Forbes: ACA to drive up individual insurance costs 64-146%

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by ugahairydawgs, May 31, 2013.

  1. macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #1
    Article Link
     
  2. macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #2
    I wanted to stop reading when I got to this.

    I needed a good laugh.

    No different than the dozens of other articles that fail to point out that they are comparing apples to oranges plan and the fact that many, if not most, will be eligible for subsidies and will pay much less.
     
  3. macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #3
    Good lets kill The Affordable Health Care Act and go with universal single payer.
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #4
    If you read the article he addressed this in an update.

    Keep in mind that you won't be able to keep the numbers under wraps much longer, 2014 is almost here.
     
  5. macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    #5
    I'm not sure what you're laughing about. Peter Lee was comparing the prices of two different types of plans and claiming that premiums would be lower overall.

    covered cali
     
  6. thread starter macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #6
    He discusses this at the end of the article

     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #7
    Young, healthy workers can be provided health care for peanuts. It is families (obgyn, maternity, pediatric), the sick of any age, people over 50, who use and need the majority of care, and who are in trouble in a free market. People who really need insurance are not healthy young workers with colds. It is people with cancer, who are basically uninsurable in the private market. The goal of Obamacare is to insure the uninsurable, and, of course it is going to cost.

    I'm not in favor of the ACA particularly, because it isn't going to cut the cost of private hospitals and private cancer care. I think this is demonstrably too costly.

    I would favor a public/private option like they have in, e.g., Australia. But, the bottom line is that we need to provide healthcare for the poor, the unemployed, the elderly, and people with cancer, not just healthy young workers.
     
  8. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #8
    Seems about in line with the cost increase in my individual Kaiser Permanente plan.

    First I couldn't keep my plan even though I liked it so I had to switch plans because my plan was no longer offered.
    (Young and healthy / high deductible and low premium)

    Then that plan increased substantially in accordance with the ACA.

    In all my plan went from $175 per month to $295 per month. Good times.
     
  9. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #9
    Honestly, we should just dissolve all the health insurance companies in this country and implement a truly universal program. Health care shouldn't be a for-profit industry. That's why our healthcare costs are ridiculously high compared to other modern ("first world") nations.

    See here (2011 numbers): http://data.worldbank.org/indicator...pi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc

    The US comes in at 17.9% of GDP for healthcare costs.

    France? 11.6%
    Canada? 11.2%
    Germany? 11.1%
    Switzerland? 10.9%
    Cuba? 10.0% (for all the **** they get their healthcare system quite clearly beats the US)
    Sweden? 9.4%
    Spain? 9.4%
    UK? 9.3%
    Japan? 9.3%
    Australia? 9.0%

    Pretty pathetic when the only countries with higher healthcare costs as a percent of GDP than the United States are Liberia and Sierra Leone. Our costs are nearly double most of the nations that are most similar to ours (Canada, UK, Sweden, etc)... it's quite clear we're doing something wrong, and that's having a for-profit health care system.

    Now, obviously we're a capitalist country and I'm fine with companies offering private plans to people if they want to pay for them but a true universal, single payer, non-profit system should be available to every US citizen if they choose.
     
  10. mcrain, May 31, 2013
    Last edited: May 31, 2013

    macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #10
    Ahh, but there is the rub. The insurance industry spends millions upon millions of dollars on getting Republicans elected. In exchange, the capitalists get to keep their control over the health care system costs. They know that if government gets involved, they will be out of business, and the multi-million dollar mansions will be a thing of the past.

    (edit) From what I had heard, the OPs article seems wrong. Getting a larger pool of healthy customers should drive down premiums...

    (edit2) It should also be noted that many of the plans you cannot purchase anymore were crappy coverage. You get a far better plan under the ACA than what you thought was affordable. Had anything bad really happened, you would have been out of pocket, and then you'd be wishing you had a better plan.

    (edit3) Are these rates of growth higher or lower than what was happening prior to the ACA? As I recall, healthcare costs were spiraling out of control... this seems like it is a manageable increase compared to what was happening in the years leading up to the passage of the ACA.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  11. macrumors 601

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #11
    Dissolve the ACA, Medicaid and Medicare.

    Replace it with universal healthcare for all citizens.

    Add a 1% sales tax that cant be written off on all purchased goods to ensure the entire nation pays for it.
     
  12. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #12
    NO, increase the top marginal rate. Sales taxes are regressive, and shift the burden of paying for healthcare inordinantely onto the poor and middle classes. The only way a sales tax works is if you add it to all stock sales.
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #13
    ^^^ This. Sales taxes are regressive.
     
  14. macrumors 601

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #14
    No free rides. Tax all sold goods to pay for universal healthcare. I could however support an additional tax on golden parachutes, bonuses, stock options and Capitol gains for the sake of healthcare which is probably the country's largest issue currently.
     
  15. macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #15
    Nice idea, only that 1% VAT won't even come near to paying for healthcare worth that name....
     
  16. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #16
    Who do you think is getting a "free ride?" I'll bet you even those people are paying payroll taxes, excise taxes, etc., and those taxes take up a pretty good chunk of their income.

    The only free rides that I know are happening are being given to corporations and the incredibly wealthy who are able to manage their tax burdens in such a way that they can make massive amounts of money all but tax free.

    Oh, and don't forget the children who are receiving massive transfers of wealth tax free.

    You want no free rides? Fine, tax the crap out of oil companies (to make them pay for the environmental damage and wars we have fought). Eliminate all corporate welfare. Oh, and impose an estate tax on all estates that is at least as high as the top marginal rate, if not higher.
     
  17. thread starter macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #17
    It stands to reason that if you make more money you are probably spending more too. So I don't see how this disproportionately shifts anything.

    The lower and middle class should be paying something towards any potential universal type coverage.
     
  18. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #18
    Those darn evil companies and rich people.
     
  19. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #19
    No, they aren't evil, but they aren't paying enough. The proof is in the pudding. Income inequality is getting worse and worse, and we are more and more in debt. What more is needed to prove we aren't taxing the wealthy enough?-+
     
  20. thread starter macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #20
    Enough by whose definition?
     
  21. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #21
    The lower and middle classes ARE paying something. The problem with a sales tax is that even if a billionaire spends 1000 times as much as someone who only makes $150,000, that is still a smaller percentage of their income/wealth than what the middle class person is spending.

    A guy who makes $150,000 spends maybe $35 or $40,000 in a year on stuff? Cars, rent, whatever. A guy making $15 Million per year would have to spend at least $3.5 million dollars every year, or they are paying a smaller percentage of their income in taxes.

    (edit)
    By YOUR definition. If you want everyone to pay a fair amount, the person who makes $15 million in a year needs to be paying a lot more. (edit2) Not to mention his/her kids when they inheirit from him/her.
     
  22. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #22
    So then are you for a flat tax with no loopholes? That way everyone pays their share?
     
  23. macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    Sounds reasonable to me (presuming you mean overall taxation is roughly flat as a percentage of earnings).
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #24
    ONLY if there is a single tax. It would have to be a single tax that pays for EVERYTHING that every level of government spends. In other words, a flat federal income tax does nothing but make the overall system regressive. I'd be all for a flat, or marginally progressive system, but we need to reverse the income inequality first, otherwise, we just make systemic the elite upper class, and we are no better than the days where there were landed families vs. the poor.

    (edit) I should point out that as a percentage of income, the overall tax system is already pretty flat.
     
  25. thread starter macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #25
    I'd be perfectly fine with going to a flat tax and have suggested as much several times. But I'd think you'd be surprised just how much someone making $15m per year spends. Generally more than $3.5m in my experience.


    Oh...the death tax. The single most nonsensical money grab out there. Its like you paying sticker price for a car and then 10 years down the road the dealership trying to get the sales price out of you again when you give it to your kid.
     

Share This Page