wanted wouldn't ship - the dealer refused to ship to NY because of uncertainties surrounding the new law.

    However, the local shop I am going through to get the license happened to have just received a shipment of four Remington 1911s. So, I arrived Saturday morning as soon as it opened and bought one, the version with the enhanced trigger and 8 round magazine. The store now gets to hold it for me while I complete the application process.

  • R C Dean||

    Nope, no infringement there.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    There's a lot of low-rent apartments in northern PA for you to use as your official residence while, er, temporarily domiciling in NY.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    That seems ... "reasonable".

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Motherfucker.

    I'd suggest moving out of that hellhole, but I assume there are reason why you can't.

    Here in KY, when I want a gun, I go to the gun shop. Then I get to look at and shoot virtually any gun I want. I then pick out the one I want, and walk out of the store with it just a few minutes later.

    There are no stickers on any gun cases which read "Illegal in KY" and no messages on online gun sellers that say "Will not ship to KY."

    You want a gun? Find one and buy it. It's that simple.

  • ||

    And younger healthier people will make the perfectly rational calculation that it's cheaper to pay the penalty.

  • wareagle||

    which, one could easily argue, is teh whole point of the system as designed. Back door single-payer.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The bad news is for younger and healthier folks on individual or small-employer plans: You premiums will increase by 169 percent on average.

    Well, that's what I get for hoarding all this youth and health. I'm too greedy. It's not fair! I should give some more years to Pro Lib.

  • Almanian.||

    So, it's working exactly as planned. Excellent...

  • ||

    This is why I predicted this for 2016. I will accept any takers.

  • ||

    My first reaction is to think that Eurotrash-style universally shitty health care sounds like a fucking dream compared to the disaster Obamacare will be. "Lowered Expectaaaaations..."

  • Pro Libertate||

    My political prognosticator is busted these days, but I'd say her weak play as SoS may make it hard for her to run.

    Probably depends more on 2014. If that's a big win for the GOP, then the Democrats will probably seek new blood. From their perspective, that worked with Obama.

    It's interesting and distressing that we've had back-to-back bad presidents, both of whom got re-elected. Clinton was bad, too, but the net effect of Congress neutralizing him wasn't as bad as what we're enduring now.

  • ||

    I'm not old enough to remember having a good president. Are you? Is anyone?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, there's godawful and bad. We're somewhere south of godawful.

    Incidentally, we've spent a lot of time around here over the years trashing presidents. But Congress is possibly the worst it's ever been over the last decade.

  • robc||

    Coolidge was 1923-1929, so of course there are people who are old enough to remember.

  • SugarFree||

    Clinton was fairly useless for the last four years or so. That's as close to a "good" President any of us will see.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Looking back, Bush 1 wasn't that bad.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    Anyone for the roaring 20s?

    I'm just looking better all the time!

  • BuSab Agent||

    Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama. Nope.

  • DaveAnthony||

    Nope. She has LEGIONS of fans that are blindly in love with her. They *really* wanted her instead of Obama and as his popularity crashes over the next 4 years they are going to start dragging out the "it's time for Hill to be prez because she's such a sassy bitch!"

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, but she also has lots of people who hate her--a lot. And those aren't just Republicans and independents, as there's definitely bad blood between the Clinton and Obama camps.

  • R C Dean||

    The Hillary run will be interesting.

    Is there enough "Oooh, historic first woman President!" swooning to make a difference post-Obama?

    Will the critical low-information soccer mom demo carry the collar counties that swing states, umm, swing on?

    Will anybody care that she left an ambassador out to dry, and lied repeatedly about it?

  • ||

    Is there enough "Oooh, historic first woman President!" swooning to make a difference post-Obama?

    Yes.

    Will the critical low-information soccer mom demo carry the collar counties that swing states, umm, swing on?

    Two words: Sandra Fluke. So, yes.

    Will anybody care that she left an ambassador out to dry, and lied repeatedly about it?

    Do they care now? No. So, no they won't.

  • ||

    Pro'L Dib, however true that may be, TEAM trumps all. His Pestilency's legacy is complete and the press will cover for him in exchange for him leaving HillDawg alone. Who else is there? Another "Old White Guy?" I thought TEAM BLUE, Jezehellions, and Feminfisters hated them.

    It's HillDawg's turn, enemies or not, and women voted revealed v. stated preferences before, and they will again. Same with all the other demographies His Pestilency carried, and she is guaranteed The Vag Vote.

    I am so sure of this I would consider betting my medical license, Pro'L Dib. All the others, including Joe, are pretenders at best. If by some reason TEAM RED picks up seats (I don't foresee it), then she will remind voters of Clinton Triangulation.

  • Pro Libertate||

    She'll run. What I'm saying is that Obamania will look to another young, empty suit, instead of an old, empty pantsuit.

  • ||

    I don't think so. I believe she will win in 2016. Especially if The Corpulent Jesus runs, she will look fit and trim compared to that Rotund Repubican, that Lipoid Litigator, that Grotesque Gubernatorial.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Nah. At some point, the impending economic disaster is going to become apparent even to our dumb voters.

  • sarcasmic||

    Nah. At some point, the impending economic disaster is going to become apparent even to our dumb voters.

    And the candidate who proposes the biggest top-down solution will win, thanks to the public schools successfully creating a population that believes economic sophisms to be fact.

    Bill will be getting hummers in the White House again.

  • R C Dean||

    That, and she is now safely on the sidelines for whatever economic mishaps we experience during the next four years.

  • Rasilio||

    She'll never be elected for just this reason.

    Your unfavorable ratings are FAR more important than your favorable ones. People who love you may or may not make the effort to show up and vote, people who hate and/or fear you will sure as hell show up to vote against you.

    Hillary will never win a General election unless the Republicans manage to nominate someone just as repellant to the political middle (like maybe a Rick Santorum or Jeb Bush)

  • R C Dean||

    Hillary will never win a General election unless the Republicans manage to nominate someone just as repellant

    So you agree, she's a lock in 2016?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Romney won independents...

    Democrat turnout is what sunk the GOP in 2012. Period.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's funny, but Jeb Bush might be a decent candidate if he weren't, well, a Bush. I thought he was a decent governor.

  • ||

    Hillary is not going to run in 2016. She's too old, and she's getting sick. Why do you think she retired?

  • ||

    All she needs in one term. You watch, Hazel. Who else are they going to run? Cuomo? Wasserman-Shultz? Granholm? N. Gillespie?

    I notice your prognostications have stunk to high heaven lately.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    All she needs in one term. You watch, Hazel. Who else are they going to run? Cuomo? Wasserman-Shultz? Granholm? N. Gillespie?

    Senator Pocahontas (D-MA).

  • Rasilio||

    I'm not sure about her age, but if she won in 2016 she'd be 69 years old when she took office and 77 years old (in theory when she left it), a year younger than Reagan.

    That said here is a scary thought.

    Chelsea Clinton turns 36 in 2016, the eligibility age for President is 35.

    Say Chelsea wins a seat in the House or Congress in eithe 14 or 16, then Hillary wins in 2016. In 2020 Hillary bows out citing failing health and Chelsea bravely steps in for Mom.

  • ||

    The thing is she was recently in the hospital for several days (press is fairly mum about why). It's why she didn't testify on Benghazi immediately. And I don't think her retirement and her hospital stay are unrelated. And I seriously doubt she would have missed the Benghazi hearing if she wasn't in the hospital for a really fucking good reason.

    I think she's either got cancer, or some other serious illness, and they are keeping it under wraps.

  • R C Dean||

    She retired because there wasn't any mileage left for her, personally, as SecState, she needs the time and space to get her Presidential campaign up and running, and she sees many, many problems ahead for Obama that she doesn't want sticking to her.

  • ||

    That's what I thought at first, but then she missed the Banghazi hearing due to her hospitalization.

    Contrary to the other conspiracy theorists, I don't think she was using sickness as an excuse to not show up. I think she wouldn't have missed that date if she wasn't seriously ill. There really wasn't enough discussion about that in the media. The Secretary of State doesn't miss a high-profile public hearing unless he/she is physically unable to get out of bed.

  • sarcasmic||

    This is obviously a failure of the free market that can only be corrected by single payer government health care.

  • Restoras||

    Hey sloop, in case you didn't already know, it's a great year for banjos!

  • dave b.||

    They're not called exchanges anymore since it doesn't translate well into Spanish. You can't make this shit up.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    But they don't care that it doesn't translate well into English in the first place?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Just raise taxes on the wealthy!

    Problem solved.

  • ||

    I thought the subsidies were going to be implemented via the tax code. Isn't that what the 'Health Insurance Tax Credit' is for?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Most of these extra expenses will be handled through rationing.

    They'll expand the Medical Necessity program far beyond what it is now.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_necessity

    If wheelchairs are less expensive than hip replacements, then who says the taxpayers should have to pay for a hip replacement?

    People who think they're going to continue to have access to those kinds of services in the future are horribly mistaken. And it's precisely those kinds of quality of life decisions that ObamaCare will take away from individuals and give to bureaucrats--under the guise of cost cutting.

    When a system is so flawed that no reasonable amount of tax hikes can fix it, the next step is rationing. But they were planning to ration your care all along. That's why taxing companies for offering "Cadillac" insurance plans was all about. That's why they originally wanted to tax medical devices. The Obama government wants less quality available--and more of it go around.

    That's what rationing is all about. And that is and will be their solution to cost overruns.

  • Rasilio||

    "People who think they're going to continue to have access to those kinds of services in the future are horribly mistaken"

    Of course they will have access to them, if they can afford the airfare to India or some other country with a booming medical tourism industry.

  • sarcasmic||

    At least the rationing will be done by selfless bureaucrats who exist only to serve the will of The People, instead of those evil insurance corporations that exist only to profit from denying care to the sick!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Dear Grandpa So and So,

    You need a hip replacement because you wanted to be able to walk for the last fifteen years of your life?

    When a wheelchair would work just fine?

    You selfish bastard!

    Love,

    Barack Obama

  • Auric Demonocles||

    This just doesn't make sense. How could a gigantic government run medical program providing access to people cost more than expected? That's just stupid. This bill is clearly going to cost less than projected, and reduce the deficit.

  • OldMexican||

    The CBO also expects 7 million workers will lose their employer coverage due to ObamaCare, almost twice as many as it had previously said would be dumped.


    But you have to understand that there were like 29 million - no, make that 35 million - no, wait, 50 million! Yeah, sounds about right! 50 million of uninsured individuals! That justifies everything!

  • HealthCarePenalties||

    Great read Nick

    So I'm wondering... Is anyone looking at the 9.5% of income threshold for the Act? The threshold is only laid out for individuals! This is either a blatant oversight or as I suspect just more of the same BS we've been getting since they passed this damn thing. I'm leaving my email if you'd like to know more.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement