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.

[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.

[Someone]

It is official:

 

54% don't like Obamacare.

 

Of the 54%, 16% oppose it because it doesn't go far enough.

 

That means 38% doesn't like it for some other reasons.

 

In Minn, this is the headline today: Obamacare: It's not news when the train doesn't wreck

 

Here is another good bit of Capitalism on the Obamacare front. (Hint: Better Data = Better Outcomes)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/opinion/sunday/friedman-obamacares-other-surprise.html?_r=1&

[Someone]

If you need a perscription come 2014, should you call the IRS?

 

 

This week, the National Republican Congressional Committee seems to have shifted into full-tilt desperation mode with this 'mobile billboard' attack aimed at a man who voted against Obamacare.

 

Have integrity and honesty lost all meaning? Is knee-jerk opposition to everything Barack Obama says valued more than developing real public policy?

[TGHusker]

Since there has been discussion on Forbes - here is another article on the subject.

Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146%

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

 

A portion of the article explains the sleight-of-hand that Carl exalts in the OP.

 

But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.

Lee’s claims that there won’t be rate shock in California were repeated uncritically in some quarters. “Despite the political naysayers,” writes my Forbes colleague Rick Ungar, “the healthcare exchange concept appears to be working very well indeed in states like California.” A bit more analysis would have prevented Rick from falling for California’s sleight-of-hand.

Here’s what happened. Last week, Covered California—the name for the state’s Obamacare-compatible insurance exchange—released the rates that Californians will have to pay to enroll in the exchange.

“The rates submitted to Covered California for the 2014 individual market,” the state said in a press release, “ranged from two percent above to 29 percent below the 2013 average premium for small employer plans in California’s most populous regions.”

That’s the sentence that led to all of the triumphant commentary from the left. “This is a home run for consumers in every region of California,” exulted Peter Lee.

Except that Lee was making a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples—the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market—and oranges—the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical.

Obamacare to double individual-market premiums

If you’re a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month. (That’s the median monthly premium across California’s 19 insurance rating regions.)

The next cheapest plan, the “bronze” comprehensive plan, costs $205 a month. But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com (NASDAQ:EHTH), the average cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92.

In other words, for the average 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.

Under Obamacare, only people under the age of 30 can participate in the slightly cheaper catastrophic plan. So if you’re 40, your cheapest option is the bronze plan. In California, the median price of a bronze plan for a 40-year-old male non-smoker will be $261.

But on eHealthInsurance, the average cost of the five cheapest plans was $121. That is, Obamacare will increase individual-market premiums by an average of 116 percent.

For both 25-year-olds and 40-year-olds, then, Californians under Obamacare who buy insurance for themselves will see their insurance premiums double.

 

Spinning a public-relations disaster

It’s great that Covered California released this early the rates that insurers plan to charge on the exchange, as it gives us an early window into how the exchanges will work in a state that has an unusually competitive and inexpensive individual market for health insurance. But that’s the irony. The full rate report is subtitled “Making the Individual Market in California Affordable.” But Obamacare has actually doubled individual-market premiums in the Golden State.

How did Lee and his colleagues explain the sleight-of-hand they used to make it seem like they were bringing prices down, instead of up? “It is difficult to make a direct comparison of these rates to existing premiums in the commercial individual market,” Covered California explained in last week’s press release, “because in 2014, there will be new standard benefit designs under the Affordable Care Act.” That’s a polite way of saying that Obamacare’s mandates and regulations will drive up the cost of premiums in the individual market for health insurance.

But rather than acknowledge that truth, the agency decided to ignore it completely, instead comparing Obamacare-based insurance to a completely different type of insurance product, that bears no relevance to the actual costs that actual Californians face when they shop for coverage today. Peter Lee calls it a “home run.” It’s more like hitting into a triple play.

Obama attacked insurers in 2010 for much smaller increases

That Obamacare more than doubles insurance premiums for many Californians is especially ironic, given the political posturing of the President and his administration in 2010. In February of that year, Anthem Blue Cross announced that some groups (but not the majority) would face premium increases of as much as 39 percent. The White House and its allies in the blogosphere, cynically, claimed that these increases were due to greedy profiteering by the insurers, instead of changes in the underlying costs of the insured population.

 

Related links:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-24/california-fudges-the-math-on-obamacare.html

http://conservativeintel.com/2013/05/23/calif-under-obamacare-bare-bones-coverage-will-cost-twice-as-much-for-some/#

http://washingtonexaminer.com/dont-be-fooled-by-californias-premium-claims/article/2530379

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349732/obamacare-california-yuval-levin

[huKSer]

Forbes outlook on ACA:

 

http://www.forbes.co...ng-to-cost-you/

 

What is Forbes? I prefer Wonkblog.

I prefer Mad Magazine

[carlfense]

A portion of the article explains the sleight-of-hand that Carl exalts in the OP.

No . . . your quoted Forbes link references a press release from Covered California that compared individual rates to employer rates.

 

The link in the OP compares CBO and Milliman estimates of individual rates to actual individual rates.

 

 

 

It's not sleight of hand . . . you're simply talking about something else entirely. Looks like the apples to oranges criticism of the Covered California press release checks out . . . but that doesn't really apply to the OP. Exalt that.

[TGHusker]

Let's revisit this in 2014 when it is implemented and see

[carlfense]

Let's revisit this in 2014 when it is implemented and see

Yep.

 

My guess: some success and some failure. It'd be nice if a certain political group would work constructively to improve it . . . but I won't hold my breath.

[Junior]

Let's revisit this in 2014 when it is implemented and see

Yep.

 

My guess: some success and some failure. It'd be nice if a certain political group would work constructively to improve it . . . but I won't hold my breath.

 

You mean the group who's stated goal is to make Obama fail?

[carlfense]

You mean the group who's stated goal is to make Obama fail?

Yep. Also the same group who sees a political incentive in making the rest of the government (not just Obamacare) function as poorly as possible.

[TGHusker]

Let's revisit this in 2014 when it is implemented and see

Yep.

 

My guess: some success and some failure. It'd be nice if a certain political group would work constructively to improve it . . . but I won't hold my breath.

I'm all for the all political groups to work together to improve it - I wish Obama would have not have shut out the repubs and got them more involved and not just at the 'token' level. As it was, this is a 100% democrat bill.

[carlfense]

I'm all for the all political groups to work together to improve it

Me too. That's why it saddens me that the leaders of one party say that the only option is to get rid of it entirely. That's not going to happen . . . so let's make it work.

 

I wish Obama would have not have shut out the repubs and got them more involved and not just at the 'token' level.

Obama desperately wanted Republicans to join in the process. They were (and remain) uninterested.

 

As it was, this is a 100% democrat bill.

By votes yes. The contents of the law? Well, that looks pretty conservative . . . for better or for worse.

[TGHusker]

I'm all for the all political groups to work together to improve it

Me too. That's why it saddens me that the leaders of one party say that the only option is to get rid of it entirely. That's not going to happen . . . so let's make it work.

 

I wish Obama would have not have shut out the repubs and got them more involved and not just at the 'token' level.

Obama desperately wanted Republicans to join in the process. They were (and remain) uninterested.

 

As it was, this is a 100% democrat bill.

By votes yes. The contents of the law? Well, that looks pretty conservative . . . for better or for worse.

Carl please explain how ObamaCare looks pretty conservative. What would you do different to make it less conservative?

Thanks