ObamaCare's costs: Rising, rising, rising ...
Confirming that the president's dubious claim about ObamaCare cutting costs is flat-out wrong, a new Society of Actuaries report says it will force insurers to pay 32 percent more, on average, for claims on individual health policies.
Those are the sorts of policies that Americans who don't get coverage from their employers or otherwise lack health insurance must buy in new state insurance exchanges or face fines, starting Oct. 1. And the reason why such claim costs will rise so dramatically — by amounts ranging from more than 20 percent in Florida to about 80 percent in Ohio and Wisconsin, according to the report — is as obvious as it was the day ObamaCare was introduced in Congress.
The more than 32 million uninsured Americans to be covered via the exchanges will form a health-insurance pool that includes many sicker people. The report says insurers' “spending on sicker people and other high-cost groups will overwhelm an influx of younger, healthier people into the program,” according to the Washington Guardian.
The Obama administration claims the actuaries' report misses ObamaCare's big picture, ignoring tax credits and subsides for exchange customers and insurers. But one actuary who worked on the report tells the Guardian that claim costs are “the most important driver of health care premiums” — and Medicare's recently retired chief actuary says the report does “a credible job.”
Thus, it's clearer than ever that the administration did anything but a credible job with its ObamaCare cost-cut claims.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: New and serious questions are being raised about the Pa. attorney general
- Picking winners & losers: Stop the idiocy
- U.N. Watch: Resist the temptation
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Sunday pops
- The Kane chronicles: Meaningless moves