Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Badly Will ObamaCare Screw You? Answers Here!
The Market Ticker ^ | 10/24/13 | Karl Denninger

Posted on 10/24/2013 7:59:22 AM PDT by dagogo redux

Well well lookie what the cat dragged in.

That's a link to the unsubsidized data dump -- all 78,437 records -- for each county and State under the Obamacare exchange program. I can verify that for at least my state and county the table is correct, since you can now look it up on Healthcare.gov without creating an account first (which I am not about to do.)

There are several very interesting statistical facts that come from this.

First, if you're "27", the average premium is $266.20/month or $3,194.40 per year. How many 27 year olds have an extra $3,200 to spend on this? Remember, this is the price that virtually every uninsured 27 year old must be willing -- and able -- to cough up in order to prevent the model this system is predicated on from collapsing.

If those 27 year olds don't show up, and they won't, then the system collapses instantly. If they do show up because the government threatens them with fines the economy collapses as $3,200 a year exceeds the average 27 year old's disposable personal income after mandatory expenses (e.g. food, shelter, etc.) Remember, there are always exceptions but these premiums are averages and over large pools of people the statistical averages are what matters -- not the ends of the barbell.

It gets better. The "average" 50 year old premium, again, for single coverage, is $452.87, or $5,434.44/year. How many 50 year olds will find that attractive compared against what they're paying now? Probably more of them, especially if they're already sick. But how about the healthy ones?

(Excerpt) Read more at market-ticker.org ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cluster; corruption; disaster; fail; obamacare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last
A great read all the way to the bottom.
1 posted on 10/24/2013 7:59:22 AM PDT by dagogo redux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

The article as posted here, doesn’t include the link you get from clicking on the first sentence at the site.

Here it is, I hope:

https://data.healthcare.gov/dataset/QHP-Individual-Medical-Landscape/ba45-xusy


2 posted on 10/24/2013 8:02:55 AM PDT by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux
...if you're "27", the average premium is $266.20/month or $3,194.40 per year. How many 27 year olds have an extra $3,200 to spend on this?...It gets better. The "average" 50 year old premium, again, for single coverage, is $452.87, or $5,434.44/year. How many 50 year olds will find that attractive compared against what they're paying now? Probably more of them, especially if they're already sick....these premiums are for non-smokers (smoker premiums are grossly surcharged with reports being 2x the above) and they do not account for anyone other than one person. If you are a single parent with kids (rather common) the premium on average is $610.23/month or about $7,300, and if you're a couple it's $647.86 (again, $7,774 annually.)

Three to six hundred bucks a month per person, compulsory.

3 posted on 10/24/2013 8:06:42 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Just a common, ordinary, simple savior of America's destiny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Obama touts one price--Obamacare charge another? That's an old scam called "Bait and switch."

AN OBAMACARE CUSTOMER VENTS "The monthly healthcare rate before Obamacare was $88. With Obamacare it is $277----more than three times as much as ----an increase of $2,268 per year. I have not been able to translate an increase of $2,268 into a promised reduction of $2,400....not with a swing of $4,668 per year." (Excerpt) dispatch.com ...

BAIT AND SWITCH LAWS---WIKI EXCERPT--Bait-and-switch is a form of fraud commonly used in retail sales but also employed in other contexts......even in politics.

First, customers are "baited" by sellers advertising products or services at a low price, but when customers visit the store, they discover that the advertised goods are not available, or the customers are pressured by sales people to consider similar, but higher priced items ("switching").

The intent of the bait-and-switch tactic is to encourage purchases of substituted goods, making consumers satisfied with the available stock offered, as an alternative to a disappointment or inconvenience of acquiring no goods (or bait) at all, and reckoning on a seemingly partial recovery of sunk costs expended trying to obtain the bait. It suggests that the seller will not show the original product or service advertised but instead will demonstrate a more expensive product or a similar product with a higher margin.

In the United States, courts have held that the purveyor using a bait-and-switch operation may be subject to a lawsuit by customers for false advertising, and can be sued for trademark infringement by competing manufacturers, retailers, and others who profit from the sale of the product used as bait. However, no cause of action will exist if the purveyor is capable of actually selling the goods advertised, but aggressively pushes a competing product.

Likewise, advertising a sale while intending to stock a limited amount of, and thereby sell out, a loss-leading item advertised is legal in the United States. The purveyor can escape liability if they make clear in their advertisements that quantities of items for which a sale is offered are limited, or by offering a rain check on sold-out items.

===================================================

BAIT AND SWITCH IN POLITICS In lawmaking, "caption bills" that propose minor changes in law with simplistic titles (the bait) are introduced to the legislature with the ultimate objective of substantially changing the wording (the switch) at a later date in order to try to smooth the passage of a controversial or major amendment.

Rule changes are also proposed (the bait) to meet legal requirements for public notice and mandated public hearings, then different rules are proposed at a final meeting (the switch), thus bypassing the objective of public notice and public discussion on the actual rules voted upon.

While legal, the political objective is to get legislation or rules passed without expected negative community review.

4 posted on 10/24/2013 8:08:37 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz

bookmark


5 posted on 10/24/2013 8:09:28 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

The worst part, of course, is that Barry clearly doesn’t believe in offering reacharounds.


6 posted on 10/24/2013 8:09:38 AM PDT by RichInOC (Palin 2016: The Perfect Storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

I posted a thread about this last night:

“This “program” is nothing more than the imposition of force to support a medical “system” that has systematically and intentionally destroyed the health of millions with government assistance and prodding. You think that’s overstating the case? Well maybe it is and maybe it’s not — but what we are now learning is that the claim that you should not eat saturated fats because they’re bad for you is being proved scientifically false and that one of the drug company’s biggest “blockbuster” categories, statins, worth some $30 billion a year in extraction from you, are thus utterly worthless at best and might be actively harming you.”


7 posted on 10/24/2013 8:11:52 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

Let’s say there are two adults and three children in your family. A family of five would spend, at $5,434.44 per person, $2,264.35 a month. That’s $27,172.20 a year! Also, that $2,264.35 a month payment would be a nice house payment with a car payment thrown in. Anyone thinking they should have kids, have just been priced out of the market.


8 posted on 10/24/2013 8:12:16 AM PDT by jonrick46 (The opium of Communists: other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

It gets worse. Say you go ahead and sign up. What do you get? What are the terms of your new sparking policy. Yes, it will cover neo-natal treatment for the men, but can you see an internist?

In NY, anyways, the 4 companies participating offer ONLY in-network doctors. You cannot go out of network. If your Doctor isn’t there, you have to go to one that is. That is, if they can squeeze you in. Imaging the phones ringing off the hook by the pre-existing condition patients who can start their treatments. If you’re young and/or healthy and would like a checkup, take a number; pull up chair - its going to be a long wait!


9 posted on 10/24/2013 8:13:45 AM PDT by dan on the right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

Do not trust the prices! I’m 62 and saw the prices and was ok because they are what I am currently paying. However when I went to bcbs site I saw my premium was actually going to be 300 a month more. This price from bcbs is in agreement with the real obamacare site I was finally able to slog through. I guess if you are exactly 50 or 27 (male or female?) it may be close.


10 posted on 10/24/2013 8:14:16 AM PDT by lilypad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lilypad

“Do not trust the prices!”

Oh, don’t worry lilypad - I don’t trust much of anything I see on a government site.


11 posted on 10/24/2013 8:17:53 AM PDT by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Let's see...$300 a month. Does the 27 yr old male pay an insurance premium...or, spend it on Beer and Babes? (or rent and food)

Decisions, decisions.

12 posted on 10/24/2013 8:23:20 AM PDT by JPG (Yes We Can morphs into Make It Hurt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

Karl had exposed some facts about the cost of antivenom. The drug is produced in Mexico and has been used there for awhile, but the FDA recently approved it for use here. Cost in Mexico is $100, cost here around $12,500. The cost is to cover FDA mandates and fees.


13 posted on 10/24/2013 8:28:37 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux
First, if you're "27", the average premium is $266.20/month or $3,194.40 per year.

Not the worst part. This is the low rate choice, i.e. the high deductible rate. So this policy won't pay for any healthcare at all, until the deductible of $5-10k (yes thousand) is met.

The free healthcare sure do take a bite, don't it.

14 posted on 10/24/2013 8:33:27 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

Just wait until the illegals are legalized. They will get it for free.


15 posted on 10/24/2013 8:34:25 AM PDT by DownInFlames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

The National Average for a “Premium Single Parent Family” is $7,133.26 per year.


16 posted on 10/24/2013 8:35:34 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Ted Cruz remains correct.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux
A great read all the way to the bottom.
Except for the SS payouts.

It's not welfare untill you receive more than they forcibly took.

17 posted on 10/24/2013 8:35:36 AM PDT by lewislynn (What does the global warming movement and te Fairtax movement have in common? Disinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

How much did they take from you for food stamps? Is it welfare if you less food stamps then they took from you?

:p


18 posted on 10/24/2013 8:36:23 AM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
— but what we are now learning is that the claim that you should not eat saturated fats because they’re bad for you is being proved scientifically false and that one of the drug company’s biggest “blockbuster” categories, statins, worth some $30 billion a year in extraction from you, are thus utterly worthless at best and might be actively harming you.”

Same with salt.

19 posted on 10/24/2013 8:37:51 AM PDT by TangoLimaSierra (To win the country back, we need to be as mean as the Libs say we are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DownInFlames
Just wait until the illegals are legalized. They will get it for free.

And they will get front-of-the-line cards in order to assure their status as "above existing citizens" is not tarnished.

20 posted on 10/24/2013 8:42:15 AM PDT by VRW Conspirator (Producing Talk Show Prep since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson