Insurers on Obamacare: Expect Premium Prices to Soar

[SMOKE 1,426]

Once again why I'd rather have a single payer system.

we'll get there. Not a Tailor nailed it too. after the next two election cycles. the republicans will be in power & take credit for doing what the dems wanted to do but didn't. why didn't they...idk I assume they were worried about the 2010 senate races. the republicans are in the catbird seat right now.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I quoted the first four outlets, from a google search. I have yet to see any outlet refuting the estimates.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304185104579435533140999534

[SMOKE 1,426]

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304185104579435533140999534

ok maybe 1. I only get a few lines of text & a subscription offer, i'm not clicking on

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

I quoted the first four outlets, from a google search. I have yet to see any outlet refuting the estimates.

Perhaps you did not read what I said or I was unclear.

News outlet A produces a report saying wotzits will be increasing in price by 5000%. They post this on their website. Their source is a single page press release from Number One Wotzits, a company that looks at Wotzit futures. They also run a news report on the television.

Joe Citizen catches the last two seconds of this reports and hears 'wotzit' and '5000%'. He rushes to his computational array and plugs 'wotzit 5000%' into the googler.

News outlets B, C, D and E know that this is what Joe Citizen will do, so their reporters obsessively read News Outlet A. (News Outlet A does the same to all of them)

News outlets B, C, D and E will then scramble as fast as they can, upon seeing any report about wotzits going up by 5000%, to post a story that will be found by the googler so that they can get the hits, as they get money for hits on their websites.

This does not mean that because the story has been run by five news outlets it is more likely to be true. It means that the five news outlets are in competition.

If Number One Wotzits, the company that set out the initial press release, are idiots or are inflating the data, all the news outlets will get it wrong.

The articles saying that insurance will go up by up to 300% are all clearly from the same initial source, meaning that there's been no attempt to verify by the news outlets from sources external to that. This means that all of the stories about the 300% increase in insurance are badly written and poorly verified, a problem that all of our media outlets are currently suffering from, because they are in competition and there is no journalistic integrity being enforced.

Give us a new source, or even a named source for the 300% stat and it might seem more believable.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised to see that the conservatives campaigning against the ACA are doing so with a longer game. My speculation (which is every bit as likely as a 300% jump in insurance costs), is that they are going to encourage the costs to go as high as is possible and then come around to claiming that it should have been a single payer system from day one. So they'll wait for their propaganda campaign to work and then say that the democrats messed it all up by creating the ACA, and here, we'll give you single payer, which the democrats wouldn't give you, then everyone truly will have healthcare!

That is even wilder than the unsubstantiated 300% nonsense. File that under "not going to happen". Republicans will not bring universal health care or single payer to America. Not in my lifetime.

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

we'll get there. Not a Tailor nailed it too. after the next two election cycles. the republicans will be in power & take credit for doing what the dems wanted to do but didn't. why didn't they...idk I assume they were worried about the 2010 senate races. the republicans are in the catbird seat right now.

Why didn't the dems go for single payer? Because when that was brought up, the republicans said they would never ever go for it and we've all seen the filibustering that happens when the republicans say they won't go for something. So the ACA came into existence as an attempt at a compromise. Then the republicans stonewalled it for ages until all the teeth had come off and now there's ineffective legislation that is taking far longer to get its feet under it than should have happened.

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

we'll get there. Not a Tailor nailed it too. after the next two election cycles. the republicans will be in power & take credit for doing what the dems wanted to do but didn't. why didn't they...idk I assume they were worried about the 2010 senate races. the republicans are in the catbird seat right now.

Why didn't the dems go for single payer? Because when that was brought up, the republicans said they would never ever go for it and we've all seen the filibustering that happens when the republicans say they won't go for something. So the ACA came into existence as an attempt at a compromise. Then the republicans stonewalled it for ages until all the teeth had come off and now there's ineffective legislation that is taking far longer to get its feet under it than should have happened.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

ok maybe 1. I only get a few lines of text & a subscription offer, i'm not clicking on

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/200567-premiums-will-rise-in-2015-says-obama-health-chief

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why didn't the dems go for single payer? Because when that was brought up, the republicans said they would never ever go for it and we've all seen the filibustering that happens when the republicans say they won't go for something. So the ACA came into existence as an attempt at a compromise. Then the republicans stonewalled it for ages until all the teeth had come off and now there's ineffective legislation that is taking far longer to get its feet under it than should have happened.

For both political and economical reasons. The mere expansion of the private health insurance system was propagandized by the right as a government takeover of healthcare. They would have collectively blown their gaskets over on the right had there been a shift to Medicare for all. Such shift would also have been traumatic, I would imagine, for the $2.5 trillion healthcare industry. One would want to tackle this carefully. What I was and still am mad about is that they backed off the public option. That would have been a good tool to keep insurers honest and it would have opened a door to establish - over time - a single payer system. That, by the way, was the exact line of attack against it and why it was dropped from the framework early on. A flashbacks to 1993, where insisting on it sunk the whole health care reform effort.

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

I read the article. It's speculation. Nothing more. Get back to me when you have something tangible.

Talking about Pavlov's dogs, it's kind of like your drooling reaction whenever the right wing echo chamber produces an anti-0bama (™) piece, isn't it?

(I haven't taken the time to catch up by reading all posts thus far &..I have had a glass of Wine already - advance apologies if I'm redundant & have a slight Wine induced slur)

1st) I reject your accusation I "drool" "whenever the right wing echo chamber produces an anti-0bama (™) piece".

Truth = I do not follow any particular "journalist'...coz I think they all = bought & paid sock puppets.

Therefore - taking your post @ face value = I am not the drooling Dog you proclaim yourself to be.

(brb...I need a refill)

[JohnR! 5,495]

they aren't releasing the real numbers because they're really-really ugly. releasing them would undermine the pro obamacare propaganda campaign being run out of DC.

To be sure, another one of the thousands of tentacles for the huge, vast, incommensurable Brobdingnagian conspiracy!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

(I haven't taken the time to catch up by reading all posts thus far &..I have had a glass of Wine already - advance apologies if I'm redundant & have a slight Wine induced slur)

1st) I reject your accusation I "drool" "whenever the right wing echo chamber produces an anti-0bama (™) piece".

Truth = I do not follow any particular "journalist'...coz I think they all = bought & paid sock puppets.

Therefore - taking your post @ face value = I am not the drooling Dog you proclaim yourself to be.

(brb...I need a refill)

That's not a slight slur there, that's full blown. And I am not buying that it is wine induced.

[JohnR! 5,495]

the final numbers aren't in. they will be in the next quarter to half year. if the current trend remains unchanged it will mean a huge increase on premiums, some as high as 300%. speculation is how pricing is set on everything we buy.

Considering this is all sophomoric speculation, at best, why not just jump the shark altogether and call for possible increases of 300 billion gazillion percent? I makes for better headlines. Hyperbole is the best thing in the universe, ever!

Why didn't the dems go for single payer? Because when that was brought up, the republicans said they would never ever go for it and we've all seen the filibustering that happens when the republicans say they won't go for something. So the ACA came into existence as an attempt at a compromise. Then the republicans stonewalled it for ages until all the teeth had come off and now there's ineffective legislation that is taking far longer to get its feet under it than should have happened.

The only reason the GnOP nixed the single-payer system is because it was their very idea but since it was Obamacare, they thought it best to cut their noses in spite of their faces..

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

Where did I get my numbers from? The internets. CNN, specifically. They reported the enrollment share back in January. There were 24% of the enrollees in the 18-34 age bracket as of the end of last year (out of then 2.2 million total enrollees). Simple math tells you that 24% of 2.2 million is not NOONE. Enrollment has since more than doubled.

This I find interesting. I wonder - seriously....do you think 'enrollment" gets the job done?

NYT thinks it's something worth considering = http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/us/politics/one-in-5-buyers-of-insurance-under-new-law-did-not-pay-premiums-on-time.html?ref=politics&_r=0

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

These are the same people who predicted these increases would have happened in the beginning of 2013 to cover the additional expenses of the ACA which were to go in effect in 2014... They keep pulling stuff out of their RD and selling it to the more anxious.

Facts are overrated!!! Soylent green is people. Run with it!

ACA was sold on speculation - run with it.