HHS: 60% Will Pay Less Than $100 Per Month!

AllenChicago

Guru
5000 Post Club
8,448
I think the Department of Health and Human Services is starting to realize that not enough healthy people will enroll in ObamaCare to keep it afloat. This Press Release isued today reeks of Marketing Desperation.

Press Release: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/09/20130917b.html

Do they not know that in less than 2 weeks, the curtain will rise and reveal that virtually nobody will pay under $100 per month...even with subsidies?

-Allen
 
Isn't this the same group that promised . . .

  • to lower everyone's premium by $2500
  • to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse
  • you can keep your health plan if you like it
  • you can keep your doctor
  • this plan will not add one dime to the deficit
 
Read it in the USA Today, next to the graphic about life spans. If an Insurance company put something like this out, they would be slapped with fines and junctions.

But, like they said in "Head of State", we are the government. We can do whatever we want.
 
I think the Department of Health and Human Services is starting to realize that not enough healthy people will enroll in ObamaCare to keep it afloat. This Press Release isued today reeks of Marketing Desperation.

Press Release: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/09/20130917b.html

Do they not know that in less than 2 weeks, the curtain will rise and reveal that virtually nobody will pay under $100 per month...even with subsidies?

-Allen

That isn't really true.

Anyone making under 185% of the FPL is going to wind under $100 a month, just do the math.

At 185% FPL, the maximum premium is $1185 per year (5.59% of income), that's under $100.

That may not be 60% but it's a far cry from 'virtually nobody' and probably closer to 60% than your estimate.

I know paranoia and anger permeates all of this conversation but if you look at where most of us thought ACA would take us (into other businesses) 3 years ago to the reality (a very good compensation period for this Open Enrollment and for a few years after that) it's actually working out pretty well, as far as I'm concerned.
 
I thought if you make from 100 - 138% of FPL your premiums are completely covered by subsidy, is this not correct?
 
That isn't really true.
Anyone making under 185% of the FPL is going to wind under $100 a month, just do the math.

At 185% FPL, the maximum premium is $1185 per year (5.59% of income), that's under $100.

That may not be 60% but it's a far cry from 'virtually nobody' and probably closer to 60% than your estimate.


Doing this in a hurry cause the @#! forum logged me off last attempt so I had to start over!...:err:

Ref-1: Political Calculations: What's Your Income Percentile?

Ref-2: Federal Poverty Guidelines

You're right to some extent, FLM2. The number of Americans who will pay under $100 per month for their health coverage in 2014 is more than "virtually nobody", but it's far below the 60% projected by Health and Human Services.

REASONING:
Ref-1 Indicates that a person who earns 185% of poverty makes $21,256 per year and is the 41% percentile. That is, 41% of individuals make the same, or less than him/her.

However, because many people are part of family unit's with 2 income earners, it's likely that the number of joint-income filers is at or below 185% of poverty is far less than 41%. (Ref-2)

At any rate, it will interesting to see what HHS will pull out of their hat when the real bottom-line premiums begin displaying on many millions of computer screens all across America over the next few months.

ac
 
Guys, read the words, not the theme. Their words are chosen very carefully.

"Can" "may be" "able" and other words imply this is a POSSIBILITY, not a FACT.

I can win the lottery. Some day, I may be the king of France. I'm able to date a supermodel. This stuff obviously won't happen (especially the supermodel part, I prefer swimsuit models), but all of it *could* or *may*.

60% of people may be able to purchase health insurance for under $100. There is no way 60% of people will, but it's possible they could.

They want to release stuff that makes them look good, even if it technically doesn't say anything factual. Perception is truth in marketing, and they are building the perception that this is a good thing that will save money. If they do a good enough job, people really will think they're saving money, even if the facts state otherwise.
 
Analysis of HHS's Claim that 6 out of 10 will pay less than $100 Per Month

Excerpt:
"A report published by HHS this week alleges 56 percent of the uninsured population could pay $100 or less for monthly insurance premiums beginning in 2014 under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The issue brief asserts that the combination of taxpayer financed premium subsidies and the Medicaid expansion will result in approximately 23.2 million people being able to purchase coverage at a monthly rate of $100 or less. While on its face the report's data appears promising, the reality is that its conclusions are generalized, misleading and possibly erroneous..."

Story: HHS Premium Cost Study Built on Faulty, Misleading Data | Weekly Checkup | American Action Forum

ac
 
Thanks for that AC, looks like someone else can tell their shady language's truth from the insinuation. Also, looks like their claim is just plain inaccurate. Newsflash, you can't just average the cheapest rate in a dozen states and think it applies to all 51 marketplaces.

I'm going to write one titled "100% of Americans could pay $0 for health insurance under Obamacare" because, technically, everyone could just not pay for insurance....
 
Back
Top