http://farchivist.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
farchivist.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2013-07-05 08:01 am
farchivist.livejournal.com) wrote in politicartoons2013-07-05 08:01 amfarchivist.livejournal.com) wrote in politicartoons2013-07-05 08:01 am
no subject
And the cost of covering those previously uninsurable people are? Dollars and cents.
And how is that cost spread among the existing insured? Dollars and cents.
Reason #2: The market for health care, which already wasn't much of a market because insurance companies intentionally conceal how much you're paying and for what, is even less of a market now that purchasing the product is mandatory. What little incentive there was to deliver a product that appealed to skeptical consumers has now been eliminated.
That still doesn't provide me with dollars and cents. Y'know, math.
But these points are rather moot, because the fact that rates are going up is no longer pure speculation. Quotes on 2014 plans that would comply with the Obamacare mandate are already available from some companies, and they represent huge rate hikes for most people.
But, the article you provide doesn't really do cost breakdowns. It's saying "2013 rates are lower than 2014 rates in these analyses I'm showing! Must be Obamacare!" That's a conclusion not yet supported by the evidence. By the information in the article, the reason for the increases might be "Because the execs needed more bonus money.", or "Titanium, a major medical industry metal, has seen a spike in price due to rarity." or "We lost our subsidies to make pills in India!", etc.
Nowhere yet have we seen the cost breakdown from the insurers, in black and white, and thus we are not able to assume that Obamacare is the real reason for the rate hike for some people in some places.
no subject