Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[carlfense]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/06/finally-the-actual-prices-for-insurance-under-obamacare/

 

hmmmm . . .

[HuskerLuke]

So I should go out and buy a walker now because I'll probably need one in 60 years?

What?

 

That was basically my reaction to you saying something to effect of, young people need comprehensive health insurance now because they'll eventually get old. Of course they will, and as they do, it makes sense that they'll upgrade their plans. I'm talking about now. It makes no sense for me to buy a walker now because I don't need one. It makes no sense for me to shell out a ton of money for insurance I don't need right now either.

 

Who, exactly, are you speaking for?

 

Anyone in good health who doesn't want to pay a lot of extra money for additional coverage that they do not need.

 

 

But in reality you don't actually have the relevant numbers. You have a teaser rate that you're comparing to some random bronze level plan. (I bet that I could guess why the amount that your employer currently pays for your premium isn't being compared to that same bronze level plan . . . )

 

My employer pays $2895 annually for my health insurance. However that's the "A" or gold plan that our office manager decided would be provided to all the employees. The "C" or bronze plan costs $1998, or 25% less than the same thing under ObamaCare.

 

Where your argument falls apart is when/if you try to extrapolate that to the bigger picture and say that it's bad legislation or worse than the status quo.

 

That ObamaCare is a terrible deal for young people is not a localized problem with the law. Young people are being forced into buying insurance that they don't need at inflated prices for one reason and it's not because Obama is just a big meanie. The system set up under ObamaCare needs young healthy people who rarely use the healthcare system to pay into that system regardless. This "tax" if you will helps offset losses in other areas, namely the fact that sick people who could not be insured before now are. The entire success or failure of ObamaCare hinges on whether young people are willing to eat this crap sandwich they've been handed and are willing to act as the subsidizers for the rest of the system---and I don't think they will. That's the broader impact of the fleecing of the young and healthy that I've been pointing out today..

 

EDIT: Missed your graph. I'm not exactly sure what the point of it is though. The pre-subsidies rates are at or above current market rates for the same types of insurance. Additonally, as a 40 year old man, assuming I didn't have any major medical issues, I would still opt for the far cheaper catastrophic coverage rather than the "bronze" plan if I had a choice.

[carlfense]

That was basically my reaction to you saying something to effect of, young people need comprehensive health insurance now because they'll eventually get old.

Eh?

 

Anyone in good health who doesn't want to pay a lot of extra money for additional coverage that they do not need.

You must have a heckuva crystal ball.

 

 

My employer pays $2895 annually for my health insurance. However that's the "A" or gold plan that our office manager decided would be provided to all the employees. The "C" or bronze plan costs $1998, or 25% less than the same thing under ObamaCare.

That doesn't sound nearly as dramatic as 700%(!!!!).

 

That ObamaCare is a terrible deal for young people is not a localized problem with the law. Young people are being forced into buying insurance that they don't need at inflated prices for one reason and it's not because Obama is just a big meanie. The system set up under ObamaCare needs young healthy people who rarely use the healthcare system to pay into that system regardless. This "tax" if you will helps offset losses in other areas, namely the fact that sick people who could not be insured before now are. The entire success or failure of ObamaCare hinges on whether young people are willing to eat this crap sandwich they've been handed and are willing to act as the subsidizers for the rest of the system---and I don't think they will. That's the broader impact of the fleecing of the young and healthy that I've been pointing out today..

Fortunately, we'll get the chance to see who is right and who is wrong.

 

EDIT: Missed your graph. I'm not exactly sure what the point of it is though. The pre-subsidies rates are at or above current market rates for the same types of insurance. Additonally, as a 40 year old man, assuming I didn't have any major medical issues, I would still opt for the far cheaper catastrophic coverage rather than the "bronze" plan if I had a choice.

Again . . . it's interesting that you'd focus on pre-subsidy rates. It's almost like you're actively trying to make the law look as bad as possible. It's somewhat surprising that as truly terrible as Obamacare truly is that it would require such cherry picking to levy criticism.

[HuskerLuke]

You must have a heckuva crystal ball.

 

It's not really a crystal ball, it's just balancing costs with probablilities. I'm basically spending $2000 less on a premium and taking the risk that nothing serious will go wrong. If nothing serious goes wrong, I'm up probably $1500 in a given year. If something goes wrong, I'm probably $2000-$3000 down vs buying more comprehensive coverage. Considering I've lived 24 years and never had to have been hospitalized for any reason, I will take those odds all day long.

 

That doesn't sound nearly as dramatic as 700%(!!!!).

 

I don't mean to be edgy, but you understand the difference between accepting a benefit associated with employment and paying out of pocket for my own insurance right? If someone else is willing to pay to give me excellent insurance, I'm not going to turn them down.

 

Fortunately, we'll get the chance to see who is right and who is wrong.

 

That we will.

 

Again . . . it's interesting that you'd focus on pre-subsidy rates. It's almost like you're actively trying to make the law look as bad as possible. It's somewhat surprising that as truly terrible as Obamacare truly is that it would require such cherry picking to levy criticism.

 

Someone has to pay for those subsidies. It's not free money. I don't think you'll disagree that our health care expenses are far too high in this country, so why on earth wouldn't we count them as actual expenses?

[carlfense]

Considering I've lived 24 years and never had to have been hospitalized for any reason, I will take those odds all day long.

Good luck to you.

 

I don't mean to be edgy, but you understand the difference between accepting a benefit associated with employment and paying out of pocket for my own insurance right?

I understand the desire of some to make the ACA look like a catastrophe by whatever misleading means necessary.

 

Someone has to pay for those subsidies. It's not free money. I don't think you'll disagree that our health care expenses are far too high in this country, so why on earth wouldn't we count them as actual expenses?

I don't recall ever saying that no one has to pay for those subsidies. You do realize where they are coming from, right? You seemed quite interested in focusing on the costs that would be paid out of pocket by a young, single, male. It's only fair that we use the correct number, right?

 

Also . . . this is an interesting complaint from someone whose backup plan is to become a Medicaid "taker."

[HuskerLuke]

I understand the desire of some to make the ACA look like a catastrophe by whatever misleading means necessary.

 

How is it misleading to say that under ObamaCare young people will spend (if they participate) far more than they ordinarily would because the law forces them to buy more insurance than they need at over-market prices? Heck, at various points in this thread you've either outright or come pretty close to admitting that's true. You clearly think the healthcare law is good despite this, but it's hardly misleading to point this out as a flaw.

 

I don't recall ever saying that no one has to pay for those subsidies. You do realize where they are coming from, right? You seemed quite interested in focusing on the costs that would be paid out of pocket by a young, single, male. It's only fair that we use the correct number, right?

 

The "correct" number depends on how much said young, single, male makes in a year.

 

The lower your income, the larger your subsidy. For instance, those making $17,235 a year will pay no more than 4% of income, or $57 a month, while those with incomes between $34,470 and $45,960 will pay a maximum of 9.5% of income, or $364 a month. The federal government will cover the rest. Anyone earning more than $45,960 would be responsible for the entire tab on the Obamacare health plan of his choice.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news/economy/obamacare-subsidies/index.html

 

Also . . . this is an interesting complaint from someone whose backup plan is to become a Medicaid "taker."

The vast majority of people in this new system are takers. In any case if it makes you feel more comfortable, should I find myself needing to self-insure, I would likely buy catastrophic (not approved by ObamaCare) coverage, and reduce the taxes withheld from my paycheck to avoid the ObamaCare penalty.

[JJ Husker]

Well my company received health insurance renewal information today. Our renewal date is January 1st. However, we have the option of renewing sooner, Dec 1 or Nov 1, which would buy us another year before being subjected to ACA changes. The real meat & potatoes;

 

If we renew Nov 1, premiums increase 13%

If we renew Dec 1, premiums increase 14%

If we renew Jan 1 (when the ACA aka Obamacare is in effect) premiums increase 38.8%

 

Boy, things are really looking up. Now to decide if we renew in December and drop health insurance next December or just get it out of the way and drop it now. This Obamacare deal is just great. Actually, I really don't care. Dropping it will save me a ton of time worrying about it and comparing plans.

How long had your premium costs been declining prior to this?

 

I think you missed the point. Yes, premiums have been increasing annually in the 12%-15% range for quite a few years. You must not have noticed that on the day Obamacare kicks in, January 1, 2014, the increase would be 38.8% and not a mere 14%. You can poo poo that kind of increase all you want, I suppose, but for some of us, it indicates things went from bad to much worse.

 

How many of your living expenses would you like to see increase 38.8% overnight?

[carlfense]

I think you missed the point. Yes, premiums have been increasing annually in the 12%-15% range for quite a few years. You must not have noticed that on the day Obamacare kicks in, January 1, 2014, the increase would be 38.8% and not a mere 14%. You can poo poo that kind of increase all you want, I suppose, but for some of us, it indicates things went from bad to much worse.

 

How many of your living expenses would you like to see increase 38.8% overnight?

We'll have to wait and see what it does over time.

[carlfense]

How is it misleading to say that under ObamaCare young people will spend (if they participate) far more than they ordinarily would because the law forces them to buy more insurance than they need at over-market prices?

Repeatedly stating these as facts doesn't make them facts.

 

 

The "correct" number depends on how much said young, single, male makes in a year.

Agreed! That's a bit different than ignoring them because they are inconvenient to a narrative.

 

The vast majority of people in this new system are takers.

Eh?

[JJ Husker]

I think you missed the point. Yes, premiums have been increasing annually in the 12%-15% range for quite a few years. You must not have noticed that on the day Obamacare kicks in, January 1, 2014, the increase would be 38.8% and not a mere 14%. You can poo poo that kind of increase all you want, I suppose, but for some of us, it indicates things went from bad to much worse.

 

How many of your living expenses would you like to see increase 38.8% overnight?

We'll have to wait and see what it does over time.

 

Sort of. We'll sure have to wait to see if it ever gets any better but we won't have to wait to see that it will be much worse in it's first year of existence. 38.8% instead of 14%. Even with rudimentary math skill any person should be able to see that is about 24.8% worse. Just imagine if a couple more of your biggest expenses jumped an additional 24%. That's a pretty tough pill to swallow for the average taxpayer.

[carlfense]

Sort of. We'll sure have to wait to see if it ever gets any better but we won't have to wait to see that it will be much worse in it's first year of existence. 38.8% instead of 14%. Even with rudimentary math skill any person should be able to see that is about 24.8% worse. Just imagine if a couple more of your biggest expenses jumped an additional 24%. That's a pretty tough pill to swallow for the average taxpayer.

The only problem with your logic is that we don't know what the rates would have been without the ACA.

 

You can claim that they were going to be much lower. I could claim that they were going to be much higher (but I won't). Neither of us can prove it up.

[JJ Husker]

Sort of. We'll sure have to wait to see if it ever gets any better but we won't have to wait to see that it will be much worse in it's first year of existence. 38.8% instead of 14%. Even with rudimentary math skill any person should be able to see that is about 24.8% worse. Just imagine if a couple more of your biggest expenses jumped an additional 24%. That's a pretty tough pill to swallow for the average taxpayer.

The only problem with your logic is that we don't know what the rates would have been without the ACA.

 

You can claim that they were going to be much lower. I could claim that they were going to be much higher (but I won't). Neither of us can prove it up.

 

Why can't this be proven? Our renewals; Nov 1- 13%, Dec 1- 14%, Jan 1- 38.8%. I'm no Rhodes scholar but deductive reasoning tells me that, without the ACA, our Jan 1 renewal would've been about 15%. There is no other logical explanation for the sudden 24% jump. And historically it has been approximately 1% per month for oh about the last 5 years at least. On top of that, our insurance broker has stated that implementation of the ACA is the sole reason for the sudden jump. If you can't tie that 24% jump to Obamacare, you have some motive other than facts and the truth.

[carlfense]

Why can't this be proven? Our renewals; Nov 1- 13%, Dec 1- 14%, Jan 1- 38.8%. I'm no Rhodes scholar but deductive reasoning tells me that, without the ACA, our Jan 1 renewal would've been about 15%. There is no other logical explanation for the sudden 24% jump. And historically it has been approximately 1% per month for oh about the last 5 years at least. On top of that, our insurance broker has stated that implementation of the ACA is the sole reason for the sudden jump. If you can't tie that 24% jump to Obamacare, you have some motive other than facts and the truth.

Are those renewal times of Nov. 1 and Dec. 1 that you refer to in 2013? I'm no Rhodes scholar but a look at the calendar tells me that the ACA was passed about 3 years prior to those dates.

 

Then again, I'm sure that those insurance companies aren't accounting for the ACA already . . . just like you as a small business owner are ignoring it, right?

 

 

 

Perhaps I'm missing something and you can show what the Nov. 1 and Dec. 1 rates would have been if the ACA wasn't passed years ago. If not, you must be less than interested in "facts and the truth."

[JJ Husker]

Carl- the Nov 1, 2013 and Dec 1, 2013 renewals are not subject to the implementation of the ACA. If we renew on either of those two dates, it would be in a plan that does not have to comply with the ACA for another twelve months. That is why our broker is offering early renewal this time around. My agent told me specifically that all of their small groups are either renewing early (prior to Jan 1, 2014) or dropping their company sponsored healthinsurance all together. BTW she used the word "all" not most or many but all. The 24% jump is absolutely and directly attributable to Obamacare implementation. Plans renewing prior to January 1st get to operate for another twelve months without complying with the ACA.

[carlfense]

Carl- the Nov 1, 2013 and Dec 1, 2013 renewals are not subject to the implementation of the ACA. If we renew on either of those two dates, it would be in a plan that does not have to comply with the ACA for another twelve months. That is why our broker is offering early renewal this time around. My agent told me specifically that all of their small groups are either renewing early (prior to Jan 1, 2014) or dropping their company sponsored healthinsurance all together. BTW she used the word "all" not most or many but all. The 24% jump is absolutely and directly attributable to Obamacare implementation. Plans renewing prior to January 1st get to operate for another twelve months without complying with the ACA.

Oh, I don't doubt that your insurance company wants to operate under the existing rules for as long as possible. That doesn't mean that the Dec. 1, 2013 rate would remain the same absent Obamacare. Considering the trend on health spending . . . I'd be surprised if someone couldn't credibly argue that the Dec. 1 rate would be higher if the ACA wasn't enacted.