Health Insurance Premiums Projected To Soar in 45 States Under Obamacare

Reason 24/7ReasonWell, now we know what's in it—the Affordable Care Act, that is—and that content is made up of hefty health insurance hikes for people in most states. According to a study by Heritage Foundation policy analyst Drew Gonshorowski, health insurance offered through Obamacare exchanges will cost more during the first year of the law than that offered beforehand for Americans in 45 out of 50 states.

From Town Hall:

A comprehensive 50-state study has found that insurance premiums will increase under the first year of Obamacare in 45 of 50 states. This finding flies in the face of President Obama's promise that his health care overhaul would cause premiums "for the typical family" to fall by $2500.

The study, done by the Heritage Foundation, uses a model to estimate what premium rates have been previously and what the new rates would be, using census data and averages provided by the Department of Health and Human Services. "Individuals in most states will end up spending more on the exchanges," policy analyst Drew Gonshorowski writes.

Costs vary depending on several factors, so Gonshorowski breaks down before and after premiums for 27-year-old adults, 50-year-old adults and families of four for better comparison. He finds that individuals and families in five states will, in fact enjoy savings as a result of the law. He writes, "This is because those states had already over-regulated insurance markets that led to sharply higher premiums through adverse selection, as is the case of New York."

To a large extent, the new law spreads regulations out beyond states that already adopted them, and attempts to conscript young, healthy people who previously skipped insurance into the system to subsidize older, sicker people's premiums—hence the assumption that already red-tape heavy states will benefit. Of course, the penalty for not buying health coverage is lower than the cost, so...

How this works out in practice, is that the monthly premium for a 27-year-old New Yorker before Obamacare is $500, expected to drop to $356 under the new law. Yay, savings—if the "young invincibles" show up. But in Arizona, monthly premiums for 27-year-olds average $102, expected to jump to $261.87 on the exchange. That's...not so bargain-ish. And Gonshorowski expects that to be far more representative of the national experience under Obamacare than the first-aid administered to the New York market's self-inflicted wounds.

Cost of buying health insurance before and after ObamacareHeritage Foundation

Of course, premium cost projections are based on the assumption that you can actually get anything accomplished on one of the Obamacare exchanges. That's not such a safe bet.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us at @reason247.

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.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Well it's going down in NY so fuck those bitter clingers in flyover country.

  • Doctor Whom||

    It's going down in the state where the legacy news media are mostly based. What else do you need to know?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Chuck Schumer says premiums will plummet.

    Whom can I believe?

  • Brett L||

    Chuck's premiums will. Fuck everyone else.

  • eyeroller||

    Heritage Foundation ... Aren't these the guys who dreamed up the individual mandate?

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    And if you come up with an idea, you are bound by blood oath never to challenge it!

  • Enyap||

    and of course the same people who use this argument think the sequester that Obama supported before he was against, was horrible.

  • OneOut||

    I'm more concerned with the assh*ts who crammed it down America's throat against the people will.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    This is the problem people had with Heritage becoming more overtly political. They held events urging the defunding and repeal of Obamacare around the county, so any subsequent study by them noting the flaws of the ACA is going to change about as many minds as an AFL-CIO study about the negative effects of right to work laws.

  • John||

    It is not an opinion. It is an objective fact. Eithe the rates went up or they didn't. So what you think of the heritage foundation is irrelevant. More importantly the people paying those rates will know they have gone up. No amount of kill the messenger is going to hide this.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    There seems to be some tension in your reply:

    -It is an objective fact. Eithe the rates went up or they didn't.

    -the people paying those rates will know they have gone up.

  • John||

    No there isn't. It is a fact and one that is noticeable to the people affected. So it does matter who is pointing out the fact.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    An objective fact...about the future?

  • John||

    Yes. Those are called predictions. And we will know soon enough what will happen. It doesn't matter whether you like the person saying it. Either they go up or not. And if they do, the fact that heritage is icky won't change the fact that they were objectively right.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Predictions are not 'objective facts' until they are proven true, John.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I thought you only had time for your studies, Bo.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    No studies needed to know that projections and predictions are not 'objective fact.'

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I thought you only had time for your studies, Bo.

    Is Blue Tulpa arguing over some stupid piece of minutia again?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Is it not odd that you would 'filter' my comments but be somehow compelled to interject into my exchanges? Having trouble 'quitting me?'

  • John||

    The source doesn't matter regardless. So your whining about how icky heritage is is nothing but an distraction.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You have said you are a lawyer? If an expert were giving testimony on something they had an express, stated bias on, you do not think a court would allow that to be brought up and overrule an objection of irrelevance? Of course it would. Why is that John, if the source does not matter?

  • John||

    If they were giving an opinion sure. But if they said the sun rises in the east no. Just because you have a position does not mean every fact you give is wrong. The guy could be a total hack and still point out truthful facts

    For whatever reason you seem not to want to talk about how much Obamacare will raise insurance rates. So you have changes the topic of the conversation to the Heritage foundation. Nice try and you have managed to create a distraction. But the rest of us would like to talk about the subject at hand now. If you have something relevant to say about that please join in. But I have no interest in your opinion of the heritage foundation.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, I think in general Heritage will be right that premiums will increase over the law. I am saying that no one will, or should, believe this because Heritage, an organization which has expressed its marked opposition to the law, predicts it.

    You really dodged the question. Whether and how much premiums will go up or down in future is not whether the sun will come up tomorrow. If an expert offered his computer model predictions to a court and the opposing lawyer introduced his previously stated biases on the subject no judge in the world would overrule that introduction, and you know it. They would not because it is common sense that such a bias would make the predictions suspect.

  • John||

    The mere fact that someone is on one side or another doesn't discredit what they say. There is a latin term for the fallacy you embracing here.

    Bottom line is you have no point and can provide no reason to doubt these numbers and are just trying to change the subject

  • sarcasmic||

    There is a latin term for the fallacy you embracing here.

    John, John, John. Haven't you learned by now that leftists consider fallacies to be legitimate arguments?

  • Agammamon||

    Jesus you really like to argue, *any* statement, no matter how trivial is enough for you.

  • OneOut||

    He can't make a positive argument for the merits of the law so he's trying to change the focal point of this thread.

  • ||

    The exchanges had to set the rates for 2014 by October 1st, 2013. Those prices are facts, not speculation

  • Charlotte Falcon||

    The rates are filed. Go look them up.

  • Carolynp||

    I have to admit it makes me tense when my government attempts to get me to pretend like one plus one equals four.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Heritage becoming more overtly political

    How old are you Bo? Heritage has always been seen as a political beast.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Of course, they were always known as a home for conservative scholars. But I can not recall them being so overtly political as they have been recently, as evidenced by the rallies they held to defund Obamacare.

    Look, I would like to see Obamacare defunded and ideally repealed. My point is that when you hold a rally against Obamacare one day, and then release a 'study' about it the next, very few people will change their mind about the former because of the latter.

    This is what the Koch's wanted to do with Cato, and it was why most people at Cato resisted. Once you go down that route you end up like the Public Policy Polling institute-no one takes your analysis seriously anymore.

  • John||

    What does holding a rally hVe to do with insurance rates? Because they held a rally rates really are not going to go up? Again it is not an opinion. It is a fact. So the source doesn't matter.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Heritage used computer modeling to estimate the future rates John. What went into the modeling is going to be a bit of a mystery.

    I find it fascinating that you would likely (and rightly in my opinion) be skeptical about computer modeling about climate change, especially if you knew the research team were on-the-record environmental activists but you would be willing to accept the computer modeled projections of future insurance rates under a law that the research team worked to defeat. Partisanship can certainly be a double-edged sword!

  • John||

    If their predictions ever came true I wouldn't care. If rates go up, we will know it and they were right. It is that simple. Why do you die on these sorts of idiotic hills? Do you have some reason think they are wrong? You don't like them. Too bad. Sometimes people you don't like have a point. Unless you have some evidence that this is wrong, then you don't have a point other than you don't like heritage. Tough shit. Thwey probably don't like you either

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You will contort yourself mightily to deal with your contradictions, I will give you that!

    -Do you have some reason think they are wrong?

    I have reason to doubt the analysis of anyone who has a strongly expressed bias about the thing being analyzed, yes. You would two if the ideologies were different, of course.

  • John||

    Then you are an idiot. If this isn't true we will know soon enough. And you can look at their work and judge for yourself if you think it is right. The source doesn't matter. So let's talk about insurance rates and Obamacare and stop wasting our time talking about Heritage. If you think this is wrong, tell us why. But save your bitches about the source for another time when it matters. As it is you are just distracting the thread onto stuff that doesn't matter.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -If this isn't true we will know soon enough.

    Well, that is something quite different than saying their projections are 'objective fact.'

    -If you think this is wrong, tell us why.

    If you think the are right, tell us why. I bet you cannot, because you, and I, do not know everything that went into their models. And we cannot know if they will be correct until the future. And when someone is making a projection or a prediction where we cannot know if they are going to be correct or not, it is common sense to take their stated biases on the subject into account when deciding how accurate we bet their predictions will be.

    John, do you think Public Policy Polling polls are 'objective fact?' I tend to think they are a proven arm of the Democrat Party and so I do not trust their polls as far as I can throw them. But by your logic I am wrong. Curious, that.

  • John||

    The work speaks for itself. They seemed to have researched the rates and these are the numbers. Unless you can show me they are lying or have bad numbers there is good reason to believe this. So what if they don't like Obamacare. That doesn't mean their numbers are wrong. And to my knowledge they are not known to lie or mAke things up. So yes they get the benefit of the doubt. Show me why we shouldn't believe this. I don't like the source is not good enough. You only say that because you don't like the truth her but have nothing else to say.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -They seemed to have researched the rates and these are the numbers

    From 'objective fact' to 'seemed to have researched the rates and these are the numbers' and 'they get the benefit of the doubt.' I guess that is some progress (your continued dodging of my pointed examples notwithstanding). You are quite the contortionist at times John. I will let you have the last word to continue to demonstrate your flexible principles of logic.

  • KPres||

    "to continue to demonstrate your flexible principles of logic."

    Says the man who's entire line of argument is based on an ad hominem fallacy.

  • BMFPitt||

    But I can not recall them being so overtly political as they have been recently

    So you haven't been paying much attention.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Have they held similar types of rallies prior to recent times? I honestly do not know, I just do not recall that. Happy to be corrected if wrong in that.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Heritage are proven liars thanks to Jim DeMint. The immigration study is evidence.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    We can't all be as honest as Chocolate NIxon.

    (Hat tip to the person on this site I stole that from)

  • XM||

    They were right about ACA, weren't they?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You know, there's a certain elegance to Shike's trolling. Concise and to the point.

    As opposed to Bo's trolling, trying to infer the same bullshit obliquely, wasting hours doing so and getting smacked down repeatedly in the process.

    Bo, do us all a favor and adopt Buttplugs tactics so that it's easier to ignore you.

  • Brian||

    Ad hominem ad hominem derpy derp.

  • PapayaSF||

    If the GOP is to have a chance of winning in 2016, they are going to have to get their act together on this issue. "Repealing Obamacare" is not enough. Even if it's a disaster as it's shaping up to be, Hillary will probably run on a "Medicare for all" platform to "fix" it. The GOP needs to shift the conversation.

    The problem has never really been about health insurance and its cost. The core problem is health care, regardless of how it's paid. And as we know around here, insurance makes things more expensive. So what the GOP needs is a libertarian-oriented (but not purist!) set of non-scary sounding proposals. Allow purchase of health insurance across state lines. Ban "certificates of need." (Yes, these are anti-federalist: see "not purist" above.) Loosen up the FDA and allow people to take "unapproved" drugs. Let nurses and pharmacists do more. Encourage hospitals to post prices. Remove mandates from health insurance that raise costs. Etc., etc.

    It'll be difficult to construct this in such a way as to be widely appealing, and it will come under maximum fire from the statists, but I'm not sure there's another way to undo this trainwreck and get things headed in the right direction.

  • John||

    The problem such as it is is a supply problem and a government regulation problem. If you think medical care costs too much, get rid of the government impediments to supply more supply lowers the cost. It is that simple. Doing the things you talk about would go a decent way towards affordable healthcare. I think that information technology is going to revolutionize healthcare in the near future. It will allow nurses and pharmacists and even the patients themselves to do many things doctors are doing now and greatly lower the cost. If we let it happen.

  • PapayaSF||

    Yes, but the political problem is to pick free-market solutions that will make a difference, and that can be sold in a convincing way. If it's just "let the market do it," the progs and independents and low-info voters will think it means people dying in the gutters. You and I know it won't, but everybody else needs to be convinced. We need something like the Contract With America: a list of clear, non-scary bullet points.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    A 'non-purist' scheme that counters lefty statism yet ensures wealth re-distro for the voting mob would be a Medical Insurance Tax. Set it at something like 5% of income, all income no matter the source - such as capital gains and welfare/EBT.

    If you have medical insurance, you pay the tax. If insurance company offers what Feds define as medical insurance, you must accept anyone who pays 5% of their income for the insurance, and you can offer it in any state. If someone has such a "Certified" plan, their Medical Insurance Tax is waived.

    This will leave someone who makes $50,000 a year paying $2500 and someone making $5 million a year paying $250,000 for the same level of insurance and services. The poor get a deal, the rich get screwed either way.

    It is a plan full of taxing-statist pushy shit. The politibattle how medical insurance is 'defined' would be ugly. And the scheme would rife with all kinds of abuse. But it is a coherent, universal thing that when combined with scrapping Mediscare and Medicaid would be vast improvement, and scrap far more bureaucracies and their worker-ants then it creates. If Republicans pitched a plan like that, it would scare the Clowncrats.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    If you have medical insurance, you pay the tax. If insurance company offers what Feds define as medical insurance, insurance company must accept anyone who pays 5% of their income for the insurance, and you can offer it in any state.

    Oops. Nixed the first line and tweaked some edits.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The problem such as it is is a supply problem and a government regulation problem.

    I'd say that the problems with the cost and delivery of healthcare in the US are ultimately an aspect of economic calculation in a socialist commonwealth problems. An overlooked aspect of Mises analysis is that the lack of price signals will compound and amplify overtime so that the socialist economy becomes increasingly dysfunctional. This is exactly what we have seen wrt healthcare in the US, but at a very slow pace because government control was indirect and its dominance was initially over a small (but increasing) part of the total market for healthcare.

  • Plopper||

    How is allowing purchase of health care across state lines anti-federalist?

    The commerce clause was designed exactly for this sort of thing. This is seriously exactly the kind of use it was made for, not for prohibiting/controlling interstate commerce, but to normalize it and make the US a free trade zone.

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    I think he was more talking about repealing Certificate of Need. Those are laws that are usually passed on a state or local level that are nothing but blatant protectionism for the entrenched existing players, but would require some amount of the FedGov tromping on the rights of those states to undo...

  • PapayaSF||

    "Across state lines" means that states would no longer have the power to regulate health insurance within their borders, so it could be perceived as anti-federalist.

  • Plopper||

    Well, just because you repeal laws which keep someone from buying insurance sold in another state doesn't mean they still can't regulate health insurance within their own borders otherwise. This is a perfectly valid use of the commerce clause, it's exactly what it was designed for.

    States were pulling protectionist stuff and basically creating tariffs between each other and this is one of the main reasons the commerce clause exists, because under the articles of confederation this was apparently a problem and the feds could do nothing about it.

    Also just allowing people to buy insurance from another state means most states would have to deregulate if they wanted insurance companies to operate within their borders.

    You could also make a 14th P&I clause argument for getting rid of CON. Seems a perfectly valid use of the 14th P&I unless you're one of those folks who claim we should never use the 14th because it wasn't properly ratified or whatever neoconfederate crap.

  • Plopper||

    Also, I think most states as of now have killed CON laws, someone correct me if I'm wrong?

    There still seems to be the problem though, that some sort of approval is required or they can sue a potential competitor with some other stupid law that isn't exactly a CoN law in a lot of the states who have supposedly repealed them though. Or they'll lobby in some other way to prevent the competition.

  • SusanM||

    The Repubs need more than "Obamacare sucks" in the upcoming elections. As long as they keep running upper-class bible thumpers in a down economy they'll keep failing.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    How about "Everything about this administration and party-in-power is pure unadulterated violence facade enslavement worshiping horseshit." This doesn't excuse the Refuckedlicans for their own hypocrisies, moronitudes, bloodlust, and overall shitty stench but at least it's something.

  • blcartwright||

    I agree.

    When you start with "repeal it" you've got the choir but many people want to know "why?". Ted Cruz ran through many of the particulars, but the reporters never got past "Green Eggs and Ham".

    The problems with signing up an the prices are in the news right now, they can't be covered up. While people are riled up and skeptical, start with a list of the worst features of the ACA and have an alternative, as easy to explain as possible "This is the problem, this is how we want to fix it". Make Obama defend the biggest failures and worst aspects. Once some important victories are won, keep going down the line to the smaller stuff until there's very little if anything left.

    A few examples: I think employer provided plans are one of the biggest problems. Someone else picks your plan, take it or leave it, and you can only make changes at certain small periods during the year. Compare that to dumping your crappy car insurance company any day of the year you want. So come out with a plan to transfer people out of employer provided plans to the individual market, sold across state lines. Make all insurance purchases tax free.

  • Robert||

    Woo-hoo! I'm in one of the states where the projected change is downward.

  • PapayaSF||

    That depends on your age and income, though.

  • flye||

    I'm beginning to suspect the arguments in favor of Obamacare were not made in good faith.

  • Warrren||

    SHUT YOUR MOUTH.

  • OneOut||

    Racist

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Has there ever been such a wide sweeping piece of legislation that been as purely partisan as this? No Republican is for it and no Democrat is against it. There's no fixing it at this point, and no repealing it. The Democrats invested too much in it (including losing the House) and the Republicans don't have the will to do anything more against it.

  • John||

    If it is as bad as it looks, the dems have just destroyed the health insurance industry. No amount of "but it is our signature accomplishment" is going to hide that. Something will have to be done and won't be single payer. People will not tolerate losing their health insurance. Circumstances will force it to be gutted or repealed it is just a matter if time.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Why wouldn't it be single payer? The fact they are gutting health insurance is a feature, not a bug to them. Thier solution will be single payer. Government will save the day...to a problem government created.

    They have a plan.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Government will save the day...to a problem government created.

    The past is the present: remember, a reason they gave for passing the federal law Obamacare was that emergency rooms had to serve people regardless of ability to pay, an obligation imposed by...federal law.

  • John||

    Because single payer would require a 60 vote dem majority in the senate. The GOP is never going to agree to single payer. And single payer would bankrupt the entire insurance industry and create another financial crisis

    They don't have a plan. They are idiots. They thought this would work and have no idea what to do now that it is such a disaster.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Don't think so. They will make it SO bad that even Republicans will agree that single payer is better than the new status quo. And it's "free shit". Of course people will want it.

  • PapayaSF||

    The only hope for Republicans is to do what I suggest above: a clear alternative move in the opposite direction.

    And I think single-payer will be a hard sell: "We can't hire people to build a website that works, and of course we're broke, so put us in charge of paying every doctor bill and hospital bill."

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I'm not sure it can be unfucked.

    The reason the costs are so high is regulation. Market competition is the only thing that can possible fix the problem, which would require the government to get out of it altogether. That ain't happening.

    It's an entitlement now. You might as well try to get rid of SS.

    It will collapse on itself eventually. Until then, it's just going to suck.

  • PapayaSF||

    But I think that government can "get out of it" in certain ways, under the popular political banner of "making health care more affordable" by letting the market do what it does best: figuring out how to profit by offering people what they want, often by undercutting competitors. The trick, admittedly a tough one, is to construct a plan to do that, one that can be convincingly sold to the voting public. It's hard to compete with "Give me free stuff that someone else pays for."

  • Carolynp||

    You guys are harshing my moment of watching all the libs who live around me figuring out that they were invited to dinner because they are on the menu.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's an entitlement now. You might as well try to get rid of SS.

    You're wrong.

    SS is a pure wealth transfer.

    Money comes in, Feds write checks and keep an insignificant amount for administrative costs.

    Any kind of public option on healthcare is fundamentally different, unless it's a per capita montly distribution to consumers.

  • blcartwright||

    I've been saying this since the day it was passed. You can look it up on my Facebook timeline

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    By the time the full price is paid we will have a Republican president (a McCain, Graham clone) who will then convene a meeting of top guys to make the ACA work. All kinds of government malfeasance can be used to aid a "free-market" president to make the ACA "workable." Or president Hillary can bring back Clintonion pragmatism and smooth out the rough edges. She sheeple will get used to it, in time.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    "The" sheeple.

  • Randian filtered me, I WIN!||

    ""The" sheeple."

    People who use this term are fucking imbeciles.

  • Pelosi's Accommodator||

    I don't know, "the" is a pretty important word.

  • BigT||

    Right. People are sooooo well-informed.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    In recent times, the 2003 Bush tax cuts were close (3 R's against, 3 D's for).

  • John||

    There had to be more than that in the senate or it would have never made cloture. And a later dem president and congress made those rates perminent. So that is not even close.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, I present for you an honest to goodness 'objective fact:'

    http://www.senate.gov/legislat.....vote=00179

    ;)

  • John||

    They voted for cloture knowing it was going to pass. Totally different than Obamacare whee no GOP senator voted for cloture.

    More importantly come talk to us when a r resident makes Obamacare perminent.

    Sometimes things really are bad and there is not a they did it too argument. Is it possible for you to have a discussion without changing the subject? We get it. You really are uncomfortable with talking about how bad this is and would like to talk about something else.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Is it possible for you to have a discussion without changing the subject?

    The original comment asked 'Has there ever been such a wide sweeping piece of legislation that been as purely partisan as this?' and I responded with an example that at the least is very close. Providing an answer to someone's asked question is hardly 'changing the subject' (though for a person who thinks projections are 'objective fact' I guess we can see how the confusion here may arise as well).

  • Randian filtered me, I WIN!||

    " I responded with an example that at the least is very close"

    No, you really didn't.

    And it fascinates me that you are incapable of understanding that something can be both an objective fact and a prediction, and yet still think we'll care what you have to say.

  • JWatts||

    In recent times, the 2003 Bush tax cuts were close (3 R's against, 3 D's for).

    There's a fundamental difference between a Major new entitlement program and a run of the mill change to tax rates.

    Furthermore, the Bush tax cuts had at least a minimal amount of bipartisan support.

    You're stretching to make a point, Bo. You're stretching hard. And honestly, I don't even know what your point is.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Has there ever been such a wide sweeping piece of legislation that been as purely partisan as this?

    The 1993 Omnibus Budget Act that kicked off the late 90s surpluses had zero GOP votes in Congress.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The dotcom bubble "kicked off the late 90s surpluses" you moron.

  • KPres||

    Actually, it was the increase in revenues brought on by the drop in the capital gains tax rate that Republicans in congress forced Clinton into signing.

  • ||

    What "surplus"?

  • blcartwright||

    I remember one day, late in the 90's, I was driving around the country side listening to the car radio when the top of the hour news announced the federal government now had a surplus! Even the month before no one knew it was coming. Clinton still wasn't sure if we could balance the budget in 3, 6 or 10 years.

    Then Congress said "Holy Shit! Look at all this money! What can we spend it on?"

  • Brian||

    Then Congress said "Holy Shit! Look at all this money! What can we spend it on?"

    Which is why balancing the budget by raising taxes is such a bad idea. Next thing you know, there's a new surplus, Congress goes giddy, jacks up the deficit, and then, we start talking about balancing the budget with tax increases again. That's unsustainable.

  • ||

    They opposed the tax increases in it...most of which were later cut anyway...you know cut as in in they did not exist when the actual surpluses occurred.

    The spending caps you might note were not removed by the Republicans when they took control of the House.

    The reason why is because they supported them.

    The 1993 Omnibus Budget was not as partisan as you are claiming. Republicans had alternatives to it which were really only different in how much taxes would be.

    It is amusing that you worship this bill. Essentially the only claim it has to giving us a surplus is with spending caps and the surplus did not come until after the tax increases were removed by the Republicans. Why are you not screaming that we should return to spending caps and tax cuts?

  • BMFPitt||

    WTF is going on in Virginia?

  • SugarFree||

    Sodomy.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Thanks to that Godless Supreme Court, yes.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    I'm sorry if it's tiresome because I've posted about this before, but something to pay attention to in addition to cost is the awfulness of the plans themselves. High deductibles, higher OOP, poor networks. Sooooo, in some states OC brought about higher costs AND reduced benefits - or at least benefits that don't fit the needs of the insured. Good stuff. Good stuff.

    As someone who worked as a benefit analyst I'm truly stunned how limited the choices are with only 3 options. Why only 3? Why not a shopping cart of choices with add ons? It's just weird that this is the best they could come up with.

    The awfulness of the plans mirrors the awfulness of the online experience. I don't think this is widely understood yet.

  • ||

    The awfulness of the plans mirrors the awfulness of the online experience. I don't think this is widely understood yet.

    It'll gradually sink in. Most people don't give two shits about the Constitutionality of bombing Syria or about the NSA. They might disapprove, but they won't be outraged.

    Being coerced into paying more or less is something that even the apolitical can't ignore.

  • XM||

    "Being coerced into paying more or less is something that even the apolitical can't ignore."

    Only if the IRS actually does its job.

    I wonder - if you're getting in paid cash or aren't expecting tax returns, what exactly can the IRS do to you for not purchasing insurance? How will they find you?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Well said. It is hard to say which is the worst aspect of this mess. Premium increases are terrible, but talk to those UPS (and other) spouses who are getting kicked off their spouses employee health care because that would be 'too generous' and warrant a 'Cadillac tax,' or the people who have had their hours cut back to keep from being covered under the onerous obligations imposed by the law, or the people who will lose their care because their employers will be compelled to violate their consciences under the law. It is an actual 'parade of horribles.'

  • Ted S.||

    It's just weird that this is the best they could come up with.

    It's not weird; it's all about Fuck You That's Why.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    I think it's a healthy combination of FYTW and general entrenched incompetence. You forget, these "Top Men" couldn't run a McDonalds to save their lives.

  • Warrren||

    If they're solar death panels at least we'll be saving the earth, even if O-care sucks.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The GOP will need to run on something to replace the ACA and the moronic plan to "SELL ACROST STATE LINES!" won't do it.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Actually, if only one reform was possible to OC selling across state lines would probably do the most to increase access and reduce premiums. But why would anyone want to increase access and reduce premiums.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    UnitedHealth has over 85 million insured and never found cost benefits by selling across state lines. Premiums have gone up markedly for decades.

    Of course each state tweaked the policy requirements. Is the GOP now anti states rights?

    Tort reform has been successful at the state level. Thirty one states now have passed it.

  • JWatts||

    UnitedHealth has over 85 million insured and never found cost benefits by selling across state lines.

    Have they ever been allowed to sell across state lines? If not, then how would you know?

  • KPres||

    Rising premiums are caused by Medicare.

    http://marginalrevolution.com/.....-this.html

    The GOP are the party trying to reign in Medicare. It might have cost them an election. Democrats like you say Medicare isn't a problem, that the problem is the outrageous 3% margins evil insurance companies are raping people with.

  • Brian||

    Democrats like you say Medicare isn't a problem, that the problem is the outrageous 3% margins evil insurance companies are raping people with.

    Please, that's so 2010 and "We're debating ACA." That's over, man.

    Now, we all know the real reason health care costs so much: arbitrary doctor and hospital prices. Sorry we couldn't tell you back in 2010.

    However, going forward to single payer, it will be the new talking point. Stick to the script.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    UnitedHealth has over 85 million insured and never found cost benefits by selling across state lines.

    Huh?

    Maybe the point of selling across state lines is to increase competition among providers and increase consumer choice - not to increase the profits of insurance companies.

    Things that no doubt seem pointless to a fascist hack like you.

  • Irish||

    The GOP will need to run on something to replace the ACA and the moronic plan to "SELL ACROST STATE LINES!" won't do it.

    Why, because it will actually work?

    I realize you're probably too busy masturbating to your Obama poster, but you'll have to explain how an idea to increase competition is worse than a plan to have the government control 18% of the economy.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Agreed. Increasing competition would be good, especially for those in over-regulated states. Additionally, this has the benefit that PapayaSF rightly points to above: it should be politically popular. People do not like the insurance companies they deal with, 'forcing them to compete for your dollar' could be quite politically popular.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    If selling the cheapest policy in any state were allowed the standard would become the policy with the least liability for the insurer - thus defeating the goal of coverage.

    Those Home Depot $5000 maximum payout policies would become the norm while the chronically ill piled into ER's sucking up resources.

  • Jordan||

    If selling the cheapest policy in any state were allowed the standard would become the policy with the least liability for the insurer - thus defeating the goal of coverage.

    Health insurance is too important to leave to the market.

    /Mr. Uber Capitalist

  • JWatts||

    Why would the cheapest policy become the standard? I can buy all kinds of stuff on Amazon. I don't just buy the cheapest item I can find.

    Honestly, that argument makes no sense what so ever.

  • Randian filtered me, I WIN!||

    I recently had a chance to buy a new knife.

    I did not buy the cheapest version available. Guess why.

    I'm pretty sure I'd do the same with insurance.

  • wadair||

    I did not buy the cheapest version available. Guess why.

    Because you had other considerations than just price? What a capitalist!

    /sarc

  • blcartwright||

    Store brand sinus medicine works just fine and costs 10% of the name brand. Store brand mac & cheese sucks, I buy Kraft even if it costs 3x as much.

  • ||

    Honestly, that argument makes no sense what so ever.

    So basically it's like all of his other arguments, then?

  • Brian||

    Honestly, that argument makes no sense what so ever.

    It sounds great to socialists who barely understand markets.

    I just listened to one tell me the other day that his plan for decreasing home prices in California was to raise property taxes.

  • wadair||

    If selling the cheapest policy in any state were allowed the standard would become the policy with the least liability for the insurer - thus defeating the goal of coverage.

    Why? Why would there necessarily be a standard policy. If the exchanges were allowed to work like a real market, then individuals could ban together with their similar requirements and negotiate with various companies for the best and cheapest configuration. Demand forces any standards, not supply. Well, unless supply is so low that it controls the results--which will likely be the case with ObamaLair.

  • ||

    while the chronically ill piled into ER's sucking up resources.

    That is only 5% of healthcare. Retail loses more from shop lifting and breakage.

    No, sorry you are as wrong as Obama is. The problem is sky rising prices which occurs because there is no direct exposure for consumers with cost.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I have pleasured myself over the Obama market. Best ever for any president in US history.

  • PapayaSF||

    Could you do that somewhere else, and not tell us about it?

  • Randian filtered me, I WIN!||

    "I have pleasured myself over the Obama market. "

    Really? How sad for you.

  • SugarFree||

    But, really, isn't all masturbation a way of lying to yourself?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Yep, look at this roaring market!!

    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

    PB = "never correct"

  • KPres||

    Markets are up because of foreign profits and the fed funneling money to bankers.

    Non-financial domestic profits have been mediocre under Obama, which is why the job market is so bad.

  • OneOut||

    85 billion a month of new "money" has to go somewhere.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    So buttwipe supports the states/insurance cartels which restrict people from using an alternative insurance carrier who gives them a better deal?

    Not surprised you have such contempt for average citizens getting a good deal (the ACA is about power, not health) and equally not surprised that cannot understand even the simplest econ concepts, like supply & demand or competition.

    Pro tip: The GOP did not come out for selling across state lines BEFORE the ACA because the GOP is not about free markets. It's about a slightly different form of statism than the kind you felate here regularly.

  • Brian||

    The GOP will need to run on something to replace the ACA and the moronic plan to "SELL ACROST STATE LINES!" won't do it.

    Or, Democrats could stop being stupid asshats. I'm not holding my breath for that, either.

  • Irish||

    High speed rail project screwing over Californians.

    It is rare to find someone in Hanford, a town of 55,000 people south of Fresno, who is not opposed to the project. Many landowners have been in financial limbo for years as the authority weighs different paths for the train, leaving farmers wary of planting crops or investing in new equipment in case their land ends up being gobbled up.

    Among them is Kole Upton, a farmer in Chowchilla whose family has put on hold plans to replace almond trees. The rail authority is busily signing contracts with engineering firms and contractors in hopes of getting shovels in the ground in the next few months.

    "When they come in with these routes they put a cloud on your land," says Upton, who works with his brother and son on the 1,400-acre family farm but has devoted much of his time to fighting high-speed rail.

    If the Republicans weren't the stupid party, bullshit like this might actually help them break the Democrat stronghold on a few states.

    Unfortunately for them, they're the stupid party.

  • Warrren||

    The Zombie State yells "trains trains!"

  • Warrren||

    There's also a $25 billion project to build tunnels for water to pass under other water.

    http://www.sacbee.com/2013/09/.....users.html

  • Len Bias||

    Coastal California seems hell bent on destroying the inland, with actions like this and cutting off their water supply. Too many icky working class people and farmers and not enough enlightened types live there and really bring the state's image down.

  • Sevo||

    "If the Republicans weren't the stupid party, bullshit like this might actually help them break the Democrat stronghold on a few states."

    Possibly, but doubtful in CA. The pub unions can deliver too many votes, so they own the CA gov't, lock, stock and barrel.
    Note the lack of politico comment re the BART strike; no politico is gonna say one bad thing about the unions.

  • juliajuli330||

    my buddy's step-aunt makes $82 hourly on the computer. She has been out of a job for eight months but last month her pay was $21595 just working on the computer for a few hours. Recommended Site
    ========================
    http://www.works23.com
    ========================

  • The Late P Brooks||

    the moronic plan to "SELL ACROST STATE LINES!" won't do it.

    What sort of lunatic would want an alternative to insurance plans designed by state regulators and legislators based on political incentives?

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    A Teathuglihadistard that just wants poor minority women and children to DIE IN THE STREETS!!!1!!11eleven

    /Tony

  • The Late P Brooks||

    UnitedHealth has over 85 million insured and never found cost benefits by selling across state lines. Premiums have gone up markedly for decades.

    Do you mix anything with the paint thinner, or do you drink it straight?

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    Paint thinner, puhleez. Low-quality methamphetamines cooked by only the finest HS dropouts is how they do it in Dogdick, GA, bruh...

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    To prove that Heritage is wrong here is an acquaintance that just signed up for Alabammy ACA for $530 (family of four) monthly -well below the Heritage "estimates" and below current rates.

    https://www.ibcbsal.com/sales/...

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    You forgot to mention that all those people in the midwest who reported that their insurance went up by 100% to 200% (one family's premium went from $333 to $999 month) are liars paid by the Heritage Foundation to help bring American closer to fascism.

  • Warrren||

    I've read many of his posts, American is pretty much as fascist as you can get.

  • Irish||

    You forgot to mention that all those people in the midwest who reported that their insurance went up by 100% to 200% (one family's premium went from $333 to $999 month) are liars paid by the Heritage Foundation to help bring American closer to fascism.

    It wouldn't be the first time American conservatives have tried something so nefarious. Remember the time that Ronald Reagan and Ashcroft sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein in exchange for the blood of an Iraqi virgin that was said to ward off the effects of aging?

  • wadair||

    You forgot to mention that all those people in the midwest who reported that their insurance went up by 100% to 200% (one family's premium went from $333 to $999 month) are liars paid by the Heritage Foundation to help bring American closer to fascism.

    What irony. You claim that an alleged attempt to block a plan that comes ever closer to nationalizing the healthcare industry, itself brings us closer to fascism? You do know that fascism was Mussolini's totalitarian philosophy, don't you.

  • Irish||

    "To prove estimates based on statistical analysis wrong, here is one example."

    You don't know the difference between evidence and anecdotes, do you?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    One anecdote is better than all of the politically jaundiced Heritage lies.

    DickMint has poisoned Heritage.

  • Randian filtered me, I WIN!||

    "DickMint has poisoned Heritage."

    Again proving ad homs trump research.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You mean like Chad Henderson?

  • Brian||

    One anecdote is better than all of the politically jaundiced Heritage lies.

    Because policy by anecdote is pure awesome.

  • ||

    One is the plural of the other, right?

  • JWatts||

    The Heritage is an estimate of the average plan that will be sold, not the cheapest plan you can possibly get.

  • ||

    By Shriek logic, if we can find someone who has a plan HIGHER-priced than the Heritage estimate, then the problem is even worse than Heritage thinks.

  • Len Bias||

    I find it incredible that you are trying to, at this point, deny that insurance rates are going to skyrocket.

    The new talking point is "of course premiums are going to rise, it's necessary to have high premiums to pay for the sick and elderly." Use that one from now on. It's at least plausible.

  • ||

    "page not found"

    Was the comparison including the federal "subsidy"?

  • Rich||

    health insurance offered through Obamacare exchanges will cost more during the first year of the law than that offered beforehand for Americans in 45 out of 50 states.

    But it'll *cover* more, right? RIGHT?!

  • ||

    After you cough up the $6,500 annual deductible before the hospital lets you in the door.

    The weird part is many existing hospitals have entire floors empty and abandoned because they have so few patients as insurance has pushed people out as fast as possible - not actually a bad idea since the hospital is a very dangerous place if you're sick.

  • Sevo||

    ..."not actually a bad idea since the hospital is a very dangerous place if you're sick."

    It's dangerous if you *aren't* sick; germs all over the place.

  • PapayaSF||

    ‘Tech Surge’ Planned to Fix Obamacare Exchanges

    And now the administration will learn about the mythical man-month....

  • Sevo||

    ..."the federally run insurance exchanges, which the agency acknowledged “has not lived up to the expectations of the American people.”"

    Ignoring the noun-verb disconnect, the claim that they 'haven't lived up to expectations' is an outright lie.
    They are every bit as 'good' as I expected.

  • RightNut||

    Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see Massachusetts in there. Is the state left out because it already has the state version of Obamacare?

  • Sevo||

    It's the 58th state!

  • PapayaSF||

  • ||

    When I live in Arizona, just a couple of years ago, I had a $10,000 deductible plan that cost me $60/month.

    So, I suppose if I was still a graduate student my premiums would have quadrupled.

    I pity grad students these days considering many universities are dropping their student health plans.

  • Boisfeuras||

    74% increase in Florida
    32% increase in Pennsylvania
    253% (!) increase in Virginia
    91% increase in North Carolina
    99% increase in Wisconsin

    By all logic, this law that was rammed down our throats with full-throated Democrat support (and zero Republican votes) should destroy them as a national party.

    But, you know, some random Republican in the Midwest will say something stupid about rape or abortion during election season, so the masses will vote Democrat over such pressing issues. Because if the GOP regains the levers of power, this time—surely!—they will enact Christo-sharia and enslave all women as rape-chattel in a Handmaiden's Tale dystopia.

  • Sevo||

    "But, you know, some random Republican in the Midwest will say something stupid about rape or abortion during election season, so the masses will vote Democrat over such pressing issues."

    Yep, some troglodyte will do exactly that and will be blamed for the lack of GOP votes. But Weiner will web his weeny and people will vote Dem anyhow.
    The point I hope to make is that Dems do equally dumb things but the media isn't about to make an issue of it.
    Given that academe remains socialist, I'm not sure how it can be changed.

  • PapayaSF||

    Sadly true.

  • blcartwright||

    remember, Obama said last week that the Republicans were trying to blow up the economy by shutting down 17% of the govt for 16 days because they did want people to get health care.

    But these price increases won't blow up the economy, for decades?

  • blcartwright||

    I live in Pennsylvania, I work in Virginia, our home office is in Wisconsin.

  • ReasonableS||

    Does the Heritage report include the subsidies in their calculation of total cost to individuals? Unfortunately it isn't clear, at least to me if the Heritage report is really comparing "apples to apples" as it claims. They got majorly embarrass with the economic impact of immigration reform so I don't trust their data now. I fear that it might be a case of Rand Paul's "misinformation strategy". The Affordable Health Care Act depends heavily on young, health people signing up and that is exactly who this report appears to be aimed at. I'll wait for the more reasonable conservatives to weigh in on this or react to liberal criticism before I come to a conclusion. I am deeply suspicious of the Heritage Foundation now.

  • Brian||

    Does the Heritage report include the subsidies in their calculation of total cost to individuals?

    Probably not, but I don't see any benefit to factoring in subsidies. If prices go up, but they're offset with subsidies, then this is just a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to insurance companies. That's hardly in the spirit of how ACA was sold to the public.

  • juliajuli2778||

    my classmate's half-sister makes $73 every hour on the computer. She has been without a job for six months but last month her pay check was $20027 just working on the computer for a few hours. Check This Out

    ●►●►▶●►●►▶ http://www.works23.com

  • RM||

    Hawaii, Kentucky and Massachusetts are mysteriously missing from this list.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement