Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

sd said:
KJ. said:
knapplc said:
I clearly need to go back and re-read where this discussion between sd'sker, KJ. and myself started, because I'm not following your replies at all, KJ. :D

I'll try to get what you're saying, but it's gonna have to wait. Too busy right now. But one thing's for sure - we're having different discussions.
Click to expand...
Nailed it. I think Carl and I are on the same page. sd'sker is about 23 chapters behind.
Click to expand...
i do get it, i just do not get why you think it is important. all insurance is a redistribution of wealth because you will probably get more out of it than you put in. so you are saying it is a redistribution of the cost of risk. well, employer-based plans already operate like that. so what is your point?

my point has always been that the aca will make insurance better (and overall cheaper and more accessible, which is why it was desperately needed). i do agree that we have been talking at each other rather than with each other, but why does that make my point any less valid and your point any clearer or more valid? again, so you see it as a redistribution of wealth. so what? that is the point of insurance and over time it should even out, thus the need of a mandate and how insurance needs to work. but i guess you would rather look at how insurance and premiums work for a group of people for one year and base your entire assessment of aca on that. that is fine, that is your prerogative.
Click to expand...
1. KD has a point. If you are born in the woods without any access for medical care, raised by wolves and die when a beer comes to your cave and eats you, you will not need health insurance. Everyone else---not so much. Of course, wolf cave boy most likely doesn't file a tax return since he lives in isolation completely unknown to society so the ACA doesn't really impact him anyway.

2. Even if you have never been to a doctor a day in your life, you don't get to determine how you die. You could stroke out while driving/walking to work. If you are found laying on the sidewalk unconscience, our healthcare with take care of you.

 
sd said:
KJ. said:
knapplc said:
I clearly need to go back and re-read where this discussion between sd'sker, KJ. and myself started, because I'm not following your replies at all, KJ. :D

I'll try to get what you're saying, but it's gonna have to wait. Too busy right now. But one thing's for sure - we're having different discussions.
Click to expand...
Nailed it. I think Carl and I are on the same page. sd'sker is about 23 chapters behind.
Click to expand...
i do get it, i just do not get why you think it is important. all insurance is a redistribution of wealth because you will probably get more out of it than you put in. so you are saying it is a redistribution of the cost of risk. well, employer-based plans already operate like that. so what is your point?

my point has always been that the aca will make insurance better (and overall cheaper and more accessible, which is why it was desperately needed). i do agree that we have been talking at each other rather than with each other, but why does that make my point any less valid and your point any clearer or more valid? again, so you see it as a redistribution of wealth. so what? that is the point of insurance and over time it should even out, thus the need of a mandate and how insurance needs to work. but i guess you would rather look at how insurance and premiums work for a group of people for one year and base your entire assessment of aca on that. that is fine, that is your prerogative.
Click to expand...
I stopped reading at this point. We have no business trying to talk about insurance if this is the intelligence I'm working with here.

 
KJ. said:
I'm sure you noticed that the website is merely hosting a research study done by an actuarial consulting firm that doesn't play in the health insurance market and is widely considered as the premier research firm in the insurance industry. The report is nothing more than a description of the results of predictive modeling on the 91 variables that affect the ACA. I don't care if The Onion is who posted a link to the study, it doesn't change the contents of that pdf.
Click to expand...
I've never worked for an actuarial consulting firm but I did do a brief stint at a lobbying firm. (Very brief . . . thank goodness.) I learned that a lobbying firm who disseminates studies that shows facts unfavorable to their client will probably lose their client. I'd imagine that the health insurance industry would be quite the client to lose . . .

KJ. said:
The real problem with my hypothetical is that I tried to make it simple enough for people here to understand. The ACA obviously can not be boiled down to that, but nobody here is intelligent enough to understand (that's not a condescending jab, I'm not either) the aggregate effect of the entire ACA. That's what the study is for, their models are incredibly good at quantifying and projecting premiums based on all sorts of combinations of those 91 variables. I obviously can only give an example that focuses on the one or two most significant variables, which is what i did.
Click to expand...
In that case, hang tight. We'll see the real world effects soon enough.

 
carlfense said:
I've never worked for an actuarial consulting firm but I did do a brief stint at a lobbying firm. (Very brief . . . thank goodness.) I learned that a lobbying firm who disseminates studies that shows facts unfavorable to their client will probably lose their client. I'd imagine that the health insurance industry would be quite the client to lose . . .
Click to expand...
I don't know why you feel the need to get defensive and attack the source when it doesn't even give opinions regarding the findings. You're the one that bitches people out constantly for posting bad or biased sources, so I'm a little surprised to see you try to discredit the output of a stochastic model, which is all the report is.

If it would make you feel better, I can plug the same legal restrictions they did into the same program they used and send you the results. I have no ties to the health industry, and even if i did, nobody listens to a panda on the internet so that would hopefully be unbiased enough for you.

 
KJ. said:
carlfense said:
I've never worked for an actuarial consulting firm but I did do a brief stint at a lobbying firm. (Very brief . . . thank goodness.) I learned that a lobbying firm who disseminates studies that shows facts unfavorable to their client will probably lose their client. I'd imagine that the health insurance industry would be quite the client to lose . . .
Click to expand...
I don't know why you feel the need to get defensive and attack the source when it doesn't even give opinions regarding the findings. You're the one that bitches people out constantly for posting bad or biased sources, so I'm a little surprised to see you try to discredit the output of a stochastic model, which is all the report is.

If it would make you feel better, I can plug the same legal restrictions they did into the same program they used and send you the results. I have no ties to the health industry, and even if i did, nobody listens to a panda on the internet so that would hopefully be unbiased enough for you.
Click to expand...
The fact that you'd include the bold within this post . . . :lol:

 
Not quite in line with the original topic . . . but probably as good a place as any. This is the most accurate summary of ACA opposition that I've seen yet.

That isn't to say there are no conservatives who care about health care, because there are a few (like the folks at the Heritage Foundation who came up with the individual mandate!). But they are few and far between on the right. Your typical Republican, on the other hand, cares deeply about issues like taxes and defense policy, and works hard to understand them and come up with ideas for where they should go in the future. But had President Obama not passed health-care reform, they would have been perfectly happy to let the status quo continue indefinitely. They donned their fervent opposition to Obamacare like a new jacket, for reasons of politics, not policy. Sure, it was in many ways a conservative plan, much of whose complexity comes from the fact that it works to expand coverage within the private market. But it was big and important, and it was Obama, and it was a way to articulate their anti-government philosophy, and so they got fired up about it. But it isn't because health-care policy is something they're passionate about. Republicans care about taxes whether or not at the moment we happen to be having a big public debate about taxes. But if we weren't debating health care, they wouldn't be staying up nights coming up with interesting solutions to health-care problems, because it just isn't their thing.
Click to expand...
http://prospect.org/...re-turns-out-ok

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Talked to a CPA today.

He has a client that pays 80% of health insurance for his 30 employees (all full time). The client is pissed about Obamacare and believes that he is not going to be able to afford paying 80% next year.

The CPA has explained that it is unlikely that Obamacare will actually effect what it costs to insure his employees next year. Further, because he is the owner he has a high net worth but keeps his taxable income low, which means he will actually quality for a $1000 a month tax credit from Obamacare.

The business owner is still just as mad and just a confused.

 
Back
Top