Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[Junior]

I fell Obamacare is not good for the U.S. not because I dislike Obama but I do not feel the Gov. should have as much control over our lives as they appear they think they need. I am pretty sure there is a term for the type of this leadership but it slips my mind. Anyway, to be clear there are a few things that Obaamacare could help in my life say I would try to get a job somewhere else. With my two major health concerns with me personally an Ins co or Employer wouldn't be able to reject me for coverage under this policy. But, I still don't think that it is fair to all or even the majority of Americans.

 

 

Can you please expand on how it is unfair to the majority of Americans? That's not a baiting question, it's an honest inquiry. I'd like to know why, specifically, you think it is unfair.

[carlfense]

Or else we could always delve into the math behind the ACA, in which case we'd find out who really is thoughtless here.

You have my attention. What do you have in mind?

[sd'sker]

kj seems to like the idea that ACA is a redistribution of wealth from one person to another, but it is also a redistribution of wealth from when you are healthy to when you are not. everyone will eventually need health insurance, so one way to make it cheaper for when you need it is to pay for it when you do not. so that way it is not unlike the principles behind social security. it is a redistribution of wealth, but from past healthy you to future unhealthy you.

again, this is how the bigger the pool the better. healthy people pay for others when others need it, and then others pay for them when they need it. it is enlightened self-interest.

[TGHusker]

kj seems to like the idea that ACA is a redistribution of wealth from one person to another, but it is also a redistribution of wealth from when you are healthy to when you are not. everyone will eventually need health insurance, so one way to make it cheaper for when you need it is to pay for it when you do not. so that way it is not unlike the principles behind social security. it is a redistribution of wealth, but from past healthy you to future unhealthy you.

again, this is how the bigger the pool the better. healthy people pay for others when others need it, and then others pay for them when they need it. it is enlightened self-interest.

Thoughtful and thought provoking post

[Someone]

Ouch . . . CNSNews ("The Right News. Right Now."). Click the source link and you'll see that these are all hypothetical numbers used to "provide guidance on the liability for the shared responsibility payment . . .". The IRS proposed regulation (not final regulation as claimed in the very first sentence) does NOT assume that the cheapest family plan is $20,000. That's flat out false . . . and they provide the link disproving their own claims.

 

I guess they know that their readers won't bother checking the facts.

 

Just wanted to add more fuel to the discussion. I don't think anyone knows where rates will end up until it is fully implemented.

Carl, there is a lot of misinformation being thrown out there from both sides - prices will be cheaper, prices will be higher, etc My link was just part of the chatter. 2014 will tell all IMHO.

 

Carl, there is a lot of misinformation being thrown out there from both sides - prices will be cheaper, prices will be higher, etc My link was just part of the chatter. 2014 will tell all IMHO.

Nothing wrong is throwing chatter out there to discuss the merits or non-merits. Isn't that what the forum is all about? Your OP is part of the chatter - There is no guaranty where the prices will end up at this point with all of the claims and counter claims.

On page 1194 of the ACA, it states that if you have been in a nursing home for more than 3 years, the government can harvest your organs for transplant in healthy people.

 

I just want to add more fuel to the discussion. There is a lot of misinformation being thrown out there. Nothing wrong is throwing chatter out there to discuss the merits or non-merits. The fact the ACA doesn't allow the government to take your organs or do much to change nursing home care or even have 1194 pages in no way should change the validity of tossing this chatter onto the steaming pile of 'discussion fuel'.

[Someone]

Is the phrase overused? Sure, maybe. But that doesn't take away anything from the meaning of it.

Definitely a cliche, IMO. It's a bumper sticker phrase.

 

And why the hell would I want to talk about job creators? Am I missing something there? I don't see what job creators has to do with this exchange you and I have going based on your disappointment in my choice in vocabulary.

Because it's another easily repeatable catchphrase that can be thoughtlessly regurgitated.

Ok. If you feel the need to attack the phrase and its abuse by politicians or news outlets, that's fine. I don't follow or read anything about politics, so you're probably right that it typically just gets used as a catch phrase.

 

But don't use the misuse of the phrase by others as any sort of a contradictory point to my original post. Or else we could always delve into the math behind the ACA, in which case we'd find out who really is thoughtless here.

So I am thinking, if I am rich and unhealthy and my individual rates go DOWN under Obama care, it is a redistribution of wealth from healthy (and poor or rich) to me, since I am paying less and keep more $$?

 

What about Medicare Part A & B? There is no health based rate difference for Medicare Part A. Everyone who turns 65 gets to sign up and enjoy the same Part B rates regardless of health and pre-existing conditions. It Medicare a redistribution of wealth?

 

Also, what about the 44% to 55% of Americans that have employment based Group Health Insurance? Is that redistribution of wealth? I have to pay the same rates as my co-workers who are my age, even though I am fit and run marathons and some of them are 260 lb slugs with high blood pressure everything else you can imagine. Is employer based group health insurance redistribution of wealth?

 

It would seem that the majority of people who now have health insurance are NOT paying based on individual underwritting. Has this health insurance based redistribution of wealth problem been something you were concerned about before ACA?

[TGHusker]

Someone's quote:

 

So I am thinking, if I am rich and unhealthy and my individual rates go DOWN under Obama care, it is a redistribution of wealth from healthy (and poor or rich) to me, since I am paying less and keep more $$?

 

What about Medicare Part A & B? There is no health based rate difference for Medicare Part A. Everyone who turns 65 gets to sign up and enjoy the same Part B rates regardless of health and pre-existing conditions. It Medicare a redistribution of wealth?

 

Also, what about the 44% to 55% of Americans that have employment based Group Health Insurance? Is that redistribution of wealth? I have to pay the same rates as my co-workers who are my age, even though I am fit and run marathons and some of them are 260 lb slugs with high blood pressure everything else you can imagine. Is employer based group health insurance redistribution of wealth?

 

It would seem that the majority of people who now have health insurance are NOT paying based on individual underwritting. Has this health insurance based redistribution of wealth problem been something you were concerned about before ACA?

 

 

 

OK Carl and Someone - I get your point!! One point I do want to make is that I might read something from various sources and it 'appears' worth discussing. Someone else may come up with other info to dispute it - it seems that is how we learn if our point is valid or not. I don't think any of us have a corner on all of the facts and I think that is what the forum is about.

[Someone]

I think the key, TG, is to have a filter and THINK things through.

 

"Gullibility

is a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action"

--such a repeating it as fact on a message board.

 

Also, I have some good news. Publications that choose right leaning fiction over facts are having a hard time making ends meet in a world where the public is finding it easier to fact check bias media. The Washington Examiner is stopping publication as a daily and laying off about 85 people this month. Perhaps there will be fewer editors who want fiction writters working for their daily newspapers.

[KJ.]

kj seems to like the idea that ACA is a redistribution of wealth from one person to another, but it is also a redistribution of wealth from when you are healthy to when you are not. everyone will eventually need health insurance, so one way to make it cheaper for when you need it is to pay for it when you do not. so that way it is not unlike the principles behind social security. it is a redistribution of wealth, but from past healthy you to future unhealthy you.

again, this is how the bigger the pool the better. healthy people pay for others when others need it, and then others pay for them when they need it. it is enlightened self-interest.

While you are sort of on the right track, this paragraph is technically wrong due to red.

 

This is a good way to view life insurance because the red is then true. It isn't necessarily true for health, so everything is backwards. When you pay life premiums, you can think of it like the insurance company holds those dollars aside for your death and no others' deaths. You pay your premiums over time, they'll put it into an interest earning "sd-sker" account, which the company hopes will grow large enough to pay for sd-sker's death.

 

Health insurance (and also social security) work the opposite way. The premiums you pay in a year get combined into a big pot with all other insureds for that company. The company hopes this pot is large enough to pay for all of the upcoming year's claims. So in health insurance, you're splitting the costs with others. Which means that an adverse change in claims (even if you filed none) will probably cause your premiums to go up the next year. That doesn't happen in life insurance: you'll pay the same amount every year even if everyone else insured by your company drops dead.

 

And for the last time, a bigger pool is not better (for purposes of this conversation). You seem to be forgetting that while a bigger pool does mean there's more people to pay for insurance, there's also more people that need insurance. Both these things increase at a linear rate, so the marginal value of one person to an insurance pool is zero on a cost basis. A bigger pool does have value in reducing the unpredictability of claims since variance increases linearly, but that's beyond the scope of this thread and not what you're talking about anyway.

[KJ.]

So I am thinking, if I am rich and unhealthy and my individual rates go DOWN under Obama care, it is a redistribution of wealth from healthy (and poor or rich) to me, since I am paying less and keep more $$?

 

What about Medicare Part A & B? There is no health based rate difference for Medicare Part A. Everyone who turns 65 gets to sign up and enjoy the same Part B rates regardless of health and pre-existing conditions. It Medicare a redistribution of wealth?

 

Also, what about the 44% to 55% of Americans that have employment based Group Health Insurance? Is that redistribution of wealth? I have to pay the same rates as my co-workers who are my age, even though I am fit and run marathons and some of them are 260 lb slugs with high blood pressure everything else you can imagine. Is employer based group health insurance redistribution of wealth?

 

It would seem that the majority of people who now have health insurance are NOT paying based on individual underwritting. Has this health insurance based redistribution of wealth problem been something you were concerned about before ACA?

To generally respond to all your questions, I should emphasize that my ROW comment was comparing "individual health insurance pre-ACA" to "Individual health insurance post-ACA" and nothing more.

 

Most of your questions are just referring to the general concept of insurance, which is something that would probably fall into carl's cliche idea to label as a redistribution of wealth. Employer based insurance, for example, would better be described as a redistribution of opportunity. Everyone pays the same premiums during a year, but ~half of those people are probably healthier than that number and the other half are probably unhealthier. This isn't a concrete transfer of dollars, though. The benefits those unhealthy people receive only exist mathematically, which is unlike the ACA, for which I'll hopefully make clearer in my next post.

[KJ.]

You have my attention. What do you have in mind?

Here's a good start. It's a very interesting read, I think. While I'm not going to deny that I am personally against the ACA, nobody can really deny that all the provisions and restrictions involved have an elegant relationship on each other. They're all necessary to support everything else, and the entire ACA becomes economically/mathematically faulty as soon as you remove any of the details.

 

You all have the ability to read, so I won't talk about that pdf. Read it if you want, but here's a dumbed down example:

 

An insurance company has four policyholders for the next year, and there are no regulations on the discrimination of pricing (excluding race). The insurance company is free to charge all individuals whatever they want based on whatever factors they want. The insureds are:

 

Taylor - 22yo - Male - Unhealthier than average

Rex - 22yo - Male - Healthier than average

Hannah - 22yo - Female - Unhealthier than average

Gina - 22yo - Female - Healthier than average

 

The insurance company will charge these individuals what they would expect an average person with their three characteristics to cost. Empirical evidence shows that females cost more than males, and common sense shows unhealthy people cost more than healthy people. So let's say the insurance company comes up with and charges:

 

Taylor: $30

Rex: $15

Hannah: $35

Gina: $20

 

The insurance company collects a total of $100 that will be used to pay all claims of all four individuals. But when the next year comes, the ACA restricts insurers from charging anyone the same age a different rate. No matter what the law says, the underlying expected costs for each individual is still the same. The company still expects to pay $100 of claims throughout the year, so now they'll charge:

 

Taylor: $25 (decrease of $5)

Rex: $25 (increase of $10)

Hannah: $25 (decrease of $10)

Gina: $25 (increase of $5)

 

Some insured's premiums went up from one year to the next based only on the restrictions within the ACA, while some went down. But the change in the insurance pool did not change. I'd say that's about as close to the definition of redistribution as you can get. Here's a direct quote from the executive summary:

 

The impact on specific individuals will vary significantly depending on their age, gender, location, health status, income level, and what coverage they have today. The report found that “young, healthy males could see substantial increases due to the combination of the overall rate change and the age/gender rating requirements” while “older, less healthy individuals could see rate reductions.”

[knapplc]

kj seems to like the idea that ACA is a redistribution of wealth from one person to another, but it is also a redistribution of wealth from when you are healthy to when you are not. everyone will eventually need health insurance, so one way to make it cheaper for when you need it is to pay for it when you do not. so that way it is not unlike the principles behind social security. it is a redistribution of wealth, but from past healthy you to future unhealthy you.

again, this is how the bigger the pool the better. healthy people pay for others when others need it, and then others pay for them when they need it. it is enlightened self-interest.

While you are sort of on the right track, this paragraph is technically wrong due to red.

 

This is a good way to view life insurance because the red is then true. It isn't necessarily true for health, so everything is backwards. When you pay life premiums, you can think of it like the insurance company holds those dollars aside for your death and no others' deaths. You pay your premiums over time, they'll put it into an interest earning "sd-sker" account, which the company hopes will grow large enough to pay for sd-sker's death.

 

Health insurance (and also social security) work the opposite way. The premiums you pay in a year get combined into a big pot with all other insureds for that company. The company hopes this pot is large enough to pay for all of the upcoming year's claims. So in health insurance, you're splitting the costs with others. Which means that an adverse change in claims (even if you filed none) will probably cause your premiums to go up the next year. That doesn't happen in life insurance: you'll pay the same amount every year even if everyone else insured by your company drops dead.

 

And for the last time, a bigger pool is not better (for purposes of this conversation). You seem to be forgetting that while a bigger pool does mean there's more people to pay for insurance, there's also more people that need insurance. Both these things increase at a linear rate, so the marginal value of one person to an insurance pool is zero on a cost basis. A bigger pool does have value in reducing the unpredictability of claims since variance increases linearly, but that's beyond the scope of this thread and not what you're talking about anyway.

 

Perhaps I'm not up on this kind of thing, so explain to me like I'm five how some people won't need health insurance in their life. Because I have yet to meet anyone who hasn't needed healthcare at some point.

 

Am I misunderstanding what you're saying here? Are you talking about different levels of needed healthcare? Because while I'll agree with your example of everyone eventually needing life insurance, the concept of not needing health insurance is unknown to me.

[KJ.]

kj seems to like the idea that ACA is a redistribution of wealth from one person to another, but it is also a redistribution of wealth from when you are healthy to when you are not. everyone will eventually need health insurance, so one way to make it cheaper for when you need it is to pay for it when you do not. so that way it is not unlike the principles behind social security. it is a redistribution of wealth, but from past healthy you to future unhealthy you.

again, this is how the bigger the pool the better. healthy people pay for others when others need it, and then others pay for them when they need it. it is enlightened self-interest.

While you are sort of on the right track, this paragraph is technically wrong due to red.

 

This is a good way to view life insurance because the red is then true. It isn't necessarily true for health, so everything is backwards. When you pay life premiums, you can think of it like the insurance company holds those dollars aside for your death and no others' deaths. You pay your premiums over time, they'll put it into an interest earning "sd-sker" account, which the company hopes will grow large enough to pay for sd-sker's death.

 

Health insurance (and also social security) work the opposite way. The premiums you pay in a year get combined into a big pot with all other insureds for that company. The company hopes this pot is large enough to pay for all of the upcoming year's claims. So in health insurance, you're splitting the costs with others. Which means that an adverse change in claims (even if you filed none) will probably cause your premiums to go up the next year. That doesn't happen in life insurance: you'll pay the same amount every year even if everyone else insured by your company drops dead.

 

And for the last time, a bigger pool is not better (for purposes of this conversation). You seem to be forgetting that while a bigger pool does mean there's more people to pay for insurance, there's also more people that need insurance. Both these things increase at a linear rate, so the marginal value of one person to an insurance pool is zero on a cost basis. A bigger pool does have value in reducing the unpredictability of claims since variance increases linearly, but that's beyond the scope of this thread and not what you're talking about anyway.

 

Perhaps I'm not up on this kind of thing, so explain to me like I'm five how some people won't need health insurance in their life. Because I have yet to meet anyone who hasn't needed healthcare at some point.

 

Am I misunderstanding what you're saying here? Are you talking about different levels of needed healthcare? Because while I'll agree with your example of everyone eventually needing life insurance, the concept of not needing health insurance is unknown to me.

You're understanding correctly. While it's unlikely that someone won't need health insurance, it's still technically possible. And that makes the difference in how the insurance is treated. It probably isn't all that unlikely either. I would assume all it would take is dying in an extreme enough fashion to be pronounced dead without being rushed to a hospital, but I am unsure on how medical costs exactly work there so don't hold me to that.

 

I guess a better explanation than "that's just the way it is" is that health insurance is basically ran on yearly contracts as opposed to life which is a lifetime contract. As I said, with life the premiums pay for your future benefits while health's premiums pay for others' current benefits. Proof of this can be found through what happens if you stop paying those premiums. Stop paying health premiums (on a basic vanilla policy) and the company says "Ok, see ya later, we owe you nothing" because that's the deal you struck...you pay them, they pay everyone. If it's life and you stop paying, they're going to have to fork over some cash to you because the deal you struck was you pay them, they pay you back. You never died, so they owe you money.

[knapplc]

So... you're saying the payment plan/payout plan is different (which I grasp). But if you're implying in any way that a human can go through life without needing medical attention, there we're going to differ. Theoretically I'll give you that it's possible, but this isn't theory - people get sick, catastrophically in most lives, and require medical attention. So health insurance isn't an option, it's a requirement, especially in America, where the cost of even a moderate level of cancer treatment is enough to bankrupt all but the most wealthy.

[KJ.]

So... you're saying the payment plan/payout plan is different (which I grasp). But if you're implying in any way that a human can go through life without needing medical attention, there we're going to differ. Theoretically I'll give you that it's possible, but this isn't theory - people get sick, catastrophically in most lives, and require medical attention. So health insurance isn't an option, it's a requirement, especially in America, where the cost of even a moderate level of cancer treatment is enough to bankrupt all but the most wealthy.

I guess I don't see the point you're trying to make. I'm not making any claims about what is realistic or likely to occur. My point that health insurance isn't a 100% known variable was just meant to counter sd's point that you can't think of health insurance as self funded. It's a difference in how the law requires they report their profits, it's a difference in how you quantify your premiums, and it all comes back to that difference between life being inevitable and health only being highly probable. That's all I was going for.