Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Minnesota's exchange, MNSURE, has been touted by the Dems as one of the most successful of the state exchanges. This week, the largest and cheapest of the insurers in MNSURE pulled out citing that it is "not sustainable" to continue. Policy prices will certainly increase.
We ALL know that the worst of the train wreck known as 'ObamaCare' has yet to occur. Dems put off the pain until after the mid-term elections hoping that their low IQ supporters forget about how much their premiums will rise come January 2015.
I have a feeling that in year 2 and 3, we could see problems with rising costs of premiums to adjust from the projected pools (the way they were in year 1 (2014)) compared to the actualities that they have and continue to compile. The problem is the sick and elderly need to be offset by the young and healthy which is a problem, albeit not as doom and gloom as expected by the conservative media.
The number of people previously without healthcare in a first world country - that was the monstrosity. An obscenity in fact.
The American Hospital Association did that with help from your government.
I'm not sure which is more obscene: the fact that your government voluntarily disenfranchised Millions of Americans denying them health plan coverage or the fact that you don't understand your government's complicit role in denying people health plan coverage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl
It's rather obvious now that "Obamacare" has been accepted by the majority of the American people.
The internment of US Citizens of Japanese ancestry was also accepted by the majority of the American people.
What's your point, and what does that have to do with the Laws of Economics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl
The number of our uninsured citizens is lower than it's been since the beginning of 2008, before the economic crisis, according to government statistics and current polling by Gallup.
Are you claiming the US not exist before the year 2008?
If that is not your claim, then why are you cherry-picking data?
Is that to skew the results in your favor?
Did you know this was the Economics forum? Okay, then I take it you're here to learn Economics. I would suggest starting by learning what Capital is.
I have a feeling that in year 2 and 3, we could see problems with rising costs of premiums to adjust from the projected pools (the way they were in year 1 (2014)) compared to the actualities that they have and continue to compile. The problem is the sick and elderly need to be offset by the young and healthy which is a problem, albeit not as doom and gloom as expected by the conservative media.
Health insurances costs have been going up rapidly for a long time. The question is at what rate will Obamacare policies continue to go up. I'm, of course, unhappy about a 60% increase in my insurance premiums to an Obamacare-compliant policy. If that's a one-time increase, however, I can accept that. Obamacare has some benefits. Also while a "bronze" level plan was massively more expensive, prepaid medical plans like I have now (Silver) used to be much more expensive than health insurance plans (Bronze) pre-Obamacare. The plan I have now is only about 15% more than a comparable pre-Obamacare policy. Bronze and Silver plans are much closer in price, and Silver plans are the majority of what people are buying, at least here in California. They account for over half of the policies.
The question is Obamacare going to do anything to reduce the rate of insurance growth. And I'm talking about nationally. If you're in MN which looks like it had one insurer which underpriced substantially and is now getting out of the market, yes, those people are probably going to have large increases. I'm really not optimistic on that front. I'm not a big fan of Obamacare myself, but I also don't see it as being all that horrendous either. It just isn't substantially different enough for me to get all that excited about. I would have preferred that some of the technical changes (no dropping people when they get sick or pricing them out of a policy) be made without Obamacare. The largest thing is pre-existing conditions which is a mixed bag and impossible to address without a mandate to buy heath insurance. I disagree with the mandate. I'd prefer an opt out mechanism without penalty. Politically that isn't possible due to the moral aversion of just letting people die in the streets. I don't really have that aversion. To me if you chose not to get insurance and then develop cancer, that's on you. That was your choice and now you can live with it. Other stuff is less well defined. What if you're somebody who was born with a pre-existing health condition like a heart defect? I'm really completely fine with those risks being spread across the insured pool and a one-time increase in insurance costs to capture that risk rather than having those individuals be effectively barred from acquiring individual health insurance. So, yeah, I'm of course not happy to pay more but I can accept doing so.
Hahaha, a moderate market-based reform is a "Socialist monstrosity?" There wasn't even a public insurance option, much less a single-payer reform or a British NHS-style nationalization of our healthcare system. The most "Socialist" thing was an expansion of Medicaid, and numerous states have balked at THAT out of spite and/or parsimony.
Hahaha.. Market based? are you for real?? A socialist improvised system not from the free market or private sector but a forced government over reach which forces American's to buy a product, the architecture of which is shady at best since it did not originate in the House of Representatives, as our constitution say it has to. The government and proponents can put labels on it and call it what you want. "Affordable Health Care" "Market Based" But the fact remains it is an artificial market system based on Government interference to control one sixth of our economy and the Kool ade drinkers pile on in support...
The issue I presented is that conservative pseudo-"economists", commentators and media outlets outdid themselves with outlandish doom and gloom predictions about ObamaCare a year ago. Fox "News" alleged everything almost up to ObamaCare self-exploding all our armed forces' nuclear bombs. The quality of these "predictions" was as good as "Mission Accomplished" 6 weeks into the Iraq II War. How can they have such little understanding about economic matters and yet continue to release one unrealistic statement after another. Before the next year rates were announced, they predicted outlandish rate increases which were just as nonsensical. Again, how can you be so ideological that you lose any sense of reality... and continue to do so unabated?
Health insurances costs have been going up rapidly for a long time. The question is at what rate will Obamacare policies continue to go up. I'm, of course, unhappy about a 60% increase in my insurance premiums to an Obamacare-compliant policy. If that's a one-time increase, however, I can accept that. Obamacare has some benefits. Also while a "bronze" level plan was massively more expensive, prepaid medical plans like I have now (Silver) used to be much more expensive than health insurance plans (Bronze) pre-Obamacare. The plan I have now is only about 15% more than a comparable pre-Obamacare policy. Bronze and Silver plans are much closer in price, and Silver plans are the majority of what people are buying, at least here in California. They account for over half of the policies.
Health insurance has had cost increases over the years, that is indeed true. In 2014, the costs went up considerably with the rollout. Will it continue, perhaps. I imagine after year 3 into year 4, it will slow but this is me looking at a crystal ball.
That's similar to what I've seen in Arizona. The bronze plan is basically a glorified junk plans. Fairly low monthly premium, but if you need to goto the doctors, pays off to have a silver plan. The silver plan I think has a higher upcharge where I am in Arizona but you get the idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
The question is Obamacare going to do anything to reduce the rate of insurance growth. And I'm talking about nationally. If you're in MN which looks like it had one insurer which underpriced substantially and is now getting out of the market, yes, those people are probably going to have large increases. I'm really not optimistic on that front. I'm not a big fan of Obamacare myself, but I also don't see it as being all that horrendous either. It just isn't substantially different enough for me to get all that excited about. I would have preferred that some of the technical changes (no dropping people when they get sick or pricing them out of a policy) be made without Obamacare. The largest thing is pre-existing conditions which is a mixed bag and impossible to address without a mandate to buy heath insurance. I disagree with the mandate. I'd prefer an opt out mechanism without penalty. Politically that isn't possible due to the moral aversion of just letting people die in the streets. I don't really have that aversion. To me if you chose not to get insurance and then develop cancer, that's on you. That was your choice and now you can live with it. Other stuff is less well defined. What if you're somebody who was born with a pre-existing health condition like a heart defect? I'm really completely fine with those risks being spread across the insured pool and a one-time increase in insurance costs to capture that risk rather than having those individuals be effectively barred from acquiring individual health insurance. So, yeah, I'm of course not happy to pay more but I can accept doing so.
I am not sure what Obamacare will do as it is projections. Who knows.
I agree with the opt-out without penalty, the only problem is how? Remember the public market needs around 7 million (I am not sure how much in 2015) and 40% of which are young and healthy or else mechanically it fails. To allow an opt out CAN lead to that being unattainable, especially with the young and healthy having lower paying jobs and not really being able to afford insurance onto of other costs and make too much for the expanded medicaid (if their state expanded it, if not is an opt out.)
I am not sure what Obamacare will do as it is projections. Who knows.
I agree with the opt-out without penalty, the only problem is how? Remember the public market needs around 7 million (I am not sure how much in 2015) and 40% of which are young and healthy or else mechanically it fails. To allow an opt out CAN lead to that being unattainable, especially with the young and healthy having lower paying jobs and not really being able to afford insurance onto of other costs and make too much for the expanded medicaid (if their state expanded it, if not is an opt out.)
Well, at least here the young are mostly opting out and paying the penalty as is. The 25-40 demographic has the highest uninsured rates but are one of the smaller demographics buying insurance. The only smaller demographic is <26 (parents insurance) and >65 (Medicare). As the penalty ramps up that might change. But at the end of the day the penalty is always going to be less. Silver plans are a bit over $300 here. $3,600/yr at the full penalty would mean an income of $120,000/yr for the penalty to cost as much as the insurance. Even at the full 3%, the penalties are pretty trivial.
Well, at least here the young are mostly opting out and paying the penalty as is. The 25-40 demographic has the highest uninsured rates but are one of the smaller demographics buying insurance. The only smaller demographic is <26 (parents insurance) and >65 (Medicare). As the penalty ramps up that might change. But at the end of the day the penalty is always going to be less. Silver plans are a bit over $300 here. $3,600/yr at the full penalty would mean an income of $120,000/yr for the penalty to cost as much as the insurance. Even at the full 3%, the penalties are pretty trivial.
That is exactly the issue I see. If you get paid at 133% of poverty (aprox 15K) you pay $150 a year in penalties, for 2014, that is the monthly bill for many low cost plans. So $150 once or $150 12 times which runs you at $1,800 a year.
This really explains why so many people distrust economists. He sure gives his profession a really bad rap. We know that about 8 mio people signed up for ObamaCare
This really explains why so many people distrust leftists. And their take on how business works. And how human nature comes into this and how massive government intervention into people's private transactions turns out.
Why? "We know that about 8 mio (sic) people signed up for ObamaCare " but can we excuse the OP for not making a distinction? That distinction being comparing the ~8M figure to the number of those people that have actually paid their premiums on a regular basis, who have not been cancelled, and who even made any payment and were issued a policy in the first place.
The other problem with leftists is that they don't want you to know that for months and months, the Obama administration would not tell the people how many Obamacare sign-ups were actually issued a policy. I don't know whether or not this is still the case.
This Marc Thiesen calls himself an "economist"?!? This really explains why so many people distrust economists. He sure gives his profession a really bad rap. We know that about 8 mio people signed up for ObamaCare and about 4 million more people now have health care coverage than before.
Stopped here because thats a complete LIE
When ACA was passed there was about 30 million americans without insurance
Then this climbed to 46 million, and we are now hovering around 31 million americans without insurance.
Thats a LOSS of 11 million individuals.
And dont forget, that doesnt include illegals, which the administation tried to count in the initial numbers but was called on it for being the lie that it was.
Even the CBO has admitted that the numbers will not go lower than 30 million without insurance over the next decade, which makes it a complete failure since it was designed to cover EVERY AMERICAN.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
