Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[carlfense]

(2) Backtrack all you want.

Who is backtracking? The California silver level plans are coming in with much lower quotes than expected. I said that you shouldn't take Ezra Klein's word for it . . . but that doesn't mean that you can just pretend that reality doesn't exist.

If you'd prefer the CBO link I can certainly get that for you. Otherwise, you acted impressed by Forbes . . . so you might prefer this? The Forbes contributor apparently doesn't share your feelings about wonkblog.

Every now and again, a political pundit is required to stand up and admit to the world that he or she got it wrong. For me, this would be one of those moments.
For quite some time, I have been predicting that Obamacare would likely mean higher insurance rates in the individual market for the “young immortals” and others under the age of 40. At the same time, my expectation was that those who fall into the older age ranges would benefit greatly as their premium charges would be lowered thanks to the Affordable Care Act.

It is increasingly clear that I had it wrong.

http://www.forbes.co...-premium-rates/

(3)It has nothing to do with the CBO. Your OP doesn't say anything about the CBO. You posted Ezra Klein's opinion.

You didn't actually . . . read . . . the link, did you?

In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that a medium-level “silver” plan — which covers 70 percent of a beneficiary’s expected health costs — on the California health exchange would cost $5,200 annually.

 

[KJ.]

Depending on what you want to define as "liberal" or "conservative" the ACA is definitely not conservative, I would say. At a high level, it's nothing more than a redistribution of wealth from a group of individuals with more money (those who are healthy and have lower premiums) to a group of individuals with less money (those who aren't healthy and have higher premiums).

It's pretty similar to taxes, and that doesn't sound conservative to me. It may have been backed by conservatives years ago, but I don't think the idea is all that conservative.

 

[HUSKER 37]

Every time I've gone to a Dr. as an adult, I swear it will be the last time..This time I mean it!! (7 years since last visit).

Realistically, I probably won't live much more than 5 more years if I'm lucky and I'd rather put the money I'd pay for premiums toward preventive measures or a health club membership.

I've had Biochemistry and Microbiology professors that stressed that the human body is the best at healing itself..I just hope there's a way of opting out of having to pay big insurance companies for something I'd never use (even when I had it)...

 

[Someone]

Here's a newer Forbes just for Carl; although the end play is the same methinks:

http://www.forbes.co...haos-is-coming/

both are op/ed pieces just to clarify for the jurists in the crowd.

Forbes. Shall we look at what writers are saying at Forbes in the last week (or even the last month)?

The good news coming out – California just released the rates for policies available on the exchange, and they are much lower than expected. It will be interesting to see how the remaining states move forward on rates.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolynmcclanahan/2013/05/25/five-quick-and-important-facts-on-health-insurance-through-obamacare/

actuaries have been making worst-case assumptions, even as insurers—eyeing the prospects of so many new customers—have been calculating that it’s worth bidding low in order to gobble up market share. This would help explain why premium bids in several other states have proven similarly reasonable.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/24/unexpected-health-insurance-rate-shock-california-obamacare-insurance-exchange-announces-premium-rates/

 

[Someone]

1. I was not impressed with how they rammed this bill through and the fact that the people who passed it really had no idea what the hell they were implementing.

2. I also have some reservations, on principle only, about our government forcing people to buy a product and punishing them if they don't. But that is all water under the bridge at this point in time.

3. My main concern has always been the unanticipated consequences and my belief that they focused a bit too much on the uninsured problem and not enough on runaway premium and care costs.

(I added the numbers above to better address your points)
1. I think others have dispelled this myth. If not, let me know and gladly discuss it more.

2. This is quite funny and one that really don't think people have given enough thought to.

2a: We can tax people. There is an ammendment that confirms this.

2b: Tax code is written to encourage behaviors that the government believes helps society. There are over 100k examples of this, but a few of the big one include home ownership (mortgage deduction), supporting social welfare organizations (charitable deduction), saving for retirement and forming and creating a family.

2c: If you are single, age 45 and make 100k but you don't do any of the things I listed in 2b, you owed about $18700 in federal taxes last year.

2d: What if you bought a house (15k mortgage interest), put money into your 401(k) ($15k) and had a wife and 3 kids (and paid for child care). Now you owed less--almost $15,000 leass to be exact.

3. See my post above about premium cost. The unanticipated consequence (or at least the consequence that the hard right didn't anticipate) is that capitalist, not the Society Of Actuaries run insurance companies and capitalism includes a funny feature that helps keep costs low. I never understand why some people fail to consider competition as a key part of capitalism.

 

[sd'sker]

Depending on what you want to define as "liberal" or "conservative" the ACA is definitely not conservative, I would say. At a high level, it's nothing more than a redistribution of wealth from a group of individuals with more money (those who are healthy and have lower premiums) to a group of individuals with less money (those who aren't healthy and have higher premiums).

It's pretty similar to taxes, and that doesn't sound conservative to me. It may have been backed by conservatives years ago, but I don't think the idea is all that conservative.

it is about healthy people who cannot afford it so they risk it and do not have insurance. then they go bankrupt with even minor medical emergencies or avoid all preventative care. then you have people with a preexisting condition who could never afford healthcare regardless how much money they have.

i would say the underlined part demonstrates a rather poor understanding of health insurance and obamacare.

also, it is just as much about protecting those with insurance than those without. it is odd how you equate more money with being healthier and lower premiums. a poor person can be healthy with low premiums and the inverse can be true as well.

 

[KJ.]

Depending on what you want to define as "liberal" or "conservative" the ACA is definitely not conservative, I would say. At a high level, it's nothing more than a redistribution of wealth from a group of individuals with more money (those who are healthy and have lower premiums) to a group of individuals with less money (those who aren't healthy and have higher premiums).

It's pretty similar to taxes, and that doesn't sound conservative to me. It may have been backed by conservatives years ago, but I don't think the idea is all that conservative.

it is about healthy people who cannot afford it so they risk it and do not have insurance. then they go bankrupt with even minor medical emergencies or avoid all preventative care. then you have people with a preexisting condition who could never afford healthcare regardless how much money they have.

i would say the underlined part demonstrates a rather poor understanding of health insurance and obamacare.

I would say you're completely wrong.

 

[sd'sker]

Depending on what you want to define as "liberal" or "conservative" the ACA is definitely not conservative, I would say. At a high level, it's nothing more than a redistribution of wealth from a group of individuals with more money (those who are healthy and have lower premiums) to a group of individuals with less money (those who aren't healthy and have higher premiums).

It's pretty similar to taxes, and that doesn't sound conservative to me. It may have been backed by conservatives years ago, but I don't think the idea is all that conservative.

it is about healthy people who cannot afford it so they risk it and do not have insurance. then they go bankrupt with even minor medical emergencies or avoid all preventative care. then you have people with a preexisting condition who could never afford healthcare regardless how much money they have.

i would say the underlined part demonstrates a rather poor understanding of health insurance and obamacare.

I would say you're completely wrong.

well with such a compelling argument you must be right. also, i edited the post you responded to. anyway, the idea with insurance is that the bigger the pool, the better for everyone. not to mention the additional competition that obamacare creates.

 

[KJ.]

Sigh. Ok, let's see here.

well with such a compelling argument you must be right. also, i edited the post you responded to. anyway, the idea with insurance is that the bigger the pool, the better for everyone. not to mention the additional competition that obamacare creates.

No, it isn't. It isn't at all. When you increase the size of an insurance pool, that's only good if the additional insureds are going to cost less than the pool average. If they cost more, insurance becomes more expensive for everyone. Bigger pools are only really beneficial in that those losses become more predictable, but says nothing about the value of those losses.

it is about healthy people who cannot afford it so they risk it and do not have insurance. then they go bankrupt with even minor medical emergencies or avoid all preventative care. then you have people with a preexisting condition who could never afford healthcare regardless how much money they have.

i would say the underlined part demonstrates a rather poor understanding of health insurance and obamacare.

also, it is just as much about protecting those with insurance than those without. it is odd how you equate more money with being healthier and lower premiums. a poor person can be healthy with low premiums and the inverse can be true as well.

It's odd that you don't understand that having lower premiums is the exact same thing as having more money.

 

[sd'sker]

Sigh. Ok, let's see here.

well with such a compelling argument you must be right. also, i edited the post you responded to. anyway, the idea with insurance is that the bigger the pool, the better for everyone. not to mention the additional competition that obamacare creates.

No, it isn't. It isn't at all. When you increase the size of an insurance pool, that's only good if the additional insureds are going to cost less than the pool average. If they cost more, insurance becomes more expensive for everyone. Bigger pools are only really beneficial in that those losses become more predictable, but says nothing about the value of those losses.

why would a healthy person who cannot afford health insurance purchase an expensive policy? the point was to make it more competitive to drive down prices and create a mandate so everyone is in the pool. you can only afford to get rid of preexisting conditions if you have a big enough pool. also, the law of averages says the bigger the pool the better and with a mandate, the pool is as big as it can get.

it is about healthy people who cannot afford it so they risk it and do not have insurance. then they go bankrupt with even minor medical emergencies or avoid all preventative care. then you have people with a preexisting condition who could never afford healthcare regardless how much money they have.

i would say the underlined part demonstrates a rather poor understanding of health insurance and obamacare.

also, it is just as much about protecting those with insurance than those without. it is odd how you equate more money with being healthier and lower premiums. a poor person can be healthy with low premiums and the inverse can be true as well.

It's odd that you don't understand that having lower premiums is the exact same thing as having more money.

i get that, but you assume that premiums will go up just because the pool is bigger. nothing is being redistributed. if i am wrong, i would surely enjoy seeing the link.

what was really odd about what i found odd that you found odd that i found it odd was that equation with health. health should not be a commodity. a healthy person has no need for insurance (with raising premiums, the risk is sometime worth it) and unhealthy people had no way to acquire insurance. those were the too big issues.

and if it is not true the the bigger the pool the better, does that mean the inverse is true? the smaller the pool the better? or the healthiest the pool, the better? but then who does that help and is that not the whole problem with unregulated insurance?

also, what would have been a 'conservative' solution to the healthcare issue?

finally, do not feel compelled to answer. i think you are perfectly intelligent, but i no longer want to discuss insurance and obamacare like this anymore. i regret my post that started this.

 

[KJ.]

the healthiest the pool, the better

finally, do not feel compelled to answer.

 

[Someone]

Here is a list of people who have died in the past 10 years and never received healthcare in their life:


Did I miss anyone?

 

[Someone]

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.

 

[carlfense]

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 . . .

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.

The fact that you'd include the bold within this post . . . :lol:

 

[TGHusker]

Ouch - Obama Care $20k per family of 4 or 5 in 2016 per IRS model.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-be-20000-family