How much is Obamacare REALLY going to raise your premiums? (in most states, quite a lot) Part 2: The raw study by the Society of Actuaries

mandate cc

It is interesting to me how wedded some people are to the idea that Obamacare is not a crony capitalist disaster. I understand why. It is the president’s signature piece of legislation. It has long been the dream of many in this country to implement nationalized healthcare. To acknowledge that what at first appeared to be an important political victory is likely anything but, is a hard pill to swallow.

If Obamacare fails it also means that Obama fails historically, and that is also very difficult.

Just like the the Bushies who refused (and continue to refuse) to acknowledge that the invasion of Iraq was a colossal mistake, the Obama people can’t believe how badly Obamacare is going. And like the Bush people the Obama people think that if they just don’t acknowledge the colossal mistake, then history won’t record it. One will always be able to say that it was the GOP which screwed it up, or the independent voters who abandoned the president, or something along these lines. There will always be a way to justify the healthcare adventurism.

The ACA is increasingly looking like Obama’s Iraq War.

Even the Teamsters, the Teamsters came out and said, “ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class.”

As we have documented time and time and time and time again the ACA is at best a boondoggle for Big Pharma which will raise rates for nearly everyone who pays out of pocket for health insurance, and at worst is a massive exercise in power and hubris, which will cripple the American economy for a very long time.

Jay Obamacare cc

There isn’t really an argument to be made anymore (though many will continue to make it anyway) that the ACA is going to be beneficial for most people. Will it benefit many insurers? Yes. Will it benefit the pharmaceutical industry? Absolutely. And some people will have coverage who did not before. Unfortunately it’s the wrong kind of coverage.

We should be focusing on catastrophic coverage and on those who cannot find health insurance due to a pre-existing condition. These 2 issues can be dealt with within the market at likely a much lower cost than the looming train wreck (as Max Baucus the Democratic head of the Senate Finance Committee said he feared the implementation of Obamacare likely would be).

But this is simply not good enough for those who have long dreamed of nationalized healthcare. There must be wellness visits, and birth control, and who knows what else. It is about tying the individual more tightly to the state. If the government controls healthcare, it ultimately controls you. That is what this whole effort is fundamentally about, not insuring the uninsured. At least not primarily. (Though many well meaning people continue to think that this is what Obamacare is about.)

If it was about keeping people out of bankruptcy after a cancer diagnosis, or helping people get the insulin they need to survive, this could be done at a fraction of the cost of Obamacare. But that’s not the big orange. The real prize is government control of a huge piece of the American economy. And that is why this very flawed and colossal law was rammed through.

In the previous post we highlighted a map showing likely increases (and in a handful of states decreases) in individual health insurance rates by state. The information was compiled by the Society of Acutaries, a non-partisan group tasked with looking at data and crunching it so that real decisions can be made. Their interest is producing accurate data. There is no ideological axe to grind (at least not here as far as we can tell). People need to make important and potentially very expensive business decisions based on the new law. One cannot dismiss this study as “lies” as some are wont to.

For those who were skeptical of the previous post, below I submit the actual study on which the map is based.

(From: Cost of the Future Newly Insured Under the Affordable Care Act)

Finding 3: The non-group cost per member per month will increase 32 percent under ACA, compared to pre-ACA projections.

Our analysis also indicates that while high risk pools generally have few enrollees, the cost per individual is very high. Movement of the high risk pool individuals into the non-group Exchange will generally create a significant increase in cost.

Click here for the article.

*A very important note. The study is not universally negative on the ACA, though it generally is.