Obamacare cost...

[Maximus]

Obamacare doesnt increase costs for businesses, obama promises!


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...re_757236.html

[Katy Lied]

The exchanges in Obamacare only apply to those who are in the individual plan market. The rates being discussed are for those people. These aren't rates for group plans. The Republicans have been saying that the rates would come in much higher than what the CBO projected. Well- that's clearly not true. The rates came in lower.

I'm sure you are adjusting your perceptions accordingly rather than dogmatically holding onto incorrect beliefs.

I will explain my earlier comment with this totally made up example:

Say:
20-ers will face individual plan premiums that the CBO projected would go up 300%, but are only going up 250% (estimated)
30-ers will face individual plan premiums that the CBO projected would go up 200%, but are only going up 150%
40-ers will face individual plan premiums that the CBO projected would go up 100%, but are really going up 125%
50-ers will face individual plan premiums that the CBO projected would go up 50%, but will not go up at all
60-ers will face individual plan premiums that the CBO projected would go up 10%, but will actually go down 10%

Rather than publish the rate increases individually, the H&HS report lumps them all in together in their report findings, so that the decreases in projected costs from the 60 group will offset the precipitous increases for the healthier younger group. And they weight this lumped group so that the greater population of the older people will disguise the rate shock for the younger groups. I wasn't referred to the existence of an actual group plan that covers everyone from 18-65.

Now it's their (H&HS) findings, and they can publish their findings however they want, to get the statistics to back whatever they want. The question is why do they go to such great lengths to hide the results from their own data? Who in the heck reads the report and thinks: "I'm not in the least interested in how me and my family will personally be affected. We are just interested in some vague weighted average affect on the entire nation (or at least the nation of people between 20 and 65)"

[byu71]

I will explain my earlier comment with this totally made up example:

Say:
20-ers will face individual plan premiums that the CBO projected would go up 300%, but are only going up 250% (estimated)
30-ers will face individual plan premiums that the CBO projected would go up 200%, but are only going up 150%
40-ers will face individual plan premiums that the CBO projected would go up 100%, but are really going up 125%
50-ers will face individual plan premiums that the CBO projected would go up 50%, but will not go up at all
60-ers will face individual plan premiums that the CBO projected would go up 10%, but will actually go down 10%

Rather than publish the rate increases individually, the H&HS report lumps them all in together in their report findings, so that the decreases in projected costs from the 60 group will offset the precipitous increases for the healthier younger group. And they weight this lumped group so that the greater population of the older people will disguise the rate shock for the younger groups. I wasn't referred to the existence of an actual group plan that covers everyone from 18-65.

Now it's their (H&HS) findings, and they can publish their findings however they want, to get the statistics to back whatever they want. The question is why do they go to such great lengths to hide the results from their own data? Who in the heck reads the report and thinks: "I'm not in the least interested in how me and my family will personally be affected. We are just interested in some vague weighted average affect on the entire nation (or at least the nation of people between 20 and 65)"

It just goes to show you how manipulative, misleading, deceiving politicians and those who support their view will be to fool the naive public. I actually think people can get so locked into their political viewpoint that they can justify in their minds stuff like this obvious deception is OK.

It baffles me how pundits will often talk of what a great politician someone is. Basically what they are praising is the persons ability to lie and get away with it.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I will explain my earlier comment with this totally made up example:

Say:
20-ers will face individual plan premiums that the CBO projected would go up 300%, but are only going up 250% (estimated)
30-ers will face individual plan premiums that the CBO projected would go up 200%, but are only going up 150%
40-ers will face individual plan premiums that the CBO projected would go up 100%, but are really going up 125%
50-ers will face individual plan premiums that the CBO projected would go up 50%, but will not go up at all
60-ers will face individual plan premiums that the CBO projected would go up 10%, but will actually go down 10%

Rather than publish the rate increases individually, the H&HS report lumps them all in together in their report findings, so that the decreases in projected costs from the 60 group will offset the precipitous increases for the healthier younger group. And they weight this lumped group so that the greater population of the older people will disguise the rate shock for the younger groups. I wasn't referred to the existence of an actual group plan that covers everyone from 18-65.

Now it's their (H&HS) findings, and they can publish their findings however they want, to get the statistics to back whatever they want. The question is why do they go to such great lengths to hide the results from their own data? Who in the heck reads the report and thinks: "I'm not in the least interested in how me and my family will personally be affected. We are just interested in some vague weighted average affect on the entire nation (or at least the nation of people between 20 and 65)"

Cali is obfuscating the point that premiums in the individual market are shooting up dramatically under Obamacare year over year. I'm not sure what the point is of saying "look the CBO thought they were going to go 300% but they're only going up 250%." Sure the CBO projections were off, but Obamacare is still killing the 28 year old urban douchbag.

Actually, "killing" might not be the correct term because the 28 year old urban d-bag that doesn't get a subsidy is just going to pay the tax penalty rather than buy health insurance. The 2014 penalty is lol low and even as time goes on, it's still a lot cheaper than the exchange prices.

Which of course means that the exchange prices are going to increase as healthy young people still choose not to buy health insurance and the pool is made up of a bunch of sick people that force the insurance companies to pay through the nose. Think about what's going to happen in 2014 alone, if someone doesn't have insurance and the thought of buying it is the furthest thing from their mind, that tax penalty in 2014 is so small that none of them will be complying with the individual mandate. The money the insurance companies are going to have to pay for the people that do buy the policies on the exchanges from October 1 through 2014 is probably going to be massive. That obviously can't continue, so premiums will either have to go up dramatically or the insurance companies will just avoid the exchanges. When premiums increase, it will just increase the gap between the insurance costs and the tax penalty.

[ERCougar]

Obama should have told the truth about this, no question.
BUT...
there's no way to improve healthcare coverage of old, sick, and poor people without "unfairly" charging the young, healthy, and wealthy. You do it through taxes or you do it through premium increases. But if we want that end (and I think we do--it's part of caring for each other), it's going to cost money. Obamacare has its problems, but having some healthy people to pay something for some sick people isn't one of them.

[byu71]

Obama should have told the truth about this, no question.
BUT...
there's no way to improve healthcare coverage of old, sick, and poor people without "unfairly" charging the young, healthy, and wealthy. You do it through taxes or you do it through premium increases. But if we want that end (and I think we do--it's part of caring for each other), it's going to cost money. Obamacare has its problems, but having some healthy people to pay something for some sick people isn't one of them.

Here is the problem I see and I don't know how you get around this. Healthy young people who have any match skills will pay the fine this year. If they get sick, what a deal they have, they can go get insurance then. So you are actually going to be doing the opposite of the intent. You will be loading the system with the young "sick" ones.

No offense to liberals, but they are so intent on being fair to everyone, they never think of consequences or how to fulfill their lofty dreams for the "fair" society. If in their mind something is "right" then you can borrow or tax to pay for it and it is justified.

Cali's comment on here underscores the mentality. The government has unlimited ability to borrow.

[Indy Coug]

http://www.nationalreview.com/campai...m-jim-geraghty

[imanihonjin]

Cali is obfuscating the point that premiums in the individual market are shooting up dramatically under Obamacare year over year. I'm not sure what the point is of saying "look the CBO thought they were going to go 300% but they're only going up 250%." Sure the CBO projections were off, but Obamacare is still killing the 28 year old urban douchbag.

Actually, "killing" might not be the correct term because the 28 year old urban d-bag that doesn't get a subsidy is just going to pay the tax penalty rather than buy health insurance. The 2014 penalty is lol low and even as time goes on, it's still a lot cheaper than the exchange prices.

Which of course means that the exchange prices are going to increase as healthy young people still choose not to buy health insurance and the pool is made up of a bunch of sick people that force the insurance companies to pay through the nose. Think about what's going to happen in 2014 alone, if someone doesn't have insurance and the thought of buying it is the furthest thing from their mind, that tax penalty in 2014 is so small that none of them will be complying with the individual mandate. The money the insurance companies are going to have to pay for the people that do buy the policies on the exchanges from October 1 through 2014 is probably going to be massive. That obviously can't continue, so premiums will either have to go up dramatically or the insurance companies will just avoid the exchanges. When premiums increase, it will just increase the gap between the insurance costs and the tax penalty.

Lets also not forget that the penalty provision has bark but no bite. There is no enforcement mechanism to require individuals to pay. Sure if you get a refund, the service can collect the penalty (tax according to Justice Roberts and Justice Roberts only) as a reduction to your refund, but if you end up owing at the end of the year, the only thing the IRS can do is ask pretty please. Liens and levies are not an option to collect the Obamacare penalty/tax.

[ERCougar]

Lets also not forget that the penalty provision has bark but no bite. There is no enforcement mechanism to require individuals to pay. Sure if you get a refund, the service can collect the penalty (tax according to Justice Roberts and Justice Roberts only) as a reduction to your refund, but if you end up owing at the end of the year, the only thing the IRS can do is ask pretty please. Liens and levies are not an option to collect the Obamacare penalty/tax.

I agree with you here (and this is about the first time I have in this thread). Without a bite, it destroys the mechanism, and young people are savvy enough (and poor enough) to exploit this. Even paying the penalty every year, were it enforceable, would be cheaper than paying premiums.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Lets also not forget that the penalty provision has bark but no bite. There is no enforcement mechanism to require individuals to pay. Sure if you get a refund, the service can collect the penalty (tax according to Justice Roberts and Justice Roberts only) as a reduction to your refund, but if you end up owing at the end of the year, the only thing the IRS can do is ask pretty please. Liens and levies are not an option to collect the Obamacare penalty/tax.

I think I read about the inability to lien or levy before, but totally forgot about that. Just imagine what will happen when everyone starts adjusting their withholdings so that they either don't get much a refund or owe very little so they can avoid the Obamacare penalty. No more interest free loans to the IRS, and the IRS is going to have to go after a lot more people owing a few hundred extra dollars at the end of the year.

[CardiacCoug]

Here is the problem I see and I don't know how you get around this. Healthy young people who have any match skills will pay the fine this year. If they get sick, what a deal they have, they can go get insurance then. So you are actually going to be doing the opposite of the intent. You will be loading the system with the young "sick" ones.

No offense to liberals, but they are so intent on being fair to everyone, they never think of consequences or how to fulfill their lofty dreams for the "fair" society. If in their mind something is "right" then you can borrow or tax to pay for it and it is justified.

Cali's comment on here underscores the mentality. The government has unlimited ability to borrow.

Yep, it's like that Freakonomics example where a day care starts charging $5 to people who don't pick their kids up on time assuming that late pick-ups would decrease. Instead the late pick-ups skyrocket.

For smart people the risk of having a medical catastrophe and then being broke and uninsurable disappears in 2014, so healthy people might even be less likely to get insurance than before. Crazy.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Yep, it's like that Freakonomics example where a day care starts charging $5 to people who don't pick their kids up on time assuming that late pick-ups would decrease. Instead the late pick-ups skyrocket.

For smart people the risk of having a medical catastrophe and then being broke and uninsurable disappears in 2014, so healthy people might even be less likely to get insurance than before. Crazy.

Don't the health care exchanges have an enrollment period -- I think between October and January? I don't think it will be quite so easy to just sign up for insurance the day after you get in auto accident and become a paraplegic (unless it's in open enrollment period).

But that risk has always been there and the penalty isn't even close to enough to entice people who didn't already have at least catastrophic coverage before to all of a sudden pony up more money for a bronze plan now.

Couple that with apparently no enforcement mechanism beyond an offset of someone's tax refund, and you've got little incentive to buy health insurance beyond whatever incentives exist now.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-tax-penalty/

It's pretty funny when you think about it.

I'm not sure about individual health plans -- can you be kicked off an individual plan if you develop a long term illness? I'm talking pre-Obamacare here, but what happens if in year 1 you get a cheap individual plan and then in year 5 you develop diabetes. Can they kick you out after year 5?

I was always under the impression that they couldn't do that nor could they dramatically raise your rates the next year. Therefore there was an incentive to get health insurance while you were healthy and keep it in the event that you developed something like a heart condition or diabetes in the future.

Just imagine the incentives now. If you know you can just sign up later on if you develop diabetes or whatever, there's no reason to get it right now.

[Pelado]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-tax-penalty/

It's pretty funny when you think about it.

I'm not sure about individual health plans -- can you be kicked off an individual plan if you develop a long term illness? I'm talking pre-Obamacare here, but what happens if in year 1 you get a cheap individual plan and then in year 5 you develop diabetes. Can they kick you out after year 5?

I was always under the impression that they couldn't do that nor could they dramatically raise your rates the next year. Therefore there was an incentive to get health insurance while you were healthy and keep it in the event that you developed something like a heart condition or diabetes in the future.

Just imagine the incentives now. If you know you can just sign up later on if you develop diabetes or whatever, there's no reason to get it right now.

They had lifetime limits (typically $1MM - $2MM in this market) and they could adjust your premiums from year to year, though there may have been a maximum percentage they were allowed to increase from year to year.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

They had lifetime limits (typically $1MM - $2MM in this market) and they could adjust your premiums from year to year, though there may have been a maximum percentage they were allowed to increase from year to year.

I talked to an insurance guy and there was a cap on the percentage increase from year to year. Eventually they could nail you, but in the meantime you (over several years) and/or your spouse could just take a job someplace else and get onto group coverage.