Quantcast
Moneywise

Obamacare may not be as expensive as we thought

Comments

Return To Article
  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 21, 2014 7:54 a.m.

    To "cmsense" so you are saying that is it now cheaper to pay for the poor 2 times, rather than once?

    Remember, we pay for the poor's health insurance, then we pay again when they go to the ER for medical care. Explain why that is a good thing?

    If that isn't enough, what is the point of health insurance with a high deductable? It costs me less to have my car get fixed after an accident than it does to get my arm put in a cast, yet I pay 4 times as much for health insurance. The purpose of insurance is to handle unexpected, but now we are making health insurance cost more and cover less. Why bother with insurance since it won't cover much of what I need?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 19, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    Not as expensive?

  • cmsense Kaysville, UT
    April 18, 2014 9:11 p.m.

    To RedShirt

    You obviously like to comment about the ACA, more than learn about the ACA. Just google "hmo insurance profit limitations"

    "The ACA requires health insurers in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of their premiums (after subtracting taxes and regulatory fees) on medical costs. The corresponding figure for large groups is 85 percent."

    The point in having insurance even with a high deductable is you will have treatment when you need it for high cost items and won't overutilize healthcare due to an overgenerous healthplan and probably won't go bankrupt, ruining your credit and passing those cost along to others...ie not being a freeloader. Yes expensive medical bills are common and if the hospital doesn't get paid, those costs are passed onto others. This system requires more personal responsibility.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2014 4:25 p.m.

    Even with all this positive good coming out of the ACA, Orin Hatch starts spewing the same lame old rhetoric this week about "Obamacare is a disaster!" The only disaster is that he is so wrong! It's better than anything he has presented.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 18, 2014 4:14 p.m.

    To "Schnee" I don't mean get rid of the slacker mandate. I mean get rid of the 2000+ mandates that insurance companies have to comply with.

    See "The Cost of Health Insurance Mandates in Washington" at the Washington Policy Center website.

    I am saying get rid of the mandates so that insurance costs can be brought down to a reasonable level.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 18, 2014 3:14 p.m.

    In 2009 the bogus cost estimate sold to us by Barack was 800 billion for Obamacare. Today the cost is already over 2 trillion. Let's see that is about triple the first estimate. So Obamacare is not as expensive ?? Say what??

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2014 3:12 p.m.

    @Redshirt
    "The government is not profiting as much from teh ACA as they could if they got rid of the slacker clause."

    "If you want to get insurance to be made cheaper without the subsidies, get rid of the mandates. "

    Two things:
    1. The mandate is the slacker clause. Mitt Romney himself even argued that the mandate is there so that people take personal responsibility (the mandate in his Masscare of course).
    2. The mandate is one of the things that keeps costs down because it gets the healthier people into the system.

  • sg newhall, CA
    April 18, 2014 2:59 p.m.

    We find ourselves in another election year and the democrats will do whatever it take, even fudge the numbers to secure votes and ensure they remain in power in order to continue their path to socialism. How nice.

  • GK Willington Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    re: ordinaryfolks

    Plus, consumer confidence is up, the debt is lower than thought, and while prices are creeping up there is minimal inflation.

    Let see irrational righties (such as Redshirt who has as many handles after his name as a popular CBS TV show) spin that.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 18, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    To "cmsense" I have my insurance pools straight. The government is not profiting as much from teh ACA as they could if they got rid of the slacker clause.

    You realize that while premiums have gone up over the past 15 years the profit margins for insurance companies has gone down. In 2000, health insurance companies were making about 5% profit. Now, they are down to around 3.5% margins. The ironic thing is that the ACA as it was originally sold to us had a 30% profit margin.

    If you want to get insurance to be made cheaper without the subsidies, get rid of the mandates. Prior to the ACA mandates accounted for 20% to 50% of the cost of insurance. Now, insurance covers less and costs more. The ACA is worse than what we had before. What is the point in having insurance if you still have to pay $5000 in a year before the insurance kicks in, and then only pays 70%? Before the ACA most policies were not like that.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    April 18, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    No matter the cost, it's far more expensive to for millions to have no access the healthcare.
    One thing I've noticed, most of the people who cheered the invasion of Iraq are now saying this healthcare plan, the one created by conservatives, is too expensive.
    Can't have it both ways.
    If a country had the money to kill people, it has the money to help people.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 18, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    @one vote:

    I know several people who has seen their insurance rate increase. No spinning about it, they have reason to react.

    Government subsidies is stolen money. Where did they get it?

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    This objective news will cause the over reactors to overreact. There must be something to spin.

  • cmsense Kaysville, UT
    April 18, 2014 7:18 a.m.

    To RedshirtUofU
    Get your insurance pools straight. A young adult who is added to their parents insurance is not recieving any government subsidies any more than you are when you buy your insurance through your employer. No one is losing money, in fact the HMO's are making billions and set up their premiums for a healthy profit, the premiums which almost doubled in cost while Bush was president. Also you are likely recieving (a taker) a "government subsidy" yourself if you are an employee of a corporation or government entity by paying a good chunk of that healthcare premium with before tax dollars. That subsidy (handout) was not available to most in the individual market and thus they were discriminated against by tax policy and health care policy (allowing insurance companies to deny for pre exhisting conditions etc).
    Government shouldn't pick winners and losers. Prior healthcare policy picked a lot of winners and losers. The ACA is better than what we had. Yes there are subsidies to the most destitute, but they don't seem extreme and at least Obama pretended to pay for it. Romney also believed in subsidies.

  • Oregonian Sherwood, OR
    April 18, 2014 6:12 a.m.

    A new Common Core math question:

    "The ACA was estimated to cost 2.7 Trillion dollars over 10 years but a review found it will now cost 5 billion less in the first year. In the comment section of this newspaper, explain how this will not impact the Federal Government or tax payers. Show at least three positive examples of this program.

    "Bonus question: Explain how it makes you feel that there are some people who don't want you to have free healthcare"

  • Swartzy Arlington, TX
    April 18, 2014 4:58 a.m.

    WHo are they kidding, NOT AS EXPENSIVE??? Have they not seen what my new policy cost? It is twice what it was before I had to take out one of the "Affordable" policies. This is total insanity, the GOVT just passed the costs on to me and others that is all. I have a huge deductible and then the monthly payments are twice what they were. For me it is a strain on my budget and I hate it. I want it over turned and the quicker the better. Also my Dr hates it, my wife a nurse hates it, and the hospital where she works is having to cut back so they can adjust to the lower payments from the GOVT on all their procedures. This is a not for profit hospital and they will now serve fewer children than before. It is a mess from top to bottom

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 17, 2014 10:42 p.m.

    Money will be forced away from some, and given to others.

    Way to go Obama.

    Why not encourage the uninsured to work, and provide for themselves?

    Except for a few, most people are capable of working for their substance without the handouts. It starts with electing honest leaders.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    April 17, 2014 9:14 p.m.

    The bottom line is that a healthy society is a more productive and happy society. There is no doubt that the USA needs a national health plan for its citizens; so why not get behind ACA and help make it a success. It is not too late to be on the right side of history and help construct a better nation for all. If one has some constructive ideas on how to make the health program better, then send them on down the line. It is better than sitting around feeling sorry for oneself and moaning how it is going to hurt their pocketbook.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 17, 2014 7:57 a.m.

    To "Lowonoil" actually, the ACA is the failure that conservatives and Republicans said it would be. The problem is that the spin that the national media and the White House put on it make is sound like it is great.

    Just look at the example in this article. If you look at the original promise from the ACA, they claimed that it would cost less than $900 billion. Recently the CBO said that the ACA will cost us $2.7 Trillion. Now it is a success if they say it will only cost $2.6 Trillion?

    It is still a failure because it has not met any of the promises made when it was originally debated and passed.

  • Lowonoil Clearfield, UT
    April 17, 2014 6:47 a.m.

    ACA is failing to be the failure that the republicans so desperately need it to be. Perhaps their biggest mistake will prove to be referring to it as "Obamacare" which may eventually become a term of endearment.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    April 16, 2014 8:03 p.m.

    Wow, talk about fuzzy math. 1.4 million more sign up for Ocare than lose their plans and suddenly 9.4 million more have insurance? And what happens when your doctor is not on your Ocare policy. The reimbursement rates are so low many doctors and hospitals have elected not to take Ocare plans. Yes it sounds great until you realize that you have health insurance that won't cover the doctors you want to see. Moreover, all of the junk they have added in has increased costs for the average consumer - at least the ones not being subsidized by the rest of us. Yes my 60 year old neighbor's premiums have gone up significantly - but at least she now has maternity coverage. I am sure she is glad.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    April 16, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    Yea, this isn't going to put us in as much debt as thought!!

    To "cmsense" let me use liberal government revenue logic for you. Without those 26 year olds buying their own policies, the government is losing money. Remember, the ACA was designed to be built on the backs of the young and healthy. Now, we have removed the young from the foundation. If a parent puts their children on his insurance policy, it may cost them an additional $100/month. That means that in a year the 26 year old will only cost $1200 into the insurance pool. Now, here is the liberal math for you. Since the insurance for just that 1 person would be at least $400/month, that means that the ACA insurance pools are going to be missing out on at least $3600/yr. Since the young don't need the insurance as much, where do you think they are going to get that $3600/yr?

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    April 16, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    It really doesn't cost the government anything. Since the taxpayers pay the bill. Let's get that established first.

    Second, of course there is a savings when people can't sign up.

    Third, let's look at countries with similar health care welfare that we now have. There is not one country where the system sustains itself. We always compare ourselves to Europeans, let's compare health care. The governments are borrowing money to pay for the costs. Which means you get votes now, but, screw the future generations.

    Congratulations to those of us who have children, we'll give them the best gift of debt possible. Maybe we should tax people that value their pets more than people. That should help offset the burden of usury and tax of the future.

  • Jared NotInMiami, FL
    April 16, 2014 8:51 a.m.

    "ACA’s coverage provisions will result in lower net costs to the federal government"

    Assuming the CBO's numbers are correct (they often are not), this still just applies to the federal government. What about costs to states, businesses, and individuals? Stating that is ACA is "not as expensive as thought" is probably only partially true.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    April 16, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    Seems we still live in some alternate universe that can not accept reality. The sky has not fallen because of the changes to our health care system. A lot of people are now getting coverage because of the the changes to the health care system. And most people still get their tax preferred employer based coverage. Not only that, but it seems that the new law is going to save us some money.

    Facts trump silly conservatives. However, silly conservatives don't know fact when it hits them in their faces. I suppose the next notion will be that Social Security and Medicare are part of the "Devil's" scheme to drive Jesus out of the US, Or that the world is flat, and the Sun revolves around the Earth.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    April 16, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    Hmmmm. A forecast of fairer weather after coming through some pretty dark storms of duplicity, incompetence and general dissatisfaction.

    I hope the CBO is correct and the previous projections they are now projecting are false really are....false. But, since what now looks to be false were **projections** when they were originally made, just like these are, I think I'll wait a while until these current projections are part of a reviewable past before declaring Obamacare a success.

    When we know more about how many are actually paying, how many are actually satisfied with the product, how many of the so-called "Invincibles" are part of the pool, what the **actual** costs are, etc., etc., in short, when we can review results rather than projections, **then**, and only then, the crowing, by either side, will actually mean something.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 16, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    techpubs -

    “So being restricted to certain hospitals, doctors, and treatments by the PPACA will most likely ensure that a percentage of people who could have recovered will die.”

    “ . . . . people who could have recovered will die?”

    That makes NO sense. Think about it.

    Prior to the ACA, the only people who would have had access to those specialized hospitals and “who could have recovered” got to keep their insurance if they liked it and if it met minimum criteria.

    So those people are STILL covered with the insurance that allows them access to those specialized hospitals.

    Stop thinking like a Republican, and get real.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palain picks up your line of thought and triumphantly tells us, "See? I TOLD you there were death panels!"

  • cmsense Kaysville, UT
    April 16, 2014 7:05 a.m.

    The sky is falling. Not. The fact is many of the ACA's benefits cost the government nothing, such as letting children under 26 stay on their parents insurance. The health plans on the ACA marketplace are not huge give aways to the poor. They actually cost a good chunk of money for most and tend to have high deductables both of which should be cheered by Republicans and leave the biggest support only to the most destitute. People don't run to the ER with runny noses when they have a $2000 deductable but no matter. They complain that the ACA is a failure because not enough people sign up, that the deductables are high, but those could be remedied with more generous subsidies that they also are opposed to. They basically complain complain, but when they don't awknowlege any sucesses. No one would say its perfect, but it beats anything I've heard from the Republicans and is a lot fairer than pre ACA to those in the individual marketplace (only 7% of the population whose plight was ignored by republicans. They who had to be healthy to buy health insurance).

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    April 16, 2014 7:02 a.m.

    Having been able to be treated at Mayo Clinic back in 87 for Leukemia as opposed to another hospital that would have been at least 800 miles further from my family was beneficial for my morale. But the largest advantage was the experimental program for Gancyclovir that was only available at the high level hospitals. The medicine was provided free, but the additional costs for administering the drug were expensive and my insurance picked up 90% of that cost which Medicaid would not have covered at that time.
    So being restricted to certain hospitals, doctors, and treatments by the PPACA will most likely ensure that a percentage of people who could have recovered will die.