patrick.net

swebb says

Let's put some numbers to this so we can see what we are talking about in terms of $.

If a $200 monthly increase is 250% more than he paid in 2012, then it means he was paying $80/month in 2012. If his premiums went up by 30-60% annually since 2000 (let's call it 40% average per year), that means he paid 40 times more in 2012 than in 2000.

So, in 2000 he paid $2/month for insurance.

If this is all true, I'm guessing what has happened is that his employer has been shifting most or all of the increases to him or has otherwise changed the percentage of the premiums he is expected to pay.

I'd love to be able to get even decent insurance for $280/month. Where does he work?

Good analysis. I call bullshit on the OP.

Besides which, the right-tards don't seem to get that the parts of the law that are designed to keep premiums in check HAVEN'T TAKEN EFFECT YET.

bob2356 says

This post just doesn't wash. Premiums on employer sponsored plans went up 4.6% in 2011 from $4349 to $4547 per person. Increase for 2012 is projected to be 4.1%. That's actually down from the 8.7% average increase 2000 to 2010. So how is it Obamacare which is just starting to be implemented now and won't see the major parts in operation until 2014 responsible for your fathers 200% increase? Looks like the company is shifting some of the ongoing cost rises to employees.

Don't confuse the Obama-haters with those pesky facts.

This is not to say I'm in favor of ACA, which I consider an oxymoron. It's not going to solve the baseline problems. It would have been better and cheaper to simply double the medicare tax and put everyone on medicare.

Any kind of single-payer system just wasn't going to be politically possible. The right would never have let it happen. Maybe we can get there someday.

drew_eckhardt says

A health insurance bill passed for the people would have included a not-for-profit option like Medicare for all against which private industry had to compete.

That's not what we have.

Actually there are several non-for-profit options - one big one I can think of from the top of my head is Kaiser Permanente.

Meccos says

Kaiser Permanente.

LOL - most of the Kaiser network is for profit. The Kaisers' empire includes a non-profit HMO that advertises constantly on radio & TV and is supposedly non-profit so it didn't pay any tax on more than $1 billion in NET income (aka profit) last year, plus a non-profit foundation that acts as a marketing arm, but the actual practice network that employs most of the doctors is for-profit and privately held, i.e. they do not disclose financial results.

Homeboy says

Good analysis. I call bullshit on the OP.

Call it whatever you like. But now he's facing real financial pain. That's not bull.

rfsanders says

Call it whatever you like. But now he's facing real financial pain. That's not bull.

According to what you posted, his premium would be $280/month. You call that "real financial pain"? I know people who pay $1500/month, and prices were out of control like that BEFORE ACA was passed. Your post doesn't make any sense. Care to take a stab at explaining why, according to the numbers in your post, he would have to have been paying $2/month in 2000?

Simply stated, there has not been a 250% increase in insurance premiums in the last year. That's just nonsense.

So yeah, unless and until you correct your figures, I maintain that what you posted is bullshit.

ACA penalizes families. Individuals are cheap, but family plans are 6X as much. Even if you only have one kid.

I also call bullshit on CaptainShuddup, but that's pretty much a permanent condition for him.

NY Times: "Law Could Make Family Coverage Too Costly for Many"

rfsanders says

He's watched his health insurance premium jump 30-60% a year since 2000.

And who is this insurance with?

60% a year seems he's an idiot to stay with that company: