Posted on 09/25/2013 8:20:26 AM PDT by tobyhill
U.S. officials for the first time disclosed insurance prices that will be offered through new federally run health-care exchanges starting Oct. 1, showing that young, healthy buyers likely will pay more than they do currently while older, sicker consumers should get a break.
The plans, offered under the health-care overhaul to people who don't get insurance through an employer or government program, in many cases provide broader coverage than current policies.
Costs will vary widely from state to state and for different types of consumers. Government subsidies will cut costs for some lower-income consumers.
Across the country, the average premium for a 27-year-old nonsmoker, regardless of gender, will start at $163 a month for the lowest-cost "bronze" plan; $203 for the "silver" plan, which provides more benefits than bronze; and $240 for the more-comprehensive "gold" plan.
But for some buyers, prices will rise from today's less-comprehensive policies. In Nashville, Tenn., a 27-year-old male nonsmoker could pay as little as $41 a month now for a bare-bones policy, but would pay $114 a month for the lowest-cost bronze option in the new federal health exchanges.
Likewise, the least-expensive bronze policy would rise to $195 a month in Philadelphia for that same 27-year-old, from $73 today. In Cheyenne, Wyo., the lowest-cost option would be $271 a month, up from $82 today.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
But that can’t be! The talking heads are all saying prices are coming down!
Ted Cruz needs to stop calling them Private Exchanges. How can something forced on us by the federal government be considered “private”?
What type of hospice is available? At my age and medical condition, that’s really important to me.
Bronze plan has a 40% copay. Better hope to not get sick or injured.
Are you sure that’s what he meant? Private exchanges normally cater to corporate customers. Being set up now...
I dunno, anyone got a transcript?
lol
Great, the demographic that has the lion's share of the money in this country gets another break.
You would have to look into each individual plan offered in your state to answer that. Except for the (barf) minimal required benefits, it is up to the insurer what to offer. But I’d expect what you will find would be comparable to pre-Obamacare plans.
If many or most of healthy younger types don’t sign up, opting for the fine; and most with preexisting conditions do sign up, are the insurance carriers going to absorb the losses or the taxpayer?
Does the term “adverse selection” exist anymore? I suppose we can’t talk about that or the government subsidizing those who lie about their income, which can’t be verified. The Feds gather tons of data and somehow can’t determine how much you earned last year?
So, just so I am clear about this.
These “Fees”, monthly premiums are actually a “TAX” ?.
A tax that varies based on your age, gender, income, state, smoking status etc ??
lol.
It’s not based on real actuarial tables-markets, that is for sure.
These prices will only continue to raise-these are only “estimates” from government bureaucrats..
When have you ever known government bureaucrats to be correct, especially of a law that their master wants, but the rest of us don’t.
(This is only the “good” propaganda). The truth will be far worse..
114 a month when you’re working a 29 hour week at minimum wage is one eighth of your monthly gross. Add that to housing, utilities, transportation, fuel, insurance, communication, and cable, and that leaves how much for eating, clothing, and entertainment?
I for one think it refreshing that the young healthy Obama voters should carry the costs of healthcare for the elderly sick and poor
isn’t this why they think of themselves as democrats?
walk the walk!
It will be interesting to see if the young healthy Liberal/Progressive 0bama voter will put up with this scheme.
I just can’t see these “selfish”, so-called “Caring”, zombies sleeping through this hit to their paycheck for the benefit of the low-income elderly.
Logically (for a liberal), they may take the hit while promoting euthanasia (death panels) but should then (logically) support a ban abortion.
I know logic is not their strong suit, but when push comes to shove, there’s no telling what they will do.
I had the same thought.
And they will blame the “greedy doctors”...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.