Insurers Raising Rates by Double Digits

It looks like Obamacare’s chickens are coming home to roost.

According to the New York Times, not normally known as a bastion of right-wing anti-Obama extremism, health insurers are slapping consumers with double digit percentage increases in rates:

Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers.

Particularly vulnerable to the high rates are small businesses and people who do not have employer-provided insurance and must buy it on their own.

Obama promised during the 2008 campaign that his health care initiative would “bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family.” But according to Forbes, premiums have increased by an average of $3,065 and are set to rise even further.

The reason would appear to be something the White House loves to cite during debates about the budget: math.

Insurers are now required to provide, without cost sharing by patients – that is, for free – mammograms, colonoscopies, HIV screening, contraceptives and contraceptive counseling, well-women visits, sexually transmitted disease counseling, breastfeeding support and supplies, and so forth.

Meanwhile, states are tasked with figuring out which health benefits are “essential,” and therefore must be granted at no cost to the consumer. According to Investors.com, various states have already announced that people simply must have things like weight loss surgery, acupuncture, circumcision, smoking cessation services and varicose vein removal, and so they can get them for free.

All of this is very nice. But someone still has to pay for it. And that’s where your premiums come in.

Keith Koffler

By

Award winning journalist Keith Koffler has 16 years of experience covering Washington. As a reporter for CongressDaily, National Journal magazine, and Roll Call, Keith wrote primarily from the White House, covering three presidents and learning as few have the intricacies of the West Wing and the behavior and motivations of its occupants. While mainly stationed at the White House, he also extensively covered Congress and Washington’s lobbyists. Keith has also written for a variety of other publications, including Politico, The Daily Caller, and The London Observer. He currently writes regular opinion columns for Politico. He blogs at whitehousedossier.com.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • ctate

    Anyone who didn’t see this coming either isn’t very bright, has their head stuck in the sand, or just doesn’t care because they are wealthy enough to absorb the increases in insurance premiums. Scary doesn’t begin to cover what lies in store for all of us who aren’t in the last category.

    My husband and I watched a debate forum the other night on the Bloomberg TV station, it was moderated by ABC correspondent John Donvan and presented by the “Intelligence Squared” organization. The sides in the debate were arguing whether or not a persons age and status as a productive citizen should be considered when determining how much money should be expended on that person’s health care. In essence, what is the monetary value of that person’s continued existence, and is that person’s continued existence worth the cost? I really was just flicking through the channels when I came upon this disturbing program. The moment I realized what they were debating, I was appalled yet didn’t want to change the channel. As I watched, I found myself of course siding with the debate team who did NOT believe that end of life care should be rationed. This team consisted of a woman who had some expertise on the issues and the male lawyer who had represented Terri Schiavo’s family in their attempt to keep the State of Florida from terminating Ms. Schiavo’s life (she was on life support). Arguing for the opposing viewpoint (the rationing of end of life care) were Peter Singer, a philosopher and bioethics professor at Princeton and a published author on utilitarianism, and his teammate was a physician of some esteem but I don’t recall his name nor his distinctions. Each team made it’s points and counterpoints, and then brief questions were taken from the audience. Then came the moment the audience voted on some little electronic pads, for which team they thought argued their case most effectively. Prior to the vote, the moderator reminded the television viewing audience of how the live audience voted on the issue prior to the debate. If I recall correctly, pre-debate, the live audience had a larger percentage of persons voting against the rationing of care. But, to my utter dismay and disgust, the post-debate vote overwhelmingly supported the debate team who argued for the rationing of health care for those persons who are considered nearing the end of their lives. I wish I knew the audience age ratios, I’d like to know how many were over 50 and under 50.

    I love the way the forces for evil in our culture, have been allowed to neatly define their evil intentions by using such tidy and clean issue handles like “pro-choice” and “rationing of end of life care”. Clearly it makes it much easier for the general public, including sadly many, many Catholics, to get on board their train of deception and falsehood. It is a culture of death, and the sooner we stop allowing the other side to define it as anything but PRO-DEATH, the faster we will be able to turn the train around.

  • Dan

    Nothing more than an agent of the culture of death.

  • Peter Nyikos

    The anti-rationing duo could have had a distinguished Princeton philosopher also, the devout Catholic Robert P. George, if he had known about the debate. But I suppose the “Intelligence Squared” people only notified people of their choice about it.

  • Clement_W

    I am afraid that the Insurers have done exactly what the President and Progressives have wanted them to do, that is, to stampede the fatherless people to into the waiting arms of the Paternal Government to ASSURE rather than INSURE their WANTS, not NEEDS.

  • Clement_W

    Having succeeded in “educating” from cradle to adulthood at least 3 generations of Americans through Progressive Education that, as Gene Roddenberry in Star-Trek put in the mouth of the LOGICAL Spock “The good of the many against the good of the one”; the effort to turn the train around will take a lot of effort and time.

MENU