Originally Posted by JMT
No, it's well beyond simple supply/demand. That's the "talking point". The reality is that there are strict regulations put in play against insurance companies.
Under the new act, in every state and for the first time under federal law, insurance companies are required to publicly justify any rate increase of over 10%.
Additionally, insurance companies must provide consumers greater value by spending generally at least 80 percent of premium dollars on health care and quality improvements instead of overhead, executive salaries or marketing. If they donít, they must provide consumers a rebate or reduce premiums.
In Colorado, using one example, 208,197 Colorado residents with private insurance coverage will benefit from $27,452,769 in rebates from insurance companies this year. These rebates will average $227 for the 121,000 families in Colorado covered by a policy.
So... Caps on rate increases. More premium dollars going to healthcare, not administrative fees. Covering preventive services with no deductible or copay. Removing lifetime caps on benefits for people with serious illnesses. Creating new options for those with pre-existing conditions.
All those factors tap into the insurance companies pockets. The trade off is they'll get to sell more policies.
Regulates the insurance industry. Insures more people. Encourages preventive instead of emergency care. Results in fewer people indigent, declaring bankruptcy or on government assistance because they've run out of health care benefits.
In no way is there any indication that it results in your stance that "even though health care costs have been rising, they will rise much, much faster now that Obamacare is law".
Regulation does not solve all. It eliminates competition, which is the driving factor of any product, unless the government decides that it should be the ones who decide prices.
It's an irrelevant point that companies must report any rate increases above 10%, they'll have reason enough to raise rates....
I am not aware of caps on rate increases, unless you are refering to the justification rule.
Yes, all that you said were positive, but so is everyone living on a 50 acre lot with a four story house. Who's paying for it?
Obamacare would be OK if we were living in Candyland, but it's not practical at all for anyone actually paying for their health care. Do you honestly think that Obamacare won't raise premiums? Really?
Obamacare makes companies offer more benefits, which is great, in Candyland. No warning bells in your head there? Forcing them to cover those with pre-existing conditions, coupled with weak penalties to force people to buy healthcare? Major warning bells yet? Think of it like this: Once health care costs inevitably rise as more preexisting condition cases enter the market, Obamacare imposes weak penalties to force people into the market. However, the penalties aren't as much as a healthcare plan costs, which some people will obviously see and they won't join in the system, leaving more high risk people in the system....Ever hear of the adverse selection death spiral? Well, now you'll get to see it first hand!
Don't forget one of the worst provisions in the law: 3:1 community rating for the old, meant to appease AARP. Young people are generally healthier than older people. I think you agree with that. Now think about old people. Generally unhealthy. So much more so that they cost 6x as much as young people. Which shifts the burden onto young people to pay for older people, because insurance companies can't charge more than 3x more than they do for young people. Works in Candyland.........