Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[carlfense]

My biggest problem is the mandate requiring people have insurance.

This is one of the biggest reasons why the premiums are falling in New York.

A lot of it seems to trace back to a law passed in 1993, which required insurance plans to accept all applicants, regardless of how sick or healthy they were. That law did not, however, require everyone to sign up, as the Affordable Care Act does.
New York has, for 20 years now, been a long-running experiment in what happens to universal coverage without an individual mandate. It’s the type of law the country would have if House Republicans succeeded in delaying the individual mandate, as they will vote to do this afternoon. The result: a small insurance market with very high insurance premiums.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/17/heres-why-health-insurance-premiums-are-tumbling-in-new-york/

 

[JJ Husker]

BRB- I'm going to tell you something you already know. These are exactly the types of things that happen when our government gets involved in "business" decisions. Policies that affect the real bottom line get placed way down the list to things that advance someones agenda or pay back certain support. It's precisely why the government getting involved in healthcare will not result in better or cheaper care. The military wasn't buying those $900 toilet seats because they were better or worth it. It was probably just the result of a bunch of rules and regulations made by people that couldn't profitably operate a lemonade stand in their front yard. There is a reason people go into politics. If they could do anything useful, they would be doing that instead.

 

[JJ Husker]

Anecdote- We do some steel fabrication in our business. A disabled, retired veteran, who lives one block from our shop, wanted/needed a handrail leading up his front walk and porch. It was a piddly $500 job. But, he had access to veterans affairs funding which would require us to do it to their specs with submittals, inspections, the whole shootin match. To comply with their BS, it went to a $2000+ job. He was unable to pay anything and the govt was willing to go to $2000. The kicker was I would have to sign a statement that said our fee was usual and customary to perform the work. I told him I could not sign that in good conscience because it would not have been true. Also, the nature of the job made it impossible to comply with ADA requirements. I turned down the job that we literally could've walked to. That was three years ago and he still doesn't have the much needed railing. All because of head in a$$ government regulations and rules.

 

[sd'sker]

My biggest problem is the mandate requiring people have insurance.

This is one of the biggest reasons why the premiums are falling in New York.

A lot of it seems to trace back to a law passed in 1993, which required insurance plans to accept all applicants, regardless of how sick or healthy they were. That law did not, however, require everyone to sign up, as the Affordable Care Act does.
New York has, for 20 years now, been a long-running experiment in what happens to universal coverage without an individual mandate. It’s the type of law the country would have if House Republicans succeeded in delaying the individual mandate, as they will vote to do this afternoon. The result: a small insurance market with very high insurance premiums.

http://www.washingto...ng-in-new-york/

it seems pretty simple. you cannot have all the good stuff in obamacare (no more preexisting conditions, no lifetime limits, etc.) that everyone likes without a mandate. it is just unfeasible.

 

[carlfense]

it seems pretty simple. you cannot have all the good stuff in obamacare (no more preexisting conditions, no lifetime limits, etc.) that everyone likes without a mandate. it is just unfeasible.

Yep.

 

[krill]

Anyway. Regarding the bold, the best/easiest/quickest way for that to happen is for the country to become healthier. I would gladly accept just about any insurance law you can imagine if you'd also replace all the smoking fatasses eating KFC 17 times a week with relatively healthy individuals.

I hate to be so cynical about it, but the "smoking KFC fatasses" eating at KFC 17 times a week probably have a net positive effect on health care spending because their lifespans are going to be significantly shorter.

 

[Ziggy]

it seems pretty simple. you cannot have all the good stuff in obamacare (no more preexisting conditions, no lifetime limits, etc.) that everyone likes without a mandate. it is just unfeasible.

Yep.

While I disagree with that statement, I am complete agreement with you about many of the good things that came out of the bill. I actually am interested to see why you think it is so unfeasible for a law to be passed to pass every good part of the "obamacare" without the mandate. Maybe I am just seeing it from the wrong angle.

 

[Ziggy]

My biggest problem is the mandate requiring people have insurance.

This is one of the biggest reasons why the premiums are falling in New York.

A lot of it seems to trace back to a law passed in 1993, which required insurance plans to accept all applicants, regardless of how sick or healthy they were. That law did not, however, require everyone to sign up, as the Affordable Care Act does.
New York has, for 20 years now, been a long-running experiment in what happens to universal coverage without an individual mandate. It’s the type of law the country would have if House Republicans succeeded in delaying the individual mandate, as they will vote to do this afternoon. The result: a small insurance market with very high insurance premiums.

http://www.washingto...ng-in-new-york/

Your original article point to another part of the bill that is producing the possible decline in prices.

Supporters of the new health care law, the Affordable Care Act, credited the drop in rates to the online purchasing exchanges the law created, which they say are spurring competition among insurers that are anticipating an influx of new customers. The law requires that an exchange be started in every state.

 

[StPaulHusker]

it seems pretty simple. you cannot have all the good stuff in obamacare (no more preexisting conditions, no lifetime limits, etc.) that everyone likes without a mandate. it is just unfeasible.

Yep.

While I disagree with that statement, I am complete agreement with you about many of the good things that came out of the bill. I actually am interested to see why you think it is so unfeasible for a law to be passed to pass every good part of the "obamacare" without the mandate. Maybe I am just seeing it from the wrong angle.

Because there is no line item veto any longer. So you have to take the good with the bad

 

[sd'sker]

it seems pretty simple. you cannot have all the good stuff in obamacare (no more preexisting conditions, no lifetime limits, etc.) that everyone likes without a mandate. it is just unfeasible.

Yep.

While I disagree with that statement, I am complete agreement with you about many of the good things that came out of the bill. I actually am interested to see why you think it is so unfeasible for a law to be passed to pass every good part of the "obamacare" without the mandate. Maybe I am just seeing it from the wrong angle.

because, without the mandate there is no reason for healthy people to join the pool. then you have a pool of only unhealthy people and the insurance company will either fail to be profitable or have outrageous premiums.

 

[Ziggy]

it seems pretty simple. you cannot have all the good stuff in obamacare (no more preexisting conditions, no lifetime limits, etc.) that everyone likes without a mandate. it is just unfeasible.

Yep.

While I disagree with that statement, I am complete agreement with you about many of the good things that came out of the bill. I actually am interested to see why you think it is so unfeasible for a law to be passed to pass every good part of the "obamacare" without the mandate. Maybe I am just seeing it from the wrong angle.

because, without the mandate there is no reason for healthy people to join the pool. then you have a pool of only unhealthy people and the insurance company will either fail to be profitable or have outrageous premiums.

I would counter and say that many healthy people have insurance already, and more would if insurance companies had to fight each other for every person who wants coverage. Most people I know who want coverage but don't have it are because the costs are so high. If companies have to fight for participants, like in the exchanges, they have to offer better pricing.

 

[carlfense]

My biggest problem is the mandate requiring people have insurance.

This is one of the biggest reasons why the premiums are falling in New York.

A lot of it seems to trace back to a law passed in 1993, which required insurance plans to accept all applicants, regardless of how sick or healthy they were. That law did not, however, require everyone to sign up, as the Affordable Care Act does.
New York has, for 20 years now, been a long-running experiment in what happens to universal coverage without an individual mandate. It’s the type of law the country would have if House Republicans succeeded in delaying the individual mandate, as they will vote to do this afternoon. The result: a small insurance market with very high insurance premiums.

http://www.washingto...ng-in-new-york/

Your original article point to another part of the bill that is producing the possible decline in prices.

Supporters of the new health care law, the Affordable Care Act, credited the drop in rates to the online purchasing exchanges the law created, which they say are spurring competition among insurers that are anticipating an influx of new customers. The law requires that an exchange be started in every state.

Both probably deserve some credit for the drop.

 

[carlfense]

I would counter and say that many healthy people have insurance already, and more would if insurance companies had to fight each other for every person who wants coverage. Most people I know who want coverage but don't have it are because the costs are so high. If companies have to fight for participants, like in the exchanges, they have to offer better pricing.

I agree that competition is a good thing but the underlined portion is the problem. The unhealthy are more likely to want/need coverage.

 

[topekahusker]

I used 'tax revenues' because the Supremes changed the terminology from 'penalties'. So, there is no offsetting revenue in year one to reduce the costs of the implementation/program as part of the promises made when the legislation was introduced and argued.

On a positive note, the one year delay may result in employers ceasing to reduce employee hours to less than 30 so they aren't on the hook for offering/providing health care for another year. Thus, it may help some with the underemployment problem dragging the economy.

 

[carlfense]

I used 'tax revenues' because the Supremes changed the terminology from 'penalties'. So, there is no offsetting revenue in year one to reduce the costs of the implementation/program as part of the promises made when the legislation was introduced and argued.

Eh. "Deficits don't matter."