from Hacker News

Obamacare Increases Avg. Premiums By 99% For Men, 62% For Women

by jstrate on 9/25/13, 6:22 PM with 15 comments

  • by justinph on 9/25/13, 6:50 PM

    This is scam "journalism" from Forbes, where you should expect no less.

    They brush off the subsidies, which greatly reduce the cost of premiums for lower income people, and is a huge component of the law.

    They also don't disclose what years of premium projections they're comparing. Presumably, pre- and post- ACA premiums are different years, because they would have to be. The cost of health care rises, and even without the ACA, you could run a headline that says 2014 premium rates are higher than 2012 premium rates.

    Also, newer ACA plans are required to cover more things than pre-ACA plans. That costs more, but you get more for it.

  • by MrFoof on 9/25/13, 6:45 PM

    So here in Massachusetts we have the Health Connector. This is "RomneyCare", of which "ObamaCare" is a superset.

    Plans recently were just adjusted to be in-line with how they'll be priced when ACA comes into play, although we'll have to "officially" select new plans come 2014 that are "official ACA plans".

    I'm single, early 30s, with some notable pre-exisitings (Type II diabetes, kidney stones). My premium with a major carrier (Harvard Pilgrim) went from $424 to $458, which is about an 8% increase.

    Under what conditions would my premium increase to $844 (99% increase)? I don't see that being possible.

  • by maxander on 9/25/13, 6:55 PM

    This is a wonderful example of how, given a complicated situation, picking your favourite numbers out of the pile can tell any story you like.

    Yes, its true that for a healthy young person with an average income, rates (adjusted for subsidies, etc) will go up. They may even "skyrocket," say. But given the wealth distribution in this country, most people have less than an average income. I would be interested to see this analysis done for a healthy young person with median income- would probably look much better for the "progressive" side of this debate.

  • by jinx_xnij on 9/25/13, 6:43 PM

    Granted, from one side of the American political spectrum to the other, here is a post from a MSNBC page that has sources to discredit Mr. Roy: http://alturl.com/um2kk

  • by comex on 9/25/13, 6:48 PM

    > Remember that here, we aren’t conducting an exact comparison. Instead we’re comparing the lowest-cost bronze plan offered to the average participant in the exchanges, to the cheapest plan offered to 40-year-olds today.

    This is a very dubious comparison; the cheapest plan offered to 40-year-olds probably does not cover as much as the bronze plan.

  • by dmm on 9/25/13, 6:46 PM

    My understanding is that any plans that increases coverage for the old and sick is going to increase costs for the non-old and non-sick.

  • by badman_ting on 9/25/13, 6:44 PM

    Well, this doesn't sound good. But I can also tell the author really, really wants me to be outraged, so I dunno what to think.

  • by jgroszko on 9/25/13, 6:53 PM

    Odd, Health and Human Services this morning said pretty much the opposite...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/25/h...

    I DON'T KNOW WHO TO BELIEVE ANYMORE!

  • by programminggeek on 9/25/13, 6:43 PM

    It sounds like we've managed to create the worst of both worlds. That's not ideal.