GOP Talking Points Falling Apart: ‘Obamacare” Will Save BILLIONS in Lower Premiums

[babylonsister]

GOP Talking Points Falling Apart: ‘Obamacare” Will Save BILLIONS in Lower Premiums
Omar Rivero
8 June, 2013


It’s official: not only will “Obamacare” provide much better health insurance coverage for the American people and radically improve our nation’s healthcare system, it will also save Americans billions of dollars per year due to consumer protections that limit how much insurance can profit off of Americans’ premiums. Most of those savings stem from individual health plan providers lowering the premiums they charge Americans in order to comply with the new law.

This eviscerates the dangerous Republican talking point that Obamacare would inevitably lead to higher premiums, although you can bet that you won’t be hearing this on the latest FOXNews alert bulletin.

According to a new study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Americans who bought individual health plans in 2012 saved a staggering $2.1 billion thanks to these Obamacare consumer protections alone.

Perhaps due to our complacent corporate media, many Americans do not know that Elizabeth Warren’s brainchild, the historic Consumer Protection Agency, is in charge of imposing these strict consumer protections and keeping the previously unchecked insurance companies from gouging the American people.

This comes on the heels of another extremely positive development for Pres. Obama’s signature healthcare reform, as several major California insurers announced that they would have to pay back $36 million to small businesses and their employees after conveniently overcharging them.


snip//

Look at this incredible graph displaying how much money Americans saved in the years 2011 and 2012 and individual medical market (click to enlarge):



more...

http://occupydemocrats.com/gop-talking-points-falling-apart-obamacare-will-save-billions-in-lower-premiums/

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. "in 2012 saved a staggering $2.1 billion thanks to these Obamacare consumer protections alone".

That's gonna leave a mark.

[Whisp]

3. That can't be true.

There are DUers here that insist because of Obamacare they are paying More in premiums.

I find that these are usually people that have something negative to say about whatever Obama says and does.

I wonder if that influences their eyesight when they are reading those numbers?

[Cha]

5. Of course they are..

the source is key.

[Tarheel_Dem]

15. If you mean DU's outrage junkies, I don't think anybody (in the real world) cares. I figure.....

they're just doing their job, if you know what I mean.

[Whisp]

18. Maybe it's Obama Derangement Syndrome that makes your eyes go first.

But only when you are reading premium numbers.

[NoOneMan]

2. Does "save billions a year" equate to lower per capita health care costs?

[tridim]

8. As far as the patient is concerned, yes.

Hospitals and Insurers will have to deal with it.

[NoOneMan]

10. Who pays hospitals and insurers?

Is health care paid with inconsequential monopoly money now?

The patients are the people who own and fund the government, and are therefore liable for all costs that system incurs. If saving billions does not equate to lower per capita costs, than the nation did not save billions. They just changed where the money is flowing from and how it is flowing. Shell game.

If one's only concern is about making richer people pay more towards a big fat bloated inefficient system that is leeching wealth away from the country, mission accomplished.

[tridim]

16. Insurers don't like high prices either.

Now they have a law.

Watch what happens next.

[NoOneMan]

19. Yes they do

Insurers get a fixed cut of the pie. The bigger the pie, the bigger their slice.

[babylonsister]

12. I don't really know, but

more 'capita' might be able to afford healthcare, including myself.

[Cha]

4. HAHA!

Muchas Gracias, babylonsistah

[malaise]

6. They know

and that's why they want to kill it

[Thinkingabout]

7. I expect in a few years there will be a claim by the GOP everything is wonderful because Romney

passed health care and this is what the Obamacare was patterned after and therefore they deserve all the credit. Probably will not be called Obamacare anymore but Romneycare. I expect to have some bumps in the road and tweaking but this is a good start to getting health care for everyone.

[tridim]

9. The time for GOP support is right now. I don't see a hint of support yet.

California is going to be a hell of a campaign stop for Democrats next year.

[Whisp]

11. or from another camp: Obamacare happened because some were

really nasty and rude to him and forced him to do the right thing, otherwise,
being the lazy and ignorant corporate loving ass he is, nothing would of got done.
The nastier they were, why the quicker he worked!

[babylonsister]

13. Are you kidding me? Just UGH! nt

[WinkyDink]

14. As I've now posted thrice: My Group (Retired Teachers) Premium went UP.

So I'll sit out the ovation.

[babylonsister]

17. Sorry to hear that, WinkyDink.

I don't know what to say, but am sure you're not alone. Tweaking? Maybe states/unions/companies need to catch up? I honestly don't know.

[wercal]

20. I curious to know what state you are in,

If you are willing to disclose it. Some states are projected to fare much better than others...given the nature of insurance, and the inability of companies to cross state lines.

My suspicion is that groups that are comprised of mainly seniors will have a rough go of it. As I see it, the healthcare bill sets up 3 main groups:

1. Under 26...these people will be insured by their parents' plan...not a major upheaval from the status quo.

2. Young adult: 26-30. This has traditionally been the group that does not buy insurance. They may not have a family yet, feel invincible, whatever. This is a very inexpensive group to insure...but I believe across the board they will pay more under the healthcare bill. For starters, some will be buying some insurance versus no insurance. But this group (which is generally very healthy) is really the backboen of the system. Now a major flaw is that they may elect to pay the federal penalty, instead of purchasing insurance.

3. Middle age...30 to medicare age. This is the group which benefits from the increased premium pool of young adults. Most large companies already allowed kids up to 25 on their plans...so no major new expenses, except a medical device tax. Now I am in this group...and I suspect my employer, which is a good company and a very progressive ESOP employee owned (100%) company, will eventually come to a conclusion - and they will offer to pay us more, drop our insurance, and have us join the exchanges. But even then, our net cost should be less...in most states. The exception would be groups comprised of just 55-65 year olds...like government employee retirement groups. Your group has systematic problems getting these 25-30 y/o to contribute to premiums, and not use the services very often...with or without the healthcare bill, frankly...but probably exascerbated by it.

I actually think it is too early to really know what/if the savings will be...especially based on a study done of 2012, where much of the bill has not been implemented. My own insurance went up 15% last year, and when asked, my employer stated that 3% of that was attributable to the healthcare law. I think the primary driver in this cost was the prohibition against a lifetime limit...and the actuaries made a calculation to cover that new risk. So, I am hopeful that the jump will not happen repeatedly. And, the other 12% was attributable to increased costs. And, quite frankly, we've been hit with this type of increase in past years.

My company self insures by the way. We all pay a premium, which equals about half our cost, and the company pays the other half. We pay Blue Cross to 'manage' the money, and the claims and the payouts...and Blue Cross will pay the difference if our claim costs exceed our pool of money...but that just means they ratchet up our required money pool amount for the next year. So, ours is a plan very much responsive to the prior year's cost...and not the profit/premium ratios of the insurance company. We shall see what is in store for next year.

[RC]

21. Just think about how much more we could save if the health insurance companies were cut out

of the deal.
You know Single Payer, Universal Health Care, like... Oh I don't know, maybe most civilized countries have?

Health insurance companies are really nothing more than parasitic middle men that profit from denying benefits. In the grand scheme of things, they really do nothing constructive in providing health care, that could not be done better and less expensively by Single Payer.