Paying the ObamaCare premium
Contrary to the Obama administration's empty assurances, ObamaCare-related premiums are not on pace for merely a slight increase next year. Health insurance officials tell The Hill newspaper that patients could see their fees double in some parts of the country.
Their response follows comments by former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who told Congress that rates in 2015 will rise slowly. “The increases are far less significant than what they were prior to the Affordable Care Act,” she said.
Fat chance, according to industry insiders, who spoke on the condition of anonymity — no doubt in response to Ms. Sebelius' threats against those who speak ill of ObamaCare.
One insurance official from a “populous swing state” says he expects his company to triple its rates, The Hill reports.
Specifically, areas with older, sicker or smaller populations stand to be hit the hardest, insurance officials say. Another factor is ObamaCare's barrage of new fees and unrelenting regulations.
And then there's the law's continuing uncertainty. The more President Obama fiddles with implementation, making it up as he goes along, the greater the spike in rates, observers say.
Insurers already are nervous about the small number of enrolled young people, who are vital to ObamaCare's balance sheet. At last count, this cohort only makes up about a quarter of participants in insurance exchanges.
So once again, what's promised under ObamaCare is far removed from reality. And for this, there's only one treatment: extraction, roots and all.
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.
- ‘Canary in a coal mine’: The SSDI dilemma
- Voter ID: A case reaffirmed
- Confidentiality & carnage: Something has to give
- Work’s the thing
- Saturday essay: Anatomy of a backache
- A school choice victory: Follow the child
- Mon-Yough Tuesday takes
- Orphan sinkhole
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- ‘No man, no problem’
- Kittanning Council conundrum: Why disband authority?