Policyholders could pay more under Obama plan

[TransitJohn]

Source: AP

Policyholders could pay more under Obama plan

By TOM MURPHY and LINDA A. JOHNSON (AP) – 37 minutes ago

If President Barack Obama gets what he wants in his health care plan — covering all Americans and barring insurers from denying coverage — some analysts say individuals could wind up paying higher premiums.

The Obama plan would impose new costs on insurance companies, which would probably then raise the prices customers pay for coverage. Employers also would likely pass on some of their higher costs to employees.

An individual in a typical plan might have to pay up to $780 more for the same coverage in the first year of Obama's plan, estimates Erik Gordon, a health care analyst and assistant professor at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business.

Gordon said employees now typically pay 20 to 40 percent of the premium for a typical health care package costing about $13,000 a year for a family of four, with employers picking up the rest.

Obama's plan would raise insurers' costs 10 to 15 percent if reform doesn't provide other savings, Gordon estimated. He thinks employers would stick employees with perhaps 40 percent of the higher premium, or $520 to $780 more — though they might also receive better coverage because of mandatory preventive care and screenings.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMZKJkfO_dVJB2LA53VeI61S8nAAD9AKNG6G1

[bluestateguy]

1. "Some analysts say"

Please. I just had my lunch.

[emulatorloo]

2. "AP" and "Analysts" - two terms that make me wary of such stories.

I would like to know more about these "analysts" before I get too hyped up about it.

[FreakinDJ]

3. Boy - has some one been drinking the Kool-Aid

Industry representatives counter that, even if insurers take in more money than they pay out, profit margins are so thin that additional taxes and fees would wind up being passed on to policyholders.

I guess they forgot about the 15% jump in the profit/loss margin since 1995 and 2008.

[jtrockville]

4. I wouldn't mind paying more for more. But this is more for less.

Unless you count lining the pockets of the profiteers. On the other hand, I'd gladly pay double if it meant Medicare for ALL.

[FreakinDJ]

5. Don't worry - You'll be paying Less for More

The story is Pure BS, and the authors left out a few details like the industry lowered the Medical Loss ratio from 95% in 1995 to 80% in 2008

Additionally Obama and the Dems have a little some thing for their ass

H.R.3200

SEC. 116. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.

(a) In General- A qualified health benefits plan shall meet a medical loss ratio as defined by the Commissioner. For any plan year in which the qualified health benefits plan does not meet such medical loss ratio, QHBP offering entity shall provide in a manner specified by the Commissioner for rebates to enrollees of payment sufficient to meet such loss ratio.

(b) Building on Interim Rules- In implementing subsection (a), the Commissioner shall build on the definition and methodology developed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the amendments made by section 161 for determining how to calculate the medical loss ratio. Such methodology shall be set at the highest level medical loss ratio possible that is designed to ensure adequate participation by QHBP offering entities, competition in the health insurance market in and out of the Health Insurance Exchange, and value for consumers so that their premiums are used for services.

If they want to quality they got to roll back the profit%

[jtrockville]

6. I think you meant.. "If they want to qualify" (not quality)?

But I do indeed worry. These insurance scums are bound to find a loophole. I really really wish there was a truly PUBLIC (as in: available to everyone) option.

[FreakinDJ]

7. If they don't qualify your employer gets hit with an 8% penalty

so by not qualifing they might as well call themselves "The Edsel Policy"

[jtrockville]

8. Right. But it took me a few re-reads to figure out the typo.