Obamacare Rate Shock and Premium Joy: Now It's Real

[babylonsister]

Obamacare Rate Shock and Premium Joy: Now It's Real

BY JONATHAN COHN @citizencohn


The conversation about Obamacare shifted a bit over the weekend. Nobody has forgotten about the technical problems with healthcare.gov. But now critics are also focusing on something else: Reports of sharp premium increases that some individual consumers are facing. In the last few weeks, several hundred thousand Americans have received notices from their health insurance companies, effectively cancelling their existing policies. These consumers can get new policies, of course, but frequently they have to pay more for them.

The news reports are real—and not at all surprising. Obamacare is transforming one part of the existing health insurance market, in ways that will force some people to pay more than they do now. But that’s only part of the story. Many other people, quite possibly the majority of people in that market, will pay less than they do now. And even those paying more will be getting more comprehensive, more secure insurance.

If all of this sounds familiar, it should. Health policy experts spent much of the summer arguing about this very point—about the likelihood of both “rate shock” and “premium joy” and which effect matters more. The lesson of that debate (at least to me) was that journalists, politicians, and anybody else talking about this should really provide a full, nuanced picture—noting all the ways Obamacare is affecting premiums and how that will play out for people in different situations.

But that doesn't seem to be happening, except at places like Politifact. More typical is a recent study from the Heritage Foundation suggesting that most people will end up paying more. That report continues to reverberate throughout the right wing press, even though it left out half the facts.

So here’s a quick refresher on what's really happening:

more...

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115372/how-obamacare-changing-insurance-premiums-and-coverage

[sheshe2]

1. K&R! nt

[groundloop]

2. That's a good article. Too bad all "journalists" can't do that kind of reporting

Even way back in high school journalism, and writing for the school paper, we were taught to dig for the facts and report them. Too bad most of today's "journalists" didn't have my journalism teacher.

[Igel]

4. It has two kinds of facts.

The first is "what is."

The second is "what's going to be."


It doesn't make a big distinction between fact and prediction, realis and irrealis, but still assumes that they're of the same worth. Moreover, it follows up with a sort of "people just don't understand how good it's going to be, and that's the real problem." Yeah, people won't get what they want--foolish people, they should know what's good for them.

It does what it condemns. Advocates make bad reporters. If they didn't, most lawyers would have a second career writing stories about how wonderful their clients are and finding that they all get printed and universally accepted without qualification.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

3. K&R

[Scurrilous]

5. K & R

[rufus dog]

6. The front page LA Times article was a perfect example

A pregnant lawyer who had a huge rate increase per month. From somewhere below $100 to $250. I assume standard child birth is about 10k, so even if she delivers this year, and even if the baby has no doctor visits, her cheap assed plan would only be worthwhile if she never had any medical costs, along with her baby, and her husband. If she has a second child or any other substantial event in the next five years she is immediately upside down. And if her extremely myopic stance is mind boggling ignorant if any of the three had any major event under the past rules then she would have been in a huge financial hole forever.