Obamacare just raised your health care premium by $63
posted at 12:41 pm on December 11, 2012 by Mary Katharine Ham
If you’re a member of the mainstream media, you’re “surprised” by this in the same way that every bad jobs report is “unexpected.”
Among the regulations being rushed out the door by the Department of Health and Human Services 32 months after Obamacare passed is a requirement that every plan in America be subject to a $63 fee. That $63 is part of a fund to subsidize people with pre-existing conditions, who are more expensive to cover but whose costs must be transferred to healthier individuals in the new system.
Reporting suggests the costs could hit 190 million health care plans held by individuals or provided by employers. The AP:
The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers.
Do tell. Who could have predicted this? More on the fund we’re creating:
Most of the money will go into a fund administered by the Health and Human Services Department. It will be used to cushion health insurance companies from the initial hard-to-predict costs of covering uninsured people with medical problems. Under the law, insurers will be forbidden from turning away the sick as of Jan. 1, 2014.
The program “is intended to help millions of Americans purchase affordable health insurance, reduce unreimbursed usage of hospital and other medical facilities by the uninsured and thereby lower medical expenses and premiums for all,” the Obama administration says in the regulation. An accompanying media fact sheet issued Nov. 30 referred to “contributions” without detailing the total cost and scope of the program.
Of the total pot, $5 billion will go directly to the U.S. Treasury, apparently to offset the cost of shoring up employer-sponsored coverage for early retirees.
The $25 billion fee is part of a bigger package of taxes and fees to finance Mr. Obama’s expansion of coverage to the uninsured.
You see, we’re “lowering medical expenses and premiums for all” by…raising them for pretty much everyone. This is such a sweet deal.
But don’t worry. It’s temporary. The fee starts at $63 in 2014 and it gets lower every year until it’s phased out in 2017 because, obviously, people with pre-existing conditions will stop costing more money after that. Right, and “The Bachelor” never used the Fantasy Suite for anything more than a soda pop and a game of Scattergories with all those other women before he proposed to you, girl. You know he loves you!
In the debate over the looming fiscal cliff, U.S. President Barack Obama often plays down any adverse economic impact from letting the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire for high-income Americans, claiming that the top tax rates would merely return to where they were during the Clinton years.
Unfortunately, the president’s claim is incorrect because he ignores the impending arrival of the unearned income Medicare contribution tax, which will further raise tax rates on income from saving.
Scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, the tax, which was adopted as part of the 2010 health-care law, is a 3.8 percent levy on interest, dividends, capital gains and passive business income received by taxpayers with incomes exceeding $200,000 (or $250,000 for couples).
Because the new tax was added to the health-care law late in the process without congressional hearings, it received little attention at the time. With only a few weeks left before it takes effect, it remains largely unknown…
One problem with the unearned income Medicare contribution tax is the name Congress chose for it, which is a triple misnomer. The income that will be subject to the tax isn’t unearned — it is earned by savers who receive market rewards for delaying consumption and providing funds to finance business investment.
Also, because the proceeds will be paid into the general treasury, the tax will have no financial link to Medicare. And, of course, the tax will be a compulsory payment, not a voluntary contribution.
As you’ll remember, the president promised throughout his first campaign for president and the contentious health care debate that his plan would lower premiums for Americans by as much as $2,500 annually.
“I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”
Even Politifact deems that promise totally broken.
As with most Obama promises, this one has been modified and hemmed and hawed and denied into near non-existence, but here he is offering a super-qualified variation in 2012. Let’s see how that one holds up:
“The other thing we’ve done is to say, what are the critical needs of small business? A lot of time, one of the biggest challenges is to make sure that you, as a sole proprietor, that you can get health insurance for you and your family. So when you hear about the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — and I don’t mind the name because I really do care. That’s why we passed it. You should know that once we have fully implemented, you’re going to be able to buy insurance through a pool so that you can get the same good rates as a group that if you’re an employee at a big company you can get right now — which means your premiums will go down.”
— President Obama, campaign speech in Cincinnati, July 16, 2012
The Washington Post assesses this much more modest, qualified version of the original promise at “Three Pinocchios,” conceding what the rest of us have known for quite some time— requiring 10 Essential Health Benefit categories for every qualified plan, adding those with pre-existing conditions to the rolls, getting rid of simpler, cheaper catastrophic plans and mini-meds for the young and healthy, changing age band requirements to limit how much more companies can charge for relatively high-risk older customers, and factoring in all the taxes and fees in the law will actually make coverage for the average person more expensive, not cheaper. But the Post is pretty sure you’ll like what you’re getting even if it’s really expensive and nothing like what you were sold:
The good news is that there would be a significant expansion of people with health insurance. And, after tax subsidies, many people may experience premium decreases. One could argue that overall there are more winners than losers.
But the bad news is that, on average, premiums almost certainly will go up — with some people really getting hit with increases. “Based on the analysis of the individual market, there is a concern for rate shock to a material portion of the population,” a report for Rhode Island said. “The individuals who currently are qualified for preferred rates will be seeing large increases in their healthcare premiums if they do not qualify for premium subsidies.”
And, guess who’s likely to be hardest hit? Young people, take your medicine:
The newly announced rules limit insurers to charge their oldest customers no more than three times as much as younger ones. As shown in the following chart based on estimates by international management consulting firm Oliver Wyman, the rule will force insurers to hike rates for 18- to 24-year-olds by 45 percent even as rates for those 60 and older drop by 13 percent in most states.[2] That means a 22-year-old waitress paying $2,068 for her health insurance will have to fork over $3,000 when Obamacare takes effect.[3] And these figures even underestimate the actual impact.
Up until now, in many states, the maximum age band ratio, which is the wretched term for this, was 5:1. Insurance carriers are right now frantically preparing for the deadlines to request rate hikes from each state’s insurance commission as these regulations get sent to actuaries. The news is not going to get brighter.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air


North Korea fires three short-range missiles as Japan envoy pays “secret” visit

DC firm shaking down Chevron learns lesson about poking the bear






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
thatsafactjack on May 14, 2013 at 2:43 PM
++++
pambi on May 14, 2013 at 2:45 PM
Figures…It is clear a lot of the law degrees handed out by Harvard are nothing but political advocacy degrees.
I wonder what type of law does he practice? Constitutional, Criminal, Patent, etc.
William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:47 PM
I see the scumbags are still keeping some folks blood pressure up.
Carry on. I’m sure the trolls and HA enjoy y’all spending quality time lining their pockets.
cozmo on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM
qwertASRDRDDSAWAS1DFGSDFSGHG
thatsafactjack on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM
An expert in fraud with a specialty in libel.
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM
As usual, you have forgotten.
A while back RWM took you to task.
And you went to dinner.
Damn, you are stupid !
Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM
Probably Divorce, so he can advocate for himself in the future. And you know what they say about a man who acts as his own lawyer…
Liam on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM
Perverted liberal.
cozmo on May 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM
Nice little company you got there….be a shame if anything happened to it.
MTF on May 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM
thatsafactjack on May 14, 2013 at 2:50 PM
He has stated that he really was not much of a law student, so after he graduated he went into something else. I’m figuring it’s hospitality, cause he’s just so ingratiating.
BeachBum on May 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM
Can I contribute my urine submerged likeness of teh one and a fecal smeared image of moochele?
freedomfirst on May 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM
So he practices Transgender Animal Law?
You know not to be funny but does Harvard offer Transgender Animal Husbandry now? Yes I am serious considering the massive increase in the last 20 years in idiotic degrees that are useless no matter what school you graduated from.
William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:55 PM
That depends: Do you want to be impoverished by the IRS, or have your land stolen by the EPA?
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Ok…It is all clear now. He went from a law student at Harvard to a Transgender student at Harvard. Not that there is anything wrong with that….
In fact that might be an improvement…
William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:58 PM
AGAIN, nobrain is NOT a graduate of Harvard or ANY law school.
Period.
Story.
End of.
The very first mention nobrain made of its alleged Harvard Law degree was in an attempt to try and bolster Obama’s credentials. Nobrain, erroneously, argued that the ELECTION of the President of the Harvard Law Review, as is the case with most law reviews, was a MERITORIOUS PROCESS. It claimed to know this because it went there.
Elections are not meritorious processes.
Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:00 PM
Sometimes I hate this blog, but the jokes/repartee here are why I keep coming back – ROFL!
22044 on May 14, 2013 at 3:01 PM
You know what’s hilarious about that? He talks about it like a Harvard Law degree is a BS, but you need a BS to get into a law school. How many people in this world get a BS, move on to law or medical school (and graduate!), then never actually practice law or medicine?
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM
Succubus in chief
dirtengineer on May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM
That’s funny right there. I don’t care who you are.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM
From now on:
nonpartisanElitist on May 14, 2013 at 2:40 PMthat’s the only thing that fits. Nobody cares what your credentials are, you are a louthesome loud mouth that doesn’t believe facts matter. Obama got admitted to Columbia by saying he was from Kenya…if not, why won’t he release his college transcripts? That’s some facts we’d all like to see…
kirkill on May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM
The Ivy League has continued to turn out nothing but salivating inepts, who demand nothing but a premium for their arrogant elitist status over the paltry wages of the ignorant masses.
After going through a half-dozen of those inepts as CEO, our company finally wised-up and put the #2, a non-Ivy Leaguer, in charge.
Funny how well the company has managed, even in these dark times.
Turtle317 on May 14, 2013 at 3:05 PM
Let me clarify this;
Harvard, as with most law schools, ELECTS the President of its Law Review. The choice of President is NOT a meritorious process. That ceased in the 1970s.
Now, if nobrain considers ‘ox gets gored’ to be an ‘old people idiom,’ it quite obviously didn’t attend Harvard Law school when the old procedure was in place. Since it is ‘young,’ it would have attended under the new system where the President is ELECTED. Given the fact that it did not know this tells us that he never attended Harvard.
Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:06 PM
RWM, you misinterpret me
Becoming President of Law Review is a meritorious process since you need to be on law review to be President, and to get on law review depends on grades and a written test. So you cannot just become president of harvard law review through affirmative action or such as I was arguing against.
logic ain’t your strong suit, is it?
nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:09 PM
I don’t believe he has a law degree either but IF, and that’s a Big IF, he does have one, it all points to not being able to pass the bar. As in JFK Jr. dumb.
BeachBum on May 14, 2013 at 3:09 PM
The ones who can’t pass their bar/licensing exams.
Lily on May 14, 2013 at 3:11 PM
Yes. And these are the same clowns who seem to not understand the little important parts in the U.S. Constitutions that reads government shall not infringe.
Even a fifth grader understands that concept.
Turtle317 on May 14, 2013 at 3:14 PM
I never took the bar because I had no interest in practicing
nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM
It took me literally two seconds to look up the process. Before you attempt to bullsh!t your way through something a little research is advisable. Grades are irrelevant. The only thing anyone needs to do is write a paper. It is an entirely subjective process.
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM
@RWM
In other words, you’re the one who isn’t bright enough to get his point, not that he can’t clearly make his case.
How many racist Dems over the years have caught heat for their obvious racism, then said the next day the exact same thing as the troll?
Liam on May 14, 2013 at 3:17 PM
And surely a Harvard Law grad would also know what natural law rights are, but our resident Harvard Law grad did not. He exposed that tidbit of monstrous ignorance in a gun grabbing thread maybe a month ago.
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:18 PM
Notcoach: actually, Romney has a law degree from Harvard, I think… and has never “used it” per se, as an attorney.
He’s made hundreds of millions with the other half of his degree, the MBA.
Law’s actually a fantastic general degree. Hopefully it teaches you how to think. One of the biggest clues nonpartisan is not an attorney is in fact that she/he cannot think.
But if he or she DID go to law school, I dare him to list the very first case in Civil Procedure; where a court can exert personal jurisdiction over someone if they are in the state.
Vanceone on May 14, 2013 at 3:19 PM
What’s your BS or BA in and where did you get it?
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:19 PM
Then why did you stay in school at it, and rack up all that student loan debt you were whining about the other day?
Is your real name Niel N. Bobb?
Or is that what you do?
Liam on May 14, 2013 at 3:20 PM
Who spends a minimum of $227,700.00 on law school, and puts up with the bullshit that is part and parcel of going to law school, but isn’t interested in practicing law?
totherightofthem on May 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM
Duly noted, sir! I see I was not on the side of error.
Turtle317 on May 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM
I never took the bar because I had no interest in practicing
nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM
Harvard Law and no interest in practicing. Beautiful. Just beautiful.
Having Mother around to help out on the bill is just icing on the cake.
Sound like a trust fund baby to me.
Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 3:22 PM
Affirmative action was not the issue.
His election as the ‘First black president of HLR’ did not involve a meritorious process.
Here’s how it works. At the end of 1L, you can enter the LR writing competition. At Harvard, 46 1Ls are invited to join every year. 20 are chosen solely based on their comp scores. 14 are chosen based on comp and grades. The remaining 12 are discretionary slots, which professors and 3Ls fill as they choose. Under Harvard’s policy, affirmative action goals CAN be used to fill the slots even if the invited did not perform well in the comp or have lower grades – I’m not saying this relative to Obama. You brought up AA.
Sooooo, 26% of the slots filled at the end of 1L are done so on a purely discretionary basis.
Finally, the President is ELECTED by the editors (80 when Obama was elected, 88 now).
Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:34 PM
Considering the pedigree, nonpartisan sure is stupid.
Keep the heat on !
Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 3:38 PM
Logic is something you wouldn’t know if it walked up behind you and poked you in the ass. It goes along with honesty with you….
Yes, you have.
Still waiting on those answers about Vidal, Holy Trinity, Reynolds, and Everson.
Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:41 PM
You just never quit, do you you?
~thumbs up~
Liam on May 14, 2013 at 3:45 PM
your ass? sorry couldn’t resist…
nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:47 PM
Harvard must have an affirmative action slot for moron.
BeachBum on May 14, 2013 at 3:48 PM
actually, it was the issue. Maybe not directly stated, but the underlying argument was that Obama got all his impressive credentials (Colubmia, Harvard, Law Review) not on his merit (which would prove his intellectual credence) but through affirmative action because of the color of his skin
nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:48 PM
Feeling a little defensive?
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:48 PM
He did. Lied his way into Columbia, and was rushed through Harvard. All because of the color of his skin. He is our first affirmative action president. I think it’s high time to abandon affirmative action entirely.
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:51 PM
How about you go play Switch. Stuff one thumb up your ass and the other in your nose, and wait for someone to yell, “Switch!”
Liam on May 14, 2013 at 3:51 PM
Actually, it wasn’t…your Dowderisation notwithstanding.
READ THE THREAD. YOU BROUGHT UP HIS ‘INTELLIGENCE’ FIRST. YOU WERE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP ‘ALL OF HIS IMPRESSIVE CREDENTIALS.’
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/01/jay-carney-hey-benghazi-happened-a-long-time-ago/comment-page-1/#comments
Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 4:00 PM
LIAR.
Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Education must be lacking.
dominigan on May 14, 2013 at 4:03 PM
I believe that NP really did attend Harvard Law
n Maintenance Community College.
slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2013 at 4:05 PM
I’ll state it outright, he got into Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard ALL on the basis of affirmative action.
All of his work was graded on the basis of affirmative action.
All of his degrees were awarded on the basis of affirmative action.
That’s the very nature of affirmative action, and anyone that doesn’t understand that is a dumbass. It means his ‘credentials’ aren’t really all that impressive.
slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2013 at 4:09 PM
What that Leftist, baby-killing witch is doing is nothing less than extortion. She should be impeached.
WannabeAnglican on May 14, 2013 at 4:31 PM
Why do most of our trolls seem to be gay?
slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM
They don’t seem to be gay.
Most gay guys I know have more testosterone than these scumbag punks.
They don’t rate as high as beta on their best days.
cozmo on May 14, 2013 at 4:51 PM
Absent his transcripts, the vacuum can be filled with any old theory that happens by.
Really, there exists NO evidence of his “intellectual credence”
You Harvard folks just assume it. Wrongly as you have proven.
Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 4:52 PM
Why did my reply to slickwillie2001 disappear into moderation hell?
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 4:54 PM
Why in the hell are any non-governmental organizations being paid to implement law?
BacaDog on May 14, 2013 at 4:55 PM
Because like many churches, they are sucking at the government teet.
Churches are cutting their own throats pimping for the government.
cozmo on May 14, 2013 at 5:00 PM
Because the Dems f*cked up and are now, as EJ says, on the Strugglebus.
Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 5:01 PM
nonpartisan looking dimwitted as ever. No way that one even gradiated high screwel. No way.
CW on May 14, 2013 at 6:16 PM
She has to go. Unrepentant recidivist. The definition of partisan hack.
FireBlogger on May 14, 2013 at 6:26 PM
Nasty, vile treasonous wench. May your judgement match your evil heart.
However, in the meantime you can hang around in abortion clinics performing 3rd and 4th trimester abortions and get your jollies. Might even be able to make some shoes or pens out of them.
acyl72 on May 14, 2013 at 6:54 PM
I haven’t seen nonpartisan’s answer yet.
Barnestormer on May 14, 2013 at 7:30 PM
Thanks for the clarification. The Internet Slang Directory was going crazy!
AesopFan on May 14, 2013 at 7:45 PM
I love her expression. It’s always the same and always projects complete contempt for the people.
JellyToast on May 14, 2013 at 10:24 PM
Non sequitur.
Everyone observes the non-relevance by the content of every single one of your posts.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 15, 2013 at 1:11 AM
Sebelius should be impeached. This regime is nothing but a gang of crooks.
They might just ignore you because you’re full of shit.
dogsoldier on May 15, 2013 at 6:12 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2