Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[carlfense]

Much lower costs than expected!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/24/wonkbook-some-very-good-news-for-obamacare/

[Junior]

Much lower costs than expected!

http://www.washingto...-for-obamacare/

 

Tyranny! Freedom of religion! Death panels! AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

[carlfense]

Benghazi.

[StPaulHusker]

Enter conservative negative explanation here_______________________________________________________________________.

[Husker_x]

Thanks Obama.

[TGHusker]

Carl, that will be good news if it pans out. I'm trying to reconcile the reports of costs overruns with your article. Perhaps someone has insight as I don't have time to jump into it.

Perhaps the cost overruns just affects implementation and does not affect or add to the actual policy prices paid by consumers

Here is a related article about the Calif Exchange program. Some major insurance companies sitting on the sidelines right now. Not sure if that will have a long term affect or not

on policy prices.

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-insure-20130523,0,1895918.story

[rawhide]

Forbes outlook on ACA:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2012/07/24/how-much-is-the-obamacare-mandate-going-to-cost-you/

[JJ Husker]

It would appear that it's not all sunshine and roses, not yet anyway. Seems a few posters need to check out rawhides link and this one http://cdn-files.soa...-aca-report.pdf

 

A couple excerpts of their findings from the "Cost of the Future Newly Insured under the Affordable Care Act (ACA)" by the Society Of Actuaries;

 

Finding 1: After three years of exchanges and insurer restrictions, the percentage of uninsured nationally will decrease from 16.6 percent to between 6.8 and 6.6 percent, compared to pre-ACA projections. *Not bad news on the face, especially for the uninsured.*

 

Finding 2: Under the ACA, the individual non-group market will grow 115 percent, from 11.9 million to 25.6 million lives; 80 percent of that enrollment will be in the Exchanges. *Again, taken at face value, not necessarily bad news*

 

Finding 3: The non-group cost per member per month will increase 32 percent under ACA, compared to pre-ACA projections. *Whoa, wait a minute. You mean adding a bunch of uninsured people is going to cost everybody more? Who woulda thought?*

 

Hopefully the OP's linked WonkBlog article ends up being closer to reality than my linked study by actuaries (the guys who actually determine what rates insurance companies will charge). Maybe the government can simply ignore real world supply-demand & cost-benefit numbers (the government is very good at ignoring reality) but, something tells me they can't subsidize them forever.

[carlfense]

Forbes outlook on ACA:

 

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

That's from almost a year ago. We're seeing real numbers coming in now.

[carlfense]

Finding 1: After three years of exchanges and insurer restrictions, the percentage of uninsured nationally will decrease from 16.6 percent to between 6.8 and 6.6 percent, compared to pre-ACA projections. *Not bad news on the face, especially for the uninsured.*

That's quite the understatement.

 

Finding 2: Under the ACA, the individual non-group market will grow 115 percent, from 11.9 million to 25.6 million lives; 80 percent of that enrollment will be in the Exchanges. *Again, taken at face value, not necessarily bad news*

Again.

 

Finding 3: The non-group cost per member per month will increase 32 percent under ACA, compared to pre-ACA projections. *Whoa, wait a minute. You mean adding a bunch of uninsured people is going to cost everybody more? Who woulda thought?*

That would be why revenue is included in the ACA. (The same revenues quietly embraced by the GOP through the Ryan Budget.)

 

Maybe the government can simply ignore real world supply-demand & cost-benefit numbers (the government is very good at ignoring reality) but, something tells me they can't subsidize them forever.

What's that now? Supply and demand of what?

[JJ Husker]

Carl- the point of that supply-demand phrase was to display that typically government administered programs aren't governed by real world forces. I suppose in a way that is, or needs to be, inevitable with something like healthcare.

 

Don't misunderstand my pessimism. I hope this ACA deal works out like gangbusters. If it does, I'll gladly eat some crow and congratulate Mr. Obama. 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. 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. 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.

 

Like I said, I hope it works out because I personally need some relief on healthcare premiums and I know many other people are in the same leak filled boat.

[rawhide]

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

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/07/look-out-below-the-obamacare-chaos-is-coming/

 

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

[Junior]

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.

 

Please expand on this. I'm curious in what ways you think that the bill was rammed through and how people had no idea what they were implementing. Could you provide examples and sources for this?

[gobiggergoredder]

Forbes outlook on ACA:

 

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

 

What is Forbes? I prefer Wonkblog.

[gobiggergoredder]

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.

 

Please expand on this. I'm curious in what ways you think that the bill was rammed through and how people had no idea what they were implementing. Could you provide examples and sources for this?