• Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!

Thanks To Obamacare, New Yorkers’ Health Insurance Premiums Will Plunge 50 Percent

Straight Shooter

1,000 posts to go for my own user title!
Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see their premiums tumble next year in New York State as changes under the federal health care law take effect, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced on Wednesday.

State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for 2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those currently available in New York. Beginning in October, individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance for as little as $308 monthly. With federal subsidies, the cost will be even lower.

Supporters of the new health care law, the Affordable Care Act, credited the drop in rates to the online purchasing exchanges the law created, which they say are spurring competition among insurers that are anticipating an influx of new customers. The law requires that an exchange be started in every state.

“Health insurance has suddenly become affordable in New York,” said Elisabeth Benjamin, vice president for health initiatives with the Community Service Society of New York. “It’s not bargain-basement prices, but we’re going from Bergdorf’s to Filene’s here.”

“The extraordinary decline in New York’s insurance rates for individual consumers demonstrates the profound promise of the Affordable Care Act,” she added.

Administration officials, long confronted by Republicans and other critics of President Obama’s signature law, were quick to add New York to the list of states that appear to be successfully carrying out the law and setting up exchanges.

“We’re seeing in New York what we’ve seen in other states like California and Oregon — that competition and transparency in the marketplaces are leading to affordable and new choices for families,” said Joanne Peters, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services.

The new premium rates do not affect a majority of New Yorkers, who receive insurance through their employers, only those who must purchase it on their own. Because the cost of individual coverage has soared, only 17,000 New Yorkers currently buy insurance on their own. About 2.6 million are uninsured in New York State.

State officials estimate as many as 615,000 individuals will buy health insurance on their own in the first few years the health law is in effect. In addition to lower premiums, about three-quarters of those people will be eligible for the subsidies available to lower-income individuals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/health/health-plan-cost-for-new-yorkers-set-to-fall-50.html?_r=0

New York has joined joined Oregon, Montana, California, and Louisiana in reporting lower than expected rates in the law’s new health care marketplaces.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
I still think they should have tried to fix the other problems first. Pharmaceutical companies are raping the people with drug costs. Insurance companies are raping the doctors for malpractice insurance, hospitals are ass raping the patients, and worst of all, greedy lawyers, and patients are trying to fuck everyone with frivolous law suites.

I think these things should have been addressed prior to nobamas agenda.
 

Philbert

Banned
I will laugh as I watch the system implode and the UberLibs scramble once again to apologize and explain it away.
Since it isn't really happening until nearly a year from now, uh-huh. I always believe Dem announcements.
Of course, most of the people this supposedly covers are poor and older, so they are ok if nothing changes. But over $45000 or so you pay a fine and done, since your health care prems will be really high. And of course the 75% who qualify are less healthy and sicker, so they will need a LOT of Gov subsidy . The higher income people are usually healthier and won't have to buy into the system.
Uh Oh...millions of needy and sick needing care, and no healthy participants in the pool.
Also, the cheaper policies most likely will have narrow and specific benefits so most will have to use specific care centers and specific Doctors. Those are gonna be some lines, and I think the whole system will be crushed by Gov't bankruptcy, fraud, and limited payouts; thusly low quality and limited care.
I could be wrong, but ...I'm probably not.
 

zeeblofowl_1969

I don't know and frankly I don't care.
Should have universal health care but that would be too easy and then how would they keep raping us all??
 

mikexmoran

Will strip for money!
A public option would drive costs down even lower.


I'm a big fan of the intent of the act. As JFK said, "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."

I would agree that a public option would have been a better path to go down. I'm for anything that creates competition.

I'm not a big fan of the federal government mandating anything like this, but this has been determined in the courts. So, it is what it is.

I wouldn't take anything Cuomo says to the bank. He is a pure politician and shows his colors daily. This is the guy who appointed his cronies to the LIPA board, then after Hurricane Sandy blamed that same leadership. I'm not saying he is evil, but he is an empty suit.

Some people are going to see a credit come their way. The new law has regulations on how insurance companies use their profits and will need to send out the credit to make that adjustments.

My concerns are around how it affects the health care industry and how the overall health care service improves or declines. I'm focused on new taxes that surround the industry. Anything in this area can have significant impact.

In a perfect world, this would have been a bi-partisan law that changed the landscape bit by bit. I don't think that is reality. This may be a debacle that sinks Obama's legacy, but in reality how else do you pass legislation like this? I have to agree with the approach as much as it goes against my grain.

IMO, forget Cuomo's comments, forget the Democrat and Republican point/counterpoint finger pointing nonsense. Drink a few cups of coffee (Dunkin Donuts is my recommendation, just make sure whatever it is, it isn't decaf) and read the ACA:

http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/law/index.html

Also, don't read other people's thoughts on the CBO, read the CBO's findings themselves:

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

They aren't always right, but at least you'll now what they say instead of what some talking head said they said.


What do I think? I think it may very well be crushed under its own weight. Just my opinion. I wouldn't have voted for it, but I'm hoping I"m wrong. If I'm wrong then this could be a very good step into providing coverage to the less fortunate.
 

xfire

@ChrisFreemanX
I'm a big fan of the intent of the act. As JFK said, "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."

I would agree that a public option would have been a better path to go down. I'm for anything that creates competition.

I'm not a big fan of the federal government mandating anything like this, but this has been determined in the courts. So, it is what it is.

I wouldn't take anything Cuomo says to the bank. He is a pure politician and shows his colors daily. This is the guy who appointed his cronies to the LIPA board, then after Hurricane Sandy blamed that same leadership. I'm not saying he is evil, but he is an empty suit.

Some people are going to see a credit come their way. The new law has regulations on how insurance companies use their profits and will need to send out the credit to make that adjustments.

My concerns are around how it affects the health care industry and how the overall health care service improves or declines. I'm focused on new taxes that surround the industry. Anything in this area can have significant impact.

In a perfect world, this would have been a bi-partisan law that changed the landscape bit by bit. I don't think that is reality. This may be a debacle that sinks Obama's legacy, but in reality how else do you pass legislation like this? I have to agree with the approach as much as it goes against my grain.

IMO, forget Cuomo's comments, forget the Democrat and Republican point/counterpoint finger pointing nonsense. Drink a few cups of coffee (Dunkin Donuts is my recommendation, just make sure whatever it is, it isn't decaf) and read the ACA:

http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/law/index.html

Also, don't read other people's thoughts on the CBO, read the CBO's findings themselves:

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

They aren't always right, but at least you'll now what they say instead of what some talking head said they said.


What do I think? I think it may very well be crushed under its own weight. Just my opinion. I wouldn't have voted for it, but I'm hoping I"m wrong. If I'm wrong then this could be a very good step into providing coverage to the less fortunate.

If Romneycare in Massachusetts were a huge failure I'd be worried about the ACA. That's not to say that Obamacare will ultimately succeed, but it's a pretty good indicator of potential success because they're pretty much the same legislation. I'm still in favor of amending the ACA with a public option.
 

mikexmoran

Will strip for money!
If Romneycare in Massachusetts were a huge failure I'd be worried about the ACA. That's not to say that Obamacare will ultimately succeed, but it's a pretty good indicator of potential success because they're pretty much the same legislation. I'm still in favor of amending the ACA with a public option.

Agreed
 

Mariahxxx

I am in my own little world but it's okay they know me here.
Official Checked Star Member
270 of the fortune 500 companies are health care related. Pharmaceutical or insurance.

the foundation of all for-profit businesses is to make as much profit as possible, which means you either charge much more than your costs or you provide as little for the money paid as possible.

Back in the good old days of the 1950s and 1960s that the tea party begs the US to return to, health care was government mandated as non-profit and it was affordable for nearly everyone, even those with entry level jobs. more than 95% of businesses offered it to their employees. Now that it's for profit, look at the costs and the profits they make. That says one thing, they are providing far less than what is being paid for. Even the most idiotic of the republicans should be able to do that math. but they won't.
 

Philbert

Banned
Since I can only read what you post and don't know what reality you are altering specifically, I can just call BULLSHIT on health care in the 50's and 60's being mandated by law non-profit.
Doctors, nurses, and hospitals were all for profit and paid market wages or whatever they could get for services.
I notice you rarely post a link to anything this crazy to back up such BS.
 

Mariahxxx

I am in my own little world but it's okay they know me here.
Official Checked Star Member
well first of all Philbert, it was discussed in detail in REPUBLICAN strategist David Frum's book. The first for-profit insurance company was Kaiser which happened under Nixon. There are recordings of Nixon discussing it and saying he liked the sound of it.

Secondly, in the 1950s and 1960s the price of gas, hotel rates, eggs, milk were all regulated. Gold was illegal to own. Your telephone was rented to you by the ONE phone company. Electricity was government owned and not for profit as it is today. Ever get a choice in who your electric company is? Well they run ads where I live all the time as if you do. Who pays for those ads?????? hmmmm and what is the purpose of an ad for a company you have no choice but to pay????

health care was for profit but prices were heavily regulated. the top income tax rate was 91% from 1948 until the mid 60s. So this fantasy that the 50s and 60s were a utopia of freedoms and smal government are just that, one big make believe fantasy. In the 1950s and 1960s we had the #1 health care system in the world, now we're ranked #37. Hospitals employed more people than all of industry and it was a thriving business, even with price regulations that limited how much could be charged. 1 in 6 Americans received in patient care every year. Today that number is 1 in 27 and nursing and doctors are in short supply. Read David Frum's book he worked for Reagan and has said that the tea party and the religious right is the worst thing to happen to the republican party in it's history. He addressed this myth that the 1950s and 1960s were what the tea party makes it out to be. Let's not forget the lack of rights for blacks, women, gays and the handicapped.


This was written by David Frum:


"The United States did not vote for socialism. It could not do so, because neither party offers socialism. Both parties champion a free enterprise economy cushioned by a certain amount of social insurance. The Democrats (mostly) want more social insurance; the Republicans want less. National politics is a contest to move the line of scrimmage, in a game where there's no such thing as a forward pass, only a straight charge ahead at the defensive line. To gain three yards is a big play.
Conservatives blame establishment
Boehner: GOP has 'some work to do'
Obama's second term agenda

Whatever you think of the Obama record, it's worth keeping in mind that by any measure, free enterprise has been winning the game for a long, long time to this point.

Compare the United States of 2012 with the United States of 1962. Leave aside the obvious points about segregation and discrimination, and look only at the economy.

In 1962, the government regulated the price and route of every airplane, every freight train, every truck and every merchant ship in the United States. The government regulated the price of natural gas. It regulated the interest on every checking account and the commission on every purchase or sale of stock. Owning a gold bar was a serious crime that could be prosecuted under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The top rate of income tax was 91%.

Opinion: How progress is possible in second term

It was illegal to own a telephone. Phones had to be rented from the giant government-regulated monopoly that controlled all telecommunications in the United States. All young men were subject to the military draft and could escape only if they entered a government-approved graduate course of study. The great concern of students of American society -- of liberals such as David Riesman, of conservatives such as Russell Kirk and of radicals such as Dwight Macdonald -- was the country's stultifying, crushing conformity.

Even if you look only at the experiences of white heterosexual men, the United States of 2012 is a freer country in almost every way than the United States of 1962.

Obama has changes in mind that conservatives and Republicans will oppose. He will want to raise taxes; he will want to sustain social spending at a permanently higher level; he has in mind new regulations over health care, energy production and banking. He'll win some; he'll lose some. To the extent that his wins prove injurious, future Republican Congresses and administrations will struggle to undo them. That's politics: a contest that never ends and in which the only certainty is the certainty of constant change.

The Republican challenge next is to reassemble a new coalition for limited government and private enterprise. That coalition must include Americans of all ethnicities. To assume from the start that only certain ethnicities will contribute, and that others aspire only to grab, is not only ugly prejudice; it is also self-destructive delusion."

he says very clearly with facts to back it up that a white man in today's America is far more free than a white man in 1962. here is the article that backs what I'm saying up: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/opinion/frum-conservatives-despair

here are some things written by a life long high profile Republican that are worth the read:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/11/11/how-the-republicans-got-stuck-in-the-past.html

you want a link? http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/HealthCareEarly1960s.pdf
 

Philbert

Banned
As usual, it's a mish mash of facts taken out of context and giving one source all power to know everything.
In 2013, January our population, including millions of illegals draining but giving little back to the system, was 315,183,801.

July 1, 1960 180,671,158

July 1, 1951 154,877,889
Big difference in a country 5 years out of a World War, and only 10 years later.
And there were insurance companies in the 50s and 60s, just not health care insurance.
Try and say true stuff every once in a while, I DON'T just know what you mean.

Even when Blue Cross was non-profit, they couldn't compete with private companies cause they had to take ALL people, sick and healthy and rates for healthy were really high, so lower rates for the younger and not sick were much lower with private ins. Duh.
Nothing is actually created from intentions, shit costs money and health care from the Gov't will not be a good thing, it sucks where it already is.
 

Mariahxxx

I am in my own little world but it's okay they know me here.
Official Checked Star Member
I read the book and could only find snippets online to quote. its facts from someone who is a scholar and is a life long republican. he knows more than all of us combined on this stuff so take it up with him and show him your angry side dude.

so keep slipping down the list and only 10% of us will get good care and the rest will get none? good thinking. bad health care is better than none. period.
 

Mariahxxx

I am in my own little world but it's okay they know me here.
Official Checked Star Member
we spend more than any other nation on health care yet it sucks, but you fucks say "don't change it!" wtf sense does that make??????????? its 1/6 of our national budget and it's failing miserably, so why not try something to fix it? WHY the fuck not?????????? in every state they have found it will cause premiums to drop significantly, but who wants to believe that? its only economists who have come to that conclusion! You guys dont believe economists or scientists unless they are on the payroll for some company trying to sell you clean coal and oil spill myths.

fuck that. use your brain
 

Philbert

Banned
what was the unemployment rate in 1962 again?

5.8%?

Ummm...what about the deficit?

53.7 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars?

Let's see...income gap is lower..healthy middle class...ample military, and enough in the budget to fund a moon shot...
We are better off now how?
And Frum, a regular CNN contributor, editor at Newsweek, and a regular of the Daily Beast, sounds like a classic RINO to me...good source.
He also said "Even if you look only at the experiences of white heterosexual men, the United States of 2012 is a freer country in almost every way than the United States of 1962."
Boy, I'd love to see the stats behind THAT unbelievable claim...but really, with no effort I found almost all your "stated Facts" were wrong, misstated, or just not relavant.
Now, I'm bored.
Post as much fantasy facts as you want, your titties give you cred with most FOs members anyway...you don't need to be right.
 

Mariahxxx

I am in my own little world but it's okay they know me here.
Official Checked Star Member
now you're a bored idiot in denial of facts.

yes, we had a thriving economy in a country HEAVILY regulated with a lot more government than we have today. today we have very small government in comparison and its falling and falling, yet you want to ignore why it was better then and pretend what will take it back.

talk about fantasy. you are Aldo Nova dude.
 

Philbert

Banned
I'm bored correcting you...the idiot in this conversation.
You read something and start extrapolating the structure of the Universe with no research or fact checking.
An idiot is what you are here, maybe you do better off the forum.

Can you find that link for me now, the one where Lt. Col. Bill Burkett was later found to be 100% accurate on Bush's Texas Air Nat'l Guard records...I never saw anything that said anything even close to "later found to be 100% true", as you claimed specifically. I asked then, and I'm asking now, where is a link to another (I believe) fully false statement you made?
Just this, and I'll say I was wrong, apologize for doubting you, and stop claiming you are an idiot.
 

Mariahxxx

I am in my own little world but it's okay they know me here.
Official Checked Star Member
I have changed since my vacation. I have realized how important some things are, and how absolutely NOT important others are. This is one of those things. When people refuse to acknowledge very clear facts, like we spend so much on health care yet its getting worse as we spend more, I have decided not to fight with you. Your side is already losing. Your side just challenged the law and was defeated for the 38th time. 39 isn't far away I'm sure. But reality is that health care for everyone is coming and arguing with a simpleton about it is a waste of my time.

I wish you a good night. I hope you never need to be cared for and cannot afford it. You have stated how wealthy you are so no wonder you see no problem with the current system as it does not apply to you.

Best of luck to you. I wish you well and maybe one day you can use your wealth to help someone who needs it. And maybe you'll move away from that shit hole state you love so much.

Good night. time for a swim before bed.
 
Top