Detailed source please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Printable View
Detailed source please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I am pretty certain that for insurance wonks this law is too complicated to understand all intricacies, let alone for people who are merely interested in it from a political angle.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Aimless, it wouldn't surprise me if for the class of immortals the new system actually works out a bit more expensive initially. That's why ACA introduces the mandate; to avoid that young healthy people who can afford insurance but don't want it opt out of the system so that the goverment needs to pick up the tab for the part of society that is aware of its own mortality. Most people only like spreading the risk if it means the money is coming their way.
I linked to two sources on this already...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Indeed you did and those sources don't tell me for example how many "young people" would see their insurance costs double after taking into consideration subsidies and the ability to be covered by their parents' plans. Nor do they show how actual healthcare spending would be influenced (eg. by accounting for the costs associated with getting sick while being uninsured). They don't account for the actual or expected value. They don't account eg. for the savings to be made from getting access to maternal care etc. So, once again: detailed sources please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And surely this is research that should have been carried out by the proponents of Obamacare before implementing the policy...
Eh, no it isn't. It's not even unintentional; young healthy people not being part of the system is one of the problems that needs to be fixed. Like putting an end to the cherry picking by insurers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And yet the main result of the program is that insurance rates are moving toward a midpoint, meaning that young people (who typically paid much lower insurance) are going to pay more while older people (who typically paid higher insurance premiums) will pay less. Some of that increase for young people will be offset for those who are earning poverty wages. But your average adult in their 20s and 30s is going to get royally screwed.
The only way that Obamacare works is if healthy young people are entered into the same pool as the elderly, with absolutely no advantage to the former.
Yes, and again; none of that is unintended. Young healthy people probably can live without the insurance and now are being forced into one. Thus not facing doubled premiums but premiums they never intended to pay. Mutualization of the risk is what the whole thing is about. Some people paying more than they are paying now, and others paying less or seeing premiums come inside their reach is not an accident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You're still ignoring the effect on the much larger share of young people who already had insurance.
No I am not, I also refered to them when I mentioned the cherry picking by insurance companies. People who only pay premiums and don't use services are money trees for insurance companies even at excessively low premiums. They are just a sub-group of the demographic you need to include in a working mutualized health care insurance.
For Pete's sake, how hard is it to understand in a situation where they are even willing to put a fine on not getting insurance.
so you pulled this claim completely out of your ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
anyone shocked by this totally not normal loki behavior?
Are you on drugs? I provided two sources. :bored: Just because they don't take every single factor into account doesn't make them worse than the non-existent sources showing the opposite...
What Hazir said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Loki, insurance rates had been increasing for everyone for years, with 10-20% hikes per year the last decade or so. Millions of people became uninsured when PT work outpaced FT positions (with no benefits), and buying insurance was unaffordable or had pitiful coverage. The young people (you say typically paid lower rates) were likely subsidized by a university, or employer, that could absorb or diffuse rising costs in many ways -- increase employee contributions, reduce salary, cut coverage; raise tuition, hit up state tax payers, close college health clinics, etc. Reminder: your healthcare has been "subsidized" by others your entire life. ;)
FYI: Some of those "low rates" for young people are absorbed by 40-60 year olds, who typically use hospital and speciality services more often. That's how/where delivery profits are captured. But it's not sustainable to keep raising those premiums, even though that demographic typically earns more money. They're likely to have more OOP medical costs, plus financial obligations to children, or even elder parents.
How do you figure that? :confused: The 'average' young adult can now remain on their parents' policy until age 27, if needed. The 'average' full-time employee in their 30's will still have access to special group rates, and employer-subsidized premiums. If they're PT, self-employed, free-lance or contract workers, the Exchanges will give them access to affordable insurance, based on their income, for the first time ever. And if they work for a small business that offers insurance, but their employee contributions exceed 10% of their income, the Exchanges have cheaper options.Quote:
Some of that increase for young people will be offset for those who are earning poverty wages. But your average adult in their 20s and 30s is going to get royally screwed.
That's the rationale for a single-payer system or a NHS. Too many Americans have decided that would be SSSocialized medicine, and would turn the US into a welfare state, or Europe, or something horrible. No politician dares touch the third rail of Medicare, pooling the whole nation regardless of age, since that would be Communism! :rolleyes: The ACA did the next best thing that was politically viable -- by including healthy people in the same pool as the unhealthy. Many young people have very expensive care needs, from premature births to pediatric cancers, Type I Diabetes, spinal cord injuries, Autism, early onset MS.....Quote:
The only way that Obamacare works is if healthy young people are entered into the same pool as the elderly, with absolutely no advantage to the former.
If they already had insurance, and liked its pricing and coverage, they don't need to use the ACA exchanges. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
So you know that the information you're using is incomplete, that a fuller picture could very well disprove your claim, but since the research isn't there yet, you're going to take what is available and twist it into what you want it to be.
Without going into detail for why the articles aren't what you think they are, they are discussing monthly premiums, not total insurance costs. Not once have you mentioned the difference, even though 3 people responding to you have.
stupid low premiums are a great way to get younger people into the system without expecting to pay out. You only need to make sure out of pocket expenses are just out of reach.
Yet dread claims the aca is what's going to kill people :bulb:
So what's the prognosis for the Medicaid doughnut hole?
Did you mean the Medicare donut hole -- or the states who didn't want to expand Medicaid using federal funds?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Medicare D gaps still exist, but there are Medicare supplemental policies folks can buy to help off-set their Rx costs. There are tons of adverts for them, not sure how effective they are, though. Certain pharmacies (like Walmart :mong: ) have set low OOP prices on a list of commonly used meds, that probably helps a lot to get a month's BP med for ten dollars.
The Medicaid gaps have yet to play out, since the MarketPlace exchanges are in the initial registration phase. After that, people can enroll and shop, comparing insurance carriers, policies, prices, tax credits. <I've heard that people are expected to visit the websites ~18 times before they actually purchase a policy.>
Will be interesting to watch southern (R) states, especially Texas. 25% of Texans are uninsured, they have high numbers of working poor/children living in poverty, but they refused federal Medicaid expansion assistance and starting their own state Exchange. It would be one thing if they had a different plan to get more Texans health care, but they don't. :bulb:
It's both interesting and confounding to watch the national Republican party, and certain Republican states denounce the PPACA. They're basically saying that ~ 50 million Americans shouldn't have equal access to health insurance....because that might increase employer-subsidized/employee premiums. They're hot to trot about .gov web site glitches, after limiting congressional funding, and/or refusing to set up their own state exchanges.
Should we discuss losing sight of the forest, because of the trees?
Today joined a preventive health program. Filled out a form about lifestyle etc and provided them with some blood and other bodily excretions for testing. For my bloodpressure I got a (free of charge) bloodpressure meter; I was honestly surprised at how perfectly my measurements were within the parameters for a healthy person, given that I am way too heavy.
Yes, those who don't support massive unaffordable welfare programs and crony capitalism (AKA Obamacare) just want to masturbate to people rotting in the streets.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
How dare anyone question the wisdom of the bureaucrats who are here to save us from ourselves!
Newly created Health Insurance Exchanges aren't "welfare programs". To the contrary, they're meant to give options to the uninsured: those who don't have employer-subsidized insurance, don't qualify for Medicaid "welfare", are too young or 'healthy' for Medicare.....but have been blocked from buying affordable health insurance....by the Insurance Industry and their political cronies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
If we really wanted to get rid of Crony Capitalism in Healthcare, we'd be less accommodating to the private, for-profit Insurance Industry, and their lobbyists....and move toward a single-payer system. Ah, but people like you would call that SSSocialized medicine. :rolleyes:
Question bureaucrats all you want. Complain to your heart's content. Frame it as masturbating to people rotting on the streets. None of that qualifies as having better, alternative options. Being against something, and constantly saying No, without proffering what you're For and how to achieve that...is a losing strategy/tactic.Quote:
How dare anyone question the wisdom of the bureaucrats who are here to save us from ourselves!
:haha: :haha: :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Come on, seriously? The exchanges are designed to hide the cost of subsidies from the top-level price that people are seen. And the exchanges also direct people into the Medicaid welfare program. Just because they package the thing up with a fancy Web site and call it an exchange doesn't mean it's not a welfare program. Oh wait, the site is so fancy it doesn't work too well.
Look, if you don't like the PPACA, then you either don't like your own employer-subsidized, group health insurance benefits, with falsely low premiums....or you don't want others to have access to the same benefits you enjoy. Which is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
What's wrong with informing people they might qualify for Medicaid, and directing them to MMS? Do you also object to parents being informed about subsidized food programs when they enroll their child in public school?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The federal web site had a disastrous debut. Everyone knows that. Probably didn't help that congress underfunded the program, or spent more time trying to repeal the law than making it better. The Republican-controlled states that refused to create their own state exchanges are crying in their own soup. :rolleyes:
Because, combined with the subsidies, it's an example of how the ACA is a fancy welfare program.
But your idea that the ACA is somehow "underfunded" is nonsense. The law is jam-packed with slush funds and billion dollar coding.
http://i43.tinypic.com/1z353xy.png
http://www.alexmarchant.com/blog/201...omparison.html
http://www.alexmarchant.com/blog/201...omparison.html
The subsidies are based on income, so even the working-poor and folks buying their own policies will have access to the same health care that you enjoy. Some of those people will qualify for expanded Medicaid, depending on the state. We're talking about peoples' lives... you can't wave that away by using buzzwords like "welfare". Your own group, employer-subsidied insurance is fancy "corporate welfare". :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The PPACA isn't the website. :rolleyes: That debacle relates to the private contractors (like CGI) and long-standing problems with government procurement. Instead of taking over 40 votes to defund/repeal/delay the law, and shutting down the federal government (costing $25 billion in 16 days) congress should have spent the last 3 1/2 years in oversight and improvements. :bored:Quote:
But your idea that the ACA is somehow "underfunded" is nonsense. The law is jam-packed with slush funds and billion dollar coding.
Democrats controlled the house and the senate when Obama care passed. You can't pin this on Republicans unless your just blindly partisan.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Hello? Republicans passed the unfunded Medicare D program that added to our deficit, and rolled out a totally fucked up website during the Bush administration. Democrats agreed to help fix that mess, even though they'd voted against it, as a matter of bipartisanship and good governance. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to "pin" some of the responsibility on Republicans. Especially since senate minority leader McConnell (R-Ky) stated the main GOP mission was to prevent President Obama from having a 2nd term....and 2012 (R) Presidential hopefuls ran on a platform to repeal-and-replace "Obamacare". Lose/lose. :rolleyes:
It's worth noting that states who created their own health insurance exchanges, including Kentucky, don't have many complaints. What's the Texas excuse gonna be? Your state has one of the highest numbers of uninsured, children living in poverty, and low rankings for maternal/child health and morbidity/mortality. Yet, your governor and legislature refused to (a) expand Medicaid, AND (b) create an insurance Marketplace for Texans. :donkey:
Let me make sure I understand your logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
1. Republicans opposed Obama Care.
2. Republicans campaigned against Obama Care and tried to prevent it from passing, they made it a central piece of their campaign against Obama's 2nd term.
3. Democrats passed Obama Care over the objections from the Republicans that it wasn't going to work, it would cost too much money and American's won't like it.
4. Its the Republicans fault Obama Care isn't working smoothly.
/boggle
That's not "my logic", but a reflection of political reality. Obamacare was designed around Republican theories and initiatives, from Heritage Foundation to RomneyCare in Massachusetts, using the private Insurance Industry to administer health benefits in an open market/exchange....with regulatory requirements for insurance carriers, and mandates for businesses and individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Previous insurance models weren't giving more people better healthcare. Using Hospitals and ERs for primary care, and basic care, was proven unsustainable. Health insurance policies didn't mean "healthcare"....and didn't protect insured people from medical bankruptcies.
Lewk, please answer my question about the State of Texas, and the status of millions of Texans looking for healthcare.
Eh what question? Texas's excuse for the federal government not enforcing immigration laws? Unlike you I don't think its the governments job to provide health care to everyone with a pulse.
The ACA wasn't impacted by shutdowns or sequesters. It's been fully funded as legislated for the past three years. The idea that this is a result of Republican "obstructionism" is nonsense. Democrats broke it; democrats own it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
"It's worth noting that states who created their own health insurance exchanges, including Kentucky, don't have many complaints. What's the Texas excuse gonna be? Your state has one of the highest numbers of uninsured, children living in poverty, and low rankings for maternal/child health and morbidity/mortality. Yet, your governor and legislature refused to (a) expand Medicaid, AND (b) create an insurance Marketplace for Texans."Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
That question. About your home state, with horrible health data compared to other states. Doesn't Texas give a flip about its residents who don't have insurance, preventive or primary care, and enter the system sicker --- using more expensive ER and specialty services? What happened to your previous stance that everyone should have insurance policies and not "mooch" off the ER, since those exorbitant costs are shifted to the insured, and hike everyone's premiums? :donkey:
<BTW, the ACA doesn't "provide" the health care, or even the insurance products -- that's done by the private sector (with the exception of Medicaid administration via MMS). Remember, the Insurance Industry helped craft the law, looking forward to all those new policies and underwriting.>
:picard: You're not reading. I said...."congress should have spent the last 3 1/2 years in oversight and improvements". That is their job! Not wasting time on gridlock and shutdowns and political posturing. It's disingenuous of them to complain about certain aspects of the law at this late date, especially since the 2012 election and SCOTUS reaffirmed the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
That'd be like a senior college student acting shocked they haven't met degree requirements, because they were distracted and busy organizing student protests against freshman year curricula, or something. :rolleyes:
Republicans have been saying for 3+ years its not going to work, its bad and it will hurt the country. They have shouted it from the roof tops and have tried every legislative tactic to stop this from going through.... and now that it is here and doesn't work properly its somehow their fault. Amazing.
Yes, it's amazing...that Republicans were for it, until they were against it....because it wasn't enacted by a Republican congress with a Republican President. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: Had Congress done this, you would have complained that Republicans were trying to undermine the law with endless hearings.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
And yes, HHS is like the college senior you've described. They've spent the past three years spending a fat marketing budget and sitting on a bunch of rules for the utopia they were seeking to build. And now it turns out they aren't ready for the real world.
Actually, thank you, you've sorta outlined a great analogy for the Dept of Health and Human services.
http://news.yahoo.com/sticker-shock-...133652630.html No one saw this coming...
pfft, the insurance carriers saw this coming 3 1/2 years ago, and did a crappy job of educating their policy holders. Same for 'investigative' journalists who chose to cover the politics instead of fully informing the public. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That's not to say the Obama administration did a good job of messaging or information, either. There's no excuse for all the confusion and misinformation flying around right now....that just flames peoples' fears. :down:
*The term cancellation is misleading and downright disingenuous. Individual policies (like the ones mentioned in that yahoo piece) expire every 12 months, then are either renewed -- or not. Those 'renewals' have come with premium increases and/or benefit reductions for years, decades. The individual market was like the Wild West of health insurance, with no protections for the buyer, and nowhere else to go.
*Insurance carriers/medical underwriters could treat a new diagnosis as a pre-existing condition, to shave coverage in the renewal. People need to read the fine print, understand what new 'exclusions of coverage' actually means, and not simply focus on the monthly premiums or deductibles. That's how folks ended up with junk policies and medical bankruptcies.
*"Deductibles" is another term being misused, often conflated with co-pays or OOP costs. Yet another example of the 'chaos' in the individual market, and the Insurance Industry capitalizing on that confusion to sell policies to folks like the Griffins. (Who, btw, will be eligible for Medicare and Medicare supplemental policies in one year.)
*No one is required to use a state or federal exchange, or apply for subsidies. The people in that yahoo story can contact any insurance company to find a policy that suits their needs and budget. They can even stay with their previous carrier -- who had the legal option to Grandfather their old policy year-after-year, as written -- but chose not to. See, third parties know the gig is up for selling new, worthless, cheap, junk policies, that leave people sick or broke. It's just a matter of time and information before the public figures that out, too.
Pretty sure Republicans called it. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
But oh yeah its their fault for this happening. At least according to GGT.
Last I checked almost no Republicans were in favor of a national plan - instead if they liked Romney care they thought it should be handled on a state by state basis. Its amusing how what one Republican governor does in one deep blue state is somehow on the national agenda for the party. Doesn't work that way - and furthermore Obama care does a lot of other crap that wasn't in Romney Care.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT