HHS in 2010: 40-67% of those with individual insurance won't be able to keep it

[7,052,770]

People might be mad at first, but once they realize their new policy is a lot better for them, they'll get over it.

[7,052,770]

For comparable insurance, prices will be lower because of competition and other measures in Obamacare.  Costs will certainly be lower for a large group of people who receive subsidies.

Actually both your statements cannot be true at the same time.  If for a plan most people on it are getting subsidies, then there is no reason for the plans to compete on price.  Note that the way the subsidies work is that you pay a price which is linked to your MAGI as a percentage of FPL and the subsidies will pay the rest.  In such a case there is an incentive for the health plans to raise their prices to give the impression that their plans are better since the buyer does not pay extra one way or another.  If said plan has mostly people that do not quality for subsidies I agree the competition for prices is there but lets drop talk about all those people getting subsidies.

Obamacare strictly limits the profits health insurers can generate -- at least 80% of the money taken in must be paid out in claims (for small group and individual products), leaving only 20% for administrative costs and profits.  And for the first 2 years, to smooth out the uncertainties in pricing, once a particular product makes 3% in profit, it must give a percentage (I believe half) to government, and 80% above 8% profit.

In addition, even the super Republican states have government bodies that review all insurance prices and will reject rates that are intentionally set too high just for extra profits.

Therefore, there is not much incentive to overprice since companies will have to give premium back to the members in the form of rebates if it doesn't hit the 80% threshhold, and even if it does, it won't be able to keep the big profits.  

[7,052,770]

A large percentage of these people who have the low premium plans are going to be too poor to qualify for subsidies. Many will go on Medicare, unlikely to be better than what they have now, and won't help at all with making prices more competitive.

?

Medicaid (not Medicare) is going to be a lot better than some awful $10,000 deductible plan with high copays, not to mention it should have a bigger network.

Even better, those are the exact people who need to be OFF of $10,000 deductible plans.  I personally wouldn't have a problem with a rich person having a $10,000 deductible, but no one should be allowed to have a deductible they can't potentially afford.

[7,052,770]

As usual, Krazen is full of sh**t.

It is possible under pre-Obamacare conditions for a couple in their 60s to get "coverage" for around $250 a month...but the plan has a $10,000 deductible, only covers category 1 (cheap generic) drugs (with a $10 copay, and most category 1 drugs are less than $10, so it almost just doesn't cover drugs at all).  It is essentially covers car accidents and cancer, and all other medical bills are on the member.

That's a horrible plan, especially for a senior citizen, who is going to be paying thousands in OOP costs through the year.  I'm proud to live in a country where we have a sensible law like Obamacare that forbids unscrupulous companies from scanning senior citizens with nonsense plans like this one.

[7,052,770]

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77990231/

More and more it seems like these anti-Obamacare stories are bunk, peddled by journalists who aren't doing their jobs and don't know what they're talking about, insurance companies who want their customers to buy more expensive plans, and irresponsible/ignorant people who aren't willing to actually find out what their options are.

And intentional distortions by the more and more desperate Right to stomp out obamacare before it causes millions of people to permanently flip to the Democratic side

[7,052,770]

I'm sorry, are men required to get pregnancy coverage? Do men's policies cover obstetrician vistis, etc.? Speak more about that. Or is this just about the costs of pregnancy not accruing 100% to women per surcharges, but being shared among the pool of all people?

Overall, it's cheaper to just have "covered services" for everyone, not let everyone pick and choose what they want and what they don't want.  And remember, one of the most well-publicized pieces of Obamacare is that men and women cannot be charged different rates.  And as far as maternity coverage for olds goes, the fact that they don't get pregnant is reflected in age rating.

[7,052,770]

Already a high-profile "victim" of Obamacare who made the TV rounds has admitted she didn't know what she was talking about and now that she understands what her old plan didn't cover and what the new ones do, it's a "blessing in disguise":

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115457/obamacare-victim-florida-happy-she-can-get-real-coverage