Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Thanks, Obama: Health Care Premiums Up in 45 States

Jon Gabriel, Ed.
By Jon Gabriel, Ed.
Jon Gabriel, Ed. King
Jon Gabriel (a.k.a., @ExJon on Twitter) is the Editor-in-Chief of Ricochet. He is a political writer and marketing consultant, contributing articles to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, and USA Today among others. Until 2012, he served as Director of Marketing for the free-market Goldwater Institute, where he converted policy initiatives into compelling stories. In the private sector, Jon led marketing efforts for Cold Stone Creamery, Honeywell, and several technology companies. In his… [more]
|
35 COMMENTS
 

obamacare-premium-map
The Affordable Care Act is proving to be less affordable than ever. A recent study by the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation and Urban Institute showed that only five states showed a decrease in the price of an average health-insurance plan in the past year, as did the District of Columbia. The rest of the country saw their premium costs rise.

The worst increase was in Oklahoma, where plans jumped by nearly 42 percent, with 12 states’ costs rising by more than 20 percent. Alaska’s rose 40.2 percent, Tennessee’s rose 38.6 percent, and Montana’s rose 35.2 percent. The only states with a greater than 5 percent decrease were Indiana and Mississippi.

Traditionally studies use a national aggregate of costs, but the study’s authors found that to be deeply misleading since local variations are so great.

“We conclude that a national average rate of premium increase is a fairly meaningless statistic since different markets are having very different experiences,” the authors said. “The focus of attention should be on understanding the wide variability by identifying the characteristics of markets that have experienced high premiums or high growth in premiums and of markets with lower premiums or lower growth in premiums.”

The states with the most competition between insurers had the best results (imagine that). Perhaps the Obama administration should have taken an Economics 101 class at their local community college before choosing to obliterate most of the market incentives in the health insurance industry.

Tags: , ,

There are 35 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Join Ricochet
  1. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt

    Fricosis Guy:The healthcare/insurance complex has just about bled the host dry. Full single-payer will seem like a relief.

    And that is the point.

    • #31
    • June 9, 2016, at 6:00 AM PDT
      • ⋅
    • Like
  2. Fricosis Guy Listener
    Fricosis Guy

    Fake John/Jane Galt:

    Fricosis Guy:The healthcare/insurance complex has just about bled the host dry. Full single-payer will seem like a relief.

    And that is the point.

    Yes, although Obamacare simply attached a few more lampreys.

    • #32
    • June 9, 2016, at 6:18 AM PDT
      • ⋅
    • Like
  3. Marion Evans Inactive
    Marion Evans

    Douglas:

    Marion Evans:

    …

    Those things would definitely help, and bring costs down, but there are problems inherent with medical insurance that you don’t get with, say, car insurance. With car insurance, if you’re a good driver (and a little lucky, i.e. some drunk doesn’t rear-end you at the Mall), then costs are fairly steady. But you replace your car ever 5-10 years (most people, anyway), so maintenance costs are steady. You don’t get a new human body every 5 years. So you’re guaranteed to have ever-increasing medical expenses, as everyone is going to have a medical problem of some kind. ….

    This is why any kind of medical insurance scheme… private or nationalized… has to involve the young and healthy subsidizing the old and not healthy. If it doesn’t, then you have a case of medical costs becoming catastrophic for the old. Unless we just start taking older people out to the field and putting them down like a lame horse (Europe is headed this way), then they have to be subsidized by young earnings or general taxation.

    Or let each family fend for itself, instead of socializing the cost. One reason people stopped having as many children, a problem by itself, is that elderly care is paid by government and insurance. No obvious moral reason why a person should support an unrelated elderly person. Personal responsibility and a deflationary cost spiral would bring back reality.

    • #33
    • June 9, 2016, at 6:20 AM PDT
      • ⋅
    • Like
  4. TeamAmerica Member
    TeamAmericaJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Marion Evans:

    Douglas:

    Marion Evans:

    …

    Those things would definitely help, and bring costs down, but there are problems with medical insurance

    …

    But you replace your car ever 5-10 years (most people, anyway), so maintenance costs are steady. You don’t get a new human body every 5 years. So you’re guaranteed to have ever-increasing medical expenses, as everyone is going to have a medical problem of some kind.

    ….

    any kind of medical insurance scheme… private or nationalized… has to involve the young and healthy subsidizing the old and not healthy. If it doesn’t, then you have a case of medical costs becoming catastrophic for the old. Unless we just start taking older people out to the field and putting them down like a lame horse (Europe is headed this way), then they have to be subsidized by young earnings or general taxation.

    Or let each family fend for itself, instead of socializing the cost. One reason people stopped having as many children, a problem by itself, is that elderly care is paid by government and insurance. No obvious moral reason why a person should support an unrelated elderly person. Personal responsibility and a deflationary cost spiral would bring back reality.

    I agree, but a female academic from Lebanon told me women are having fewer kids partly because of the cost of raising and educating them. So, unless those costs can be reduced, or unless our SS system collapses, family size will not likely increase.

    • #34
    • June 9, 2016, at 2:19 PM PDT
      • ⋅
    • Like
  5. Marion Evans Inactive
    Marion Evans

    TeamAmerica:

    Marion Evans:

    Douglas:

    Marion Evans:

    …

    Those things would definitely help, and bring costs down, but there are problems with medical insurance

    …

    But you replace your car ever 5-10 years (most people, anyway), so maintenance costs are steady. You don’t get a new human body every 5 years. So you’re guaranteed to have ever-increasing medical expenses, as everyone is going to have a medical problem of some kind.

    ….

    any kind of medical insurance scheme… private or nationalized… has to involve the young and healthy subsidizing the old and not healthy. If it doesn’t, then you have a case of medical costs becoming catastrophic for the old. …

    Or let each family fend for itself, instead of socializing the cost. One reason people stopped having as many children, a problem by itself, is that elderly care is paid by government and insurance. No obvious moral reason why a person should support an unrelated elderly person. Personal responsibility and a deflationary cost spiral would bring back reality.

    I agree, but a female academic from Lebanon told me women are having fewer kids partly because of the cost of raising and educating them. So, unless those costs can be reduced, or unless our SS system collapses, family size will not likely increase.

    Well sure, there are costs to raising children and they do nothing for you financially when you get old. Once you restore the old-age benefits of parenthood, the costs make more sense.

    • #35
    • June 9, 2016, at 2:33 PM PDT
      • ⋅
    • Like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.