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.
Quote: "For most people, subsidies won’t counteract rate shock ...
If you click on the “Your Decision” tab on our interactive map, you will now find the results, as assembled by Yevgeniy, for the 13 states plus D.C. in our original database. Here’s the bottom line: most people with average incomes will pay more under Obamacare for individually-purchased insurance than they did before."
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.
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.
You realize this is a mathematical impossibility, right?
EDIT: That's what I get for being snarky. Will leave my shame for all too see :)
If there are 9 employees making $30K/year and the owner makes $270K/year, then the average salary is $54K/year, but 9 of the 10 people are making below average.
Bill Gates made, what, $10 billion last year? Put him in a city with 100,000 people making $100,000/year. His arrival would cause the average salary to double, and all but one would have a less than average income.
Not saying the parent statement is correct, but definitely not a mathematical impossibility...
This is a very dubious comparison; the cheapest plan offered to 40-year-olds probably does not cover as much as the bronze plan.
I'm not clear on to what extent premium payments from the young are treated as being in same pool as the old, in the new Obamacare system. I do know that part of the problem leading to current situation has been that young people don't have health insurance or have barebones coverage and that older people have been to some extent subsidizing health care needs of the young. If the new system cures that then it makes sense that premiums for older people may go down; younger people will now be paying closer to their fair share.
Regarding premiums for the non-sick going up and premiums for the sick going down, not sure about that. But the whole purpose of insurance is to spread costs evenly. My understanding is that many insurance companies have until now been allowed to create high cost policies that are sold to sick people. This runs counter to the idea of insurance; the cost of insurance should be the same whether you are sick or not. You pay for the insurance as a healthy person knowing that if you become sick you will be covered. Having policies with cohorts composed entirely of sick people is antithetical to the idea of health insurance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/25/h...
I DON'T KNOW WHO TO BELIEVE ANYMORE!
