Should the ACA - Affordable Care Act or Obamacare be renamed the LACA - the LESS Affordable Care Act

1) The debate is as the debate was posited "Should the ACA - Affordable Care Act or Obamacare be renamed the LACA - the LESS Affordable Care Act"The first premise of Pro's argument is that the ACA will raise his premium by "a factor of ten times, without any improvement in coverage. We may reasonably infer that Pro's second premise is that an increase in premium is less affordable. Therefore, Pro concludes, Obamacare is less affordable. In order to support this conclusion, Pro must demonstrate the validity of his sensational first premise or admit that his premise is false and try some other approach.2) The 1000 percent increase was my demonstration and ANY increase above the CPI (consumer price index) would result in LESS affordable care and the burden of proof is merely any increase above the CPI.Oversimplistic bullsh*t.Health care premiums have risen 172% since 1999 while the CPI has risen 38%. 4 1/2 times faster. In spite of this, Pro proposes that any and all increase over CPI starting in 2014 must only be credited to Obamacare. By Pro's standard, even if Obamacare reduces healthcare inflation by 80% in its first year, Pro would call Obamacare LESS affordable. By any rational standard, Pro's analysis is ridiculous. In order to establish that Obamacare is less affordable than the current state of affairs, Pro must prove the following:*First, Pro must demonstrate that premium increases are caused by Obamacare. Obamacare does not mandate any premium increase, so Pro must demonstrate how increases are directly linked to Obamacare.*Second, Pro must demonstrate that Obamacare-driven increases exceed the normal annual premium increases charged by insurers. For a baseline, let's take the median between rate increases over the past 2 5-year periods: http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com...; width="631" height="473" /> If premium increases in the age of Obamacare split that average, we should reasonably expect to see a 40% increase in premiums by 2019. But most nonpartisan analysts don't predict the increase will anywhere near that high. The CBO predicts that the non-group market will see average increases of 10-13%, the small group market 1 to -3% (probably lower) and the large group market 0 to -3% (same or lower). [1] On the most pessimistic side is a forecast from the Society of Actuaries. That report predicts that because of newly insured and mandated improvements in benefits packages, medical claims per policyholder will rise by 32% by 2017. While that does not necessarily translate into a 32% rate increase, the actuaries report predict a roughly proportional increase in rates."Opponents of the health overhaul seized on the figure to suggest the law could really be called the Unaffordable Care Act. The Obama administration says the study leaves out factors that will restrain what plan members actually pay, including more competition among insurance companies."[2]So the most pessimistic analysis puts rate increases at only 2% higher than increases in 2008-12 period, the slowest rise in rates for any 5 year period since 1970.*Third, Pro must separate employee price increases due to lesser employer participation, since this does not represent actual premium increases, just increased burden for the employee versus the employer and in no way reflects ACA mandates.*Fourth, Pro must include tax credits for small businesses and non-employee insurance buyers and for employees whose insurance burden exceed 9.5% of household income. [3]*Fifth, Pro must consider the increased value of insurance packages due to mandated benefits. Although Pro stated that his personal benefits will not change, this is not true for most Americans, since insurers will be required to provide insurance for a range of basic services including: "ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care. Among the essential health benefits; preventive care, childhood immunizations and adult vaccinations, and medical screeningswill have co-payments, co-insurance, and deductibles eliminated - these services will be covered by an insurance plan's premiums.Such services include mammograms and colonoscopies, wellness visits, gestational diabetes screening, HPV testing, STI counseling, HIV screening and counseling, FDA-approved contraceptive methods, breastfeeding support and supplies, and domestic violence screening and counseling.[4]*Sixth, when considering affordability of a plan implemented nationally, Pro must demonstrate the above increases for the average American, not just increases to his plan.3) My 1000% increase is based on a notification that I received from my healthcare provider. It shows a 48% increase for 2014 over 2013. Increases were also forecast for 2015, 2016 and 2017. The final 2017 number IS ten times the 2012 and 2013 premium.In Pro's specific and singular case, his provider has decided to increase Pro's insurance premium by a whopping 31.25% times the most pessimistic prediction for national averages. Con recommends that Pro fire his health care provider immediately. Who is he buying insurance from, anyway? Bernie Madoff? Somali Pirates?Fortunately for Pro, Obamacare provides multiple remedies. First, Obamacare requires insurers to spend 80-85% on health care costs and rebate the overcharges back to the insured. So, if Pro's insurers jacks up insurance rate 1000% by 2017 and fails to deliver on providing an 800% increase in healthcare spending (not likely since healthcare costs are predicted to rise 8-9%), Obamacare forces his insurance company to give that money back.Also, if Pro's insurance bill represents more than 8% of his household income, he will be eligible for substantial tax subsidies to offset the cost.Most importantly, after Oct. 1st, Pro may choose from several hundred other insurance plans available on his state's insurance exchange. Almost any of these are guaranteed to compete favorably against those offered by the confidence men at Pro's current insurer. In my state of Colorado, 18 healthcare providers will offer 541 plans ranging in price from $177 to $774 per month (minus significant tax credits for 80% of individual plans).4) Here is a link to the press release of June 6th with the 88% estimatehttp://www.insurance.ohio.gov...and here is the same ODI estimating HALF that increase, 41% just 7 weeks later.http://www.insurance.ohio.gov...What caused the dramatic change? ODI has no reply. In fact, ODI used artificial rates to plump their numbers. A 25 yr-old male's rate goes from $30/month to $199/month, a 64 yr-old woman's rate goes from $131/mo to $593. When Kaiser ran these same scenarios, they concluded the 25 yr-old would pay $88/month and the 64 yr-old woman would pay nothing. [5][6]ODI's director is also Lt. Gov. and Tea Party candidate Mary Taylor. Here's the email she sent out releasing the ODI's August findings: A white woman weeping, petition and fundraising buttons? Does this look like data analysis or propaganda? When looking for facts about Obamacare, Pro would be better off citing healthcare providers like Kaiser rather than Tea Party Candidates fearmongering for donations. [1]http://www.cbo.gov...[2]http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org...[3]http://www.pbs.org...[4]http://kff.org...[5]http://www.bizjournals.com...[6]http://www.cleveland.com...