So how much is your insurance going up due to Obamacare?

[creaker]

It occurs to me that the primary beneficiaries of the ACA might be the insurance companies.

Surprise! It's not like middle class America has big mover and shaker lobbyists in Washington.

[iris lilies]

Idle curiousity: if there is little to no social "caste" in those Scandanavian countries, how can there be upward mobility? Are they counting side to side movement? In a country where everyone is alike, how does one measure mobility?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Gregg]

You probably are aware of recent research ranking the US dead last in the developed world for upward social mobility - and heavily socialistic countries like Denmark - which was #1 in upwards mobility in the developed world - come out on top. I think it's a good thing that not a lot of folks on my end of the scale are aware of this and how it affects them. Good thing - this is the stuff revolutions are made of.

I'm one of the first to think a little revolution is a good thing, but not sure how it would apply here. I may just be ignorant or distracted, but have not seen the research that pegged the USA last in upward mobility. Having come up from the bottom of the privileged barrel (white...yes....male...yes...trust fund?...6 bushels of corn and a sense of humor) I am somewhat satisfied with the opportunity available to US citizens willing to pay attention and put in some time. I've also had the chance to see a few other places around the world where I don't believe those same opportunities exist. Can we do better? Of course. Should we? Yup? Are we the worst? Not by a long shot.

[Suzanne]

Idle curiousity: if there is little to no social "caste" in those Scandanavian countries, how can there be upward mobility? Are they counting side to side movement? In a country where everyone is alike, how does one measure mobility?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I wonder if Scandinavian countries measure "upward mobility" differently - as a collective rather than an individual quality? Perhaps a situation where the entire populace receives small incremental benefits, so that the whole population is upwardly mobile as it becomes healthier and better educated compared to what it was X units of time previously? Scandinavian countries might have different societal values, hence would use different measures of success and mobility.

I heard a very interesting definition of Western economics in one of my classes last week: Society is either the hindrance to the individual maximising his/her personal wealth and privileges, or the medium through which the individual maximises her/her personal wealth and privileges!

[peggy]

Idle curiousity: if there is little to no social "caste" in those Scandanavian countries, how can there be upward mobility? Are they counting side to side movement? In a country where everyone is alike, how does one measure mobility?

Inquiring minds want to know.

People aren't all alike in those countries.
There are those who just work the bare minimum, and there are business owners, and all folks in between. Bakers, cobblers, waitresses, etc... They don't all get paid the same $5!
A far as upward mobility, it's just that those societies are more conducive to upward mobility if one so desires. Easier to start a business, easier to get the college education needed, etc...

[Florence]

It occurs to me that the primary beneficiaries of the ACA might be the insurance companies.

Spot on.

[Spartana]

Yes, that is a big part of why rates are rising as many people, myself included, don't have ACA required levels of coverage. For example my policy doesn't cover maternity or childbirth stuff or mental illness - two thing I don't need but will have to have under the ACA. However, from what I've seen, the new plans are not only much more expensive for monthly premiums, but they have much higher deductibles and out of pocket expenses too. Also many of the bronze level plans only cover 60% of your costs even after your deductible of $6 k to $7k is met. So some people, even emloyed people, may see price increases that way too. Sometimes double what they pay now. At least that is in my case.

Another reason prices are increasing is that insurers now need to cover all those people who have pre existing conditions and need high cost medical care. So, according to the Blue Cross CEO, they need to raise rates for many people with previously low rates to compensate for that.

And a third reason I think prices are increasing is because there is nothing in place but the goodwill of private insurance companies to stop them from increasing costs. No provisions to keep costs low under the ACA. And with Uncle Sam willing to foot much of the bill, and a mandate that says you must buy insurance, you've taken away any incentives for insurers to keep rates low. Except out of the kindness and generousity of their hearts of course :-)

Heard on the news this morning another reason rates are going up to add to this. Not enough people signing up on the exchanges. Apparently the insurance companies, especially the smaller ones, expected a larger turn out then they are getting and all their projected rates were based on that larger turn out. Now that so few people are signing up, they have to raise rates for everyone, including their group rates for employer-funded insurance, to meet their profit margin or at least their break even point. This may change once the exchange websites are fu ctioning better and more people apply. Although it's doubtful insurance companies who have already raised their rates will drop them lower but who knows.

[Alan]

It occurs to me that the primary beneficiaries of the ACA might be the insurance companies.

I'm not so sure. They are now required to assume a huge level of actuarily unsound risk in order to ensure that individuals don't have to. There's a cost associated with that and we may find out over this next year that it's currently too low.

[Rogar]

Heard on the news this morning another reason rates are going up to add to this. Not enough people signing up on the exchanges. Apparently the insurance companies, especially the smaller ones, expected a larger turn out then they are getting and all their projected rates were based on that larger turn out. Now that so few people are signing up, they have to raise rates for everyone, including their group rates for employer-funded insurance, to meet their profit margin or at least their break even point. This may change once the exchange websites are fu ctioning better and more people apply. Although it's doubtful insurance companies who have already raised their rates will drop them lower but who knows.

I think one of the fears is that young healthy people will just choose to pay the penalty, which is less than $100 the first year. And the older people who are more prone to illnesses and the people with pre-existing conditions will sign up. Of course that will make things more expensive, if not unmanageable.

The news I heard today was that about 5% of the people who were previously insured would see an increase in their rates. It's such a mess so far I doubt if anyone really knows.

[Lainey]

Yes. Health care costs have been rising for decades. The olden days when people paid the doctor in eggs and chickens and went to hospitals only to die are long gone. My late husband's cancer diagnosis cost $10,000 - just the diagnosis. I'm sure the treatment (VA) was in the hundreds of thousands.

But anyone want to bet how this is going to be spun on Fox News? "You're paying more because of Obamacare."
End of story.