There is a March 2013 report coming to light, prepared jointly by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Majority Staff; the Senate Committee on Finance, Minority Staff; and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Minority Staff, titled The Price of Obamacare’s Broken Promises: Young Adults and Middle Class Families Set to Endure Higher Premiums and Unaffordable Coverage, and it’s available here.

There’s a lot of data in the eight-page report, but the money figure is this one:

Those were estimates last spring, and for two states, the estimates weren’t available.

As of last September, though, Forbes estimated Vermont as having premium increases ranging from 71% to 157%, depending on age, and New York having a rate decrease in the neighborhood of 40%.  Forbes also estimated that some 17 states would see premium decreases in at least one age/gender demographic; although with many of those seeing the decrease in only one or two such categories.

Since Obamacare went live nearly three months ago, customers—especially those who’ve had their policies canceled out from under them—are seeing just these increases, and they’re also seeing enormous increases in deductibles—the amount of out of pocket expenses that must be absorbed by the patient before an Obamacare policy kicks in to pay (for a Bronze plan) all of 60% of the patient’s expenses.  For that year.  That’s a really sick patient to have all those expenses before coverage kicks in.

Some deal, this Obamacare.

A Better LA, a decade-old Los Angeles nonprofit, said last week it was signing up 50 low-income people for health plans in California’s health-insurance marketplace.  The charity, which said it has the blessing of the state agency overseeing the marketplace, will pay $50 to $100 a month to cover the share of the people’s premiums not already financed by federal subsidies.

Nonprofits, including some hospitals, say paying premiums would ensure coverage for people currently uninsured who can’t afford even a small monthly payment for health insurance.

But.  There’s always a but. This but is this, from Karen Ignagni, President and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the health-insurance industry’s trade group (who, incidentally, declines to explain the claimed logistics problem of reissuing health insurance plans that were in force just a month ago):

It is a conflict of interest for hospitals and drug companies to pay patients’ premiums and cost-sharing for the sole purpose of increasing utilization of their services and products.

Of course, Ignagni has no conflict of interest herself.  Mm, mm.

And

[The] HHS unit that is implementing the health law said it would “discourage” hospitals and other commercial entities from paying premiums.  It asked insurers to reject such payments and warned that it would take further action if necessary.

HHS has significant concerns with this practice….

The Democrats and the insurance companies in cahoots with them pretended to concern about the poor and the elderly sick being unable to afford medical care because they couldn’t afford health insurance.  Now those same worthies are moving to block those poor and elderly sick from getting exactly that coverage solely because they’re not getting coverage in the way those Democrats deem acceptable.  Apparently, the Democrats’ concern had nothing to do with the welfare of the poor and the elderly sick and everything to do with getting their votes.

The insurance companies?  It’s time to cut out the coddling and dump them into a free, competitive market place.

Leaving aside the lawlessness of HHS’ new “rules” demanding that their new subjects, the insurance companies, govern their businesses according to HHS diktats, following are some examples of the utter stupidity flowing from that lawlessness.

“asking” insurers to take a flexible approach about their rules when patients refill prescriptions or see their existing doctor in the early days of the new year in case new health plans haven’t kicked in.

Never mind that the old plans, that included those doctors and drug coverages, are illegal under Obamacare, and so no legal coverage exists for them.  This also ignores the mechanics of the insurers getting paid, eventually, by the patient, and by the Federal government when subsidies are involved.

“encouraging” insurers to begin coverage in the new year even if applicants miss the deadline by a few days.

Never mind that, especially with the failure of ObamaMart to deliver necessary enrollment and sign-up data to the insurers, those insurers have no way of knowing that those claiming coverage actually are covered, neither do those claiming coverage have any way of knowing they’re actually covered, and neither do the doctors and hospitals have any way of knowing whether they’re included in the claimed plans.  Just try to sort out the fraud from the honest mistakes from the utter failures in this environment.

requiring that enrollees who pay their first month’s premium by Dec 31 be given coverage starting the next day.

Never mind that ObamaMart can’t even tell the insurers who has enrolled.  Never mind that, even when information flows as it should, insurers have no hope of reacting that quickly, even in an on-line world.  Thus, see above about who knows what and how to sort out fraud from….

“calling on insurers” to refill through January prescriptions covered under previous plans.  …insurers should continue covering at standard rates patients’ visits to doctors they had seen under their old policies, even if those doctors weren’t part of a new plan’s network.

“strongly encouraging” insurers to treat out-of-network providers as in-network to ensure continuity of care for acute episodes.

Never mind that those plans are illegal, the coverage under them non-existent by government decree.

Never mind that the insurers have no hope of reimbursement for any fraud that occurs, nor any expectation of timely—if any at all—payment of subsidies due, since ObamaMart’s software is wholly incapable of determining who’s eligible for subsidies, much less how much any particular Obamacare welfare recipient might be due.

Keep in mind that when the Federal government “asks” for something, it’s largely indiscriminable from a demand.  See the IRS’ treatment of government-disapproved groups of Americans, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ treatment of insurance companies who objected to Obamacare while it was being developed, Congressman Henry Waxman’s (D, CA) treatment of companies who laid out the early costs of Obamacare.

The Administration of Stupid just keeps rolling along.