Problem with that is that prices are dependent on a lot of local factors. This would function basically as a subsidy to expensive health care areas like Boston.

Wait, you don't think new car prices and used car prices are comparable?

Cool story.

But Obamacare didn't triple the cost of insurance nationwide. Cherry-picked anecdotal evidence isn't at all convincing.

It's not even "cherry picked anecdotal evidence", he never even showed that it tripled, he just said it did.

If you guys want to actually talk about the cost increases associated with obamacare instead of piling on wj let me know.

I did think of that and chose "risk pooling" instead of cost sharing. Some sort of normalization based on the relative health of the states that keeps the difference in cost structure that is a least somewhat offset by local income. More of a thought and not a plan.
Your point is taken though. Seems impossible to spread the cost of the coasts to the Midwest evenly and have a plan that is remotely affordable for the fly overs.

Best I can tell is the average family rates in the individual market in VA have gone up about 60% to 80% since 2009. (Although like he said it's difficult if not impossible to make apple-to-apple comparisons.) And a good amount of that 60% to 80% is explained by the average annual increases we were seeing every year pre-ACA.

I'm willing to believe that select cases (primarily young healthy people) have doubled or even tripled since 2009, but that's a lot different than a blanket statement that the ACA caused rates to triple.

And the situation in Nevada does seem to be horrible with the co-op failing. But it seems like whoever was running that seriously ****ed up.

Well that might not be a bad thing since I'm guessing most of the high cost health areas have net neutral to net negative flow of federal tax dollars. I'm sure all those politically red net positive federal tax states would rather not keep taking those handouts.

No man I think we've got a pretty good handle on it.

not really
lol no you don't.

I'm just concerned that if we keep subsidizing those poor red states they might lose their general bootstrappiness.

Some of it subsidizing (agriculture particularly) but a lot of the flows is paying for services. New Mexico is the state that receives the most federal dollars back on a percentage basis. It isn't handouts that drive that number it is the research the labs provide that is paid for by tax dollars.

Silly liberals, government spending is good! I mean, sometimes. Not when it's to keep filthy poors alive, though. Then it's bad.

If you subtract federal tax dollars flowing into, let's say MA for research, what do you suppose that does to the percent coming back?

I recognize that tax dollars flow out of the coasts and into the interior.

Was it an individual policy or a group policy? The two are treated very differently wrt to pre-existing conditions.

So the average family was spending $500/month in 2009, which is right in the $400-800 range that I mentioned. Please find me a family plan for anywhere close to $500/month today. I'm sure the average is now closer to $1,000/month if not higher, and now for worse benefits and ****ty provider networks.

Gestiational diabetes and adolescent depression were both insurable conditions pre-ACA, I did plenty of those with Anthem.

lol @ "nightmare forcing us to stay on COBRA at $1200-1500/month" when that is now a normal family premium and everyone is forced into it instead. Great!

If you miss a payment today, you still get cancelled, just like any other thing you have to make payments on. That doesn't seem like a problem?

Where did I say the cost tripled nationwide?

If you think the middle class that doesn't qualify for subsidies isn't getting the screws put to them and paying 2-3x the price they were before for undoubtedly worse coverage with crap choice of provider networks, then keep burying your head in the sand.

"if you like your plan you can keep your plan"
"if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor"

What happened to those promises? Let's just sweep all that under the rug.

Do ACA supporters really think that the current pricing is sustainable for more than another year or two? At what point do families just say **** it and opt to pay the penalty instead? $1000/month? $1500/month? $2000/month?

If there were no PPACA, you also would not be able to find that same plan for $500 today.

What does the AC stand for?

That is the best you got?

PokerPro - you sound like a classic definition of someone for whom obamacare made things worse: healthy, without need for maternity coverage, able to get past underwriting. Your new policy covers more things (that maybe you don't need) and doesn't have a life time cap (which is great, because claims in excess of a lifetime cap are a lot of why one has insurance) and, in your case, subsidizes policies for people who were sicker and couldn't get coverage pre aca. That's a bummer for you, nothing else to say really. You mentioned you'd feel OK paying some extra taxes to help those sicker people, if it helps try thinking of your extra premiums as extra taxes; it's doing the same thing.

Others - you are hitting on something that's emerging as a core problem for obamacare - the individual mandate is too weak

Yes, the key is "in 2009."

Insurance was cranking along with something like 7% average increases before the ACA came about. Figure 7% increases on $500 for 6 years and that's $750 right there. So if plans have doubled the ACA is maybe responsible for 50% of it. Maybe.

That's a far cry from the ACA causing insurance to triple essentially overnight.

The fact you won't answer the question because you know how it wouldn't be good for your argument suggests it's the best I need. But just to make it clear to the peanut gallery, AC = affordable care. If the bill creates a system that doesn't create affordable care, it will have been a failure.

...and that would be fine because you could still get a great plan at an affordable price instead of a crap plan with a crap network and at an unaffordable price.

It's not just the price increases dude - it's the crappy provider networks, lack of choices that people want, higher deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums, and the fact that gold and platinum plans are just not affordable to most people now when their equivalents used to be the most commonly purchased plans. Can't tell you how many times I've heard "my doctor doesn't take any of these plans" now, and people feel like they are not getting any value from what they are paying for. How would you like to be a family of 5 paying almost $1900/month for a plan with a $6,450 deductible that covers almost nothing until you reach the deductible?

Again, maybe NH is unique for some reason but the Silver plan I got for my family of 3 was slightly cheaper and had a lower deductible and OOP max than the most comparable off market plan.

The provider network was indeed smaller. I needed to change my PCP and the closest hospital was out of network, but we felt like it was worth it.

I'm glad we've put this "ACA has tripled rates" talk to rest though.