04 21 2015
  1:30 am  
40 Years of Service

A new study released Thursday by the nonprofit RAND Corporation estimates that consumers purchasing health insurance on the individual market will see little or no increase in their premiums when the Affordable Care Act is more fully implemented later this year.

"Our analysis shows that rates for policies in the individual market are likely to vary from state to state, with some experiencing increases and some experiencing decreases in cost," said Christine Eibner, lead author of the study and a senior economist at RAND. "But our analysis found no widespread trend toward sharply higher prices in the individual market."

The study used modeling to look at ten "representative states" as well as the country as a whole. In five of those ten states, RAND finds no increases when the costs of individual plans offered today is compared to cost estimates for comparable plans offered in the insurance exchanges opening on October 1. Consumers in three states -- Minnesota, North Dakota and Ohio -- could see their premiums increase by as much as 43 percent, while in the final two states -- Louisiana and New Mexico -- consumers could see their premiums decline. Nationwide, the study estimates that premiums will remain stable.

Under Obamacare, plans offered in the new insurance exchanges will be tiered based on their actuarial value -- or the percentage of health care costs that they cover. Due to heightened minimum coverage requirements, the lowest -- or bronze -- tier has a minimum actuarial value of 60 percent, which is significantly higher than many of the cheapest plans currently offered on the individual market.

This means that the government's new coverage mandates may force some consumers to pay more, but the law's supporters are quick to point out that they'll be purchasing much more comprehensive insurance.

None of the study's cost estimates take into account federal subsidies that will be available to help offset the cost of insurance for lower-income Americans. The study predicts that at least 60 percent of those entering the individual market in the ten states it analyzed will be eligible for federal assistance, and in South Carolina the number could be as high as 75 percent.

Additionally, the study found that the ACA could reduce the number of uninsured Americans by more than half if additional states take advantage of the federally-subsidized Medicaid expansion. Without the ACA, RAND estimates that roughly 20 percent of Americans would be uninsured in 2016, but if every state expanded access to Medicaid, that number could drop as low as 8 percent.

So far just 25 states have signed onto the Medicaid provision of Obamacare after that portion of the law was ruled optional by the Supreme Court. As there's no deadline to expand Medicaid eligibility, Obama administration officials are hoping that if the plan is successful in early-adopting states, the other half of the country will soon follow suit.

In calculating the effect that expanding Medicaid can have on the number of uninsured, RAND looked at three states -- Texas, Florida and Louisiana -- whose governors have chosen not to move forward with expansion. The study concludes that combined, an additional 2.3 million people will be without insurance because of the decision not to expand Medicaid, and the rates of uninsured in each state is estimated to increase by at least 5 percent.


Pacific NW Carpenters Union

Commenting Guidelines

  • Keep it clean: Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language
  • No personal attacks: We reserve the right to remove offensive comments
  • Be truthful: Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything
  • Be nice: No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person
  • Help us: If you see an abusive post, let us know at info@theskanner.com
  • Keep to topic: We will remove irrelevant posts and spam
  • Share with us: We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts; the history behind an article

Recently Published by The Skanner News

  • Default
  • Title
  • Date
  • Random
  • When should we use military to enforce US goals? NASHUA, N.H. (AP) — Rand Paul lashed out Saturday at military hawks in the Republican Party in a clash over foreign policy dividing the packed GOP presidential field. Paul, a first-term senator from Kentucky who favors a smaller U.S. footprint in the world, said that some of his Republican colleagues would do more harm in international affairs than would leading Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton. "The other Republicans will criticize the president and Hillary Clinton for their foreign policy, but they would just have done the same thing — just 10 times over," Paul said on the closing day of a New Hampshire GOP conference that brought about 20 presidential prospects to the first-in-the-nation primary state. "There's a group of folks in our party who would have troops in six countries right now, maybe more," Paul said. Foreign policy looms large in the presidential race as the U.S. struggles to resolve diplomatic and military conflicts across the globe. The GOP presidential class regularly rails against President Barack Obama's leadership on the world stage, yet some would-be contenders have yet to articulate their own positions, while others offered sharply different visions. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, whose brother, President George W. Bush, authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq, declined to say whether he would have done anything different then. Yet Jeb Bush acknowledged a shift in his party against new military action abroad. "Our enemies need to fear us, a little bit, just enough for them to deter the actions that create insecurity," Bush said earlier in the conference. He said restoring alliances "that will create less likelihood of America's boots on the ground has to be the priority, the first priority of the next president." The GOP's hawks were well represented at the event, led by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has limited foreign policy experience but articulated a muscular vision during his Saturday keynote address. Walker said the threats posed by radical Islamic terrorism won't be handled simply with "a couple bombings." "We're not going to wait till they bring the fight to us," Walker said. "We're going to bring the fight to them and fight on their soil." South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham addressed the question of putting U.S. troops directly in the battle against the Islamic State group militants by saying there is only one way to defeat the militants: "You go over there and you fight them so they don't come here." Texas Sen. Ted Cruz suggested an aggressive approach as well. "The way to defeat ISIS is a simple and clear military objective," he said. "We will destroy them." Businesswoman Carly Fiorina offered a similar outlook. "The world is a more dangerous and more tragic place when America is not leading. And America has not led for quite some time," she said. Under Obama, a U.S.-led coalition of Western and Arab countries is conducting regular airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria. The U.S. also has hundreds of military advisers in Iraq helping Iraqi security forces plan operations against the Islamic State, which occupies large chunks of northern and western Iraq. Paul didn't totally reject the use of military force, noting that he recently introduced a declaration of war against the Islamic State group. But in an interview with The Associated Press, he emphasized the importance of diplomacy. He singled out Russia and China, which have complicated relationships with the U.S., as countries that could contribute to U.S. foreign policy interests. "I think the Russians and the Chinese have great potential to help make the world a better place," he said. "I don't say that naively that they're going to, but they have the potential to." Paul suggested the Russians could help by getting Syrian President Bashar Assad to leave power. "Maybe he goes to Russia," Paul said. Despite tensions with the U.S., Russia and China negotiated alongside Washington in nuclear talks with Iran. Paul has said he is keeping an open mind about the nuclear negotiations. "The people who already are very skeptical, very doubtful, may not like the president for partisan reasons," he said, and "just may want war instead of negotiations."
    Read More
  • Some lawmakers, sensing a tipping point, are backing the parents and teachers who complain about 'high stakes' tests   
    Read More
  • Watch Rachel Maddow interview VA Secretary Robert McDonald  
    Read More
  • Some two thousand people pack halls to hear Trayvon Martin's mom speak   
    Read More
load morehold SHIFT key to load allload all
Carpentry Professionals



About Us

Breaking News

The Skanner TV

Turn the pages

Hood to Coast
The Skanner Photo Archives