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.
Including them in the pool does exactly the opposite--it lowers the overall risk of the pool, and the premiums paid for them helps cover the higher risk groups (adults and young kids, who have a much higher rate of incurring health costs).
In other words, a wealth transfer. The young subsidize the old just like Social Security. I'm sorry but adding 30 million high risk people who have never had insurance to the pool creates higher risk for everyone and increases costs. Not enough young people are signing up so the system will have to find other means of paying for the higher risk folks, like raise rates even more. And that doesn't take into account the subsidies and the government (i.e. the taxpayer like me) who said they would cover the insurance companies' losses.
I'm glad your rates stayed the same and you got to keep your insurance. Millions of others are not so lucky.
In other words, a wealth transfer. The young subsidize the old just like Social Security. I'm sorry but adding 30 million high risk people who have never had insurance to the pool creates higher risk for everyone and increases costs. Not enough young people are signing up so the system will have to find other means of paying for the higher risk folks, like raise rates even more. And that doesn't take into account the subsidies and the government (i.e. the taxpayer like me) who said they would cover the insurance companies' losses.
I'm glad your rates stayed the same and you got to keep your insurance. Millions of others are not so lucky.
Brad, you are confusing the issue here, and with all due respect you don't seem to understand how insurance works. We are talking specifically about the "covering kids to age 26" benefit. That's not "30 million high risk people"; it's a much smaller number of low risk people who pay the same premium as higher-risk younger kids. It's not wealth transfer--it's the basic concept of insurance: the pooled assets cover the overall risk of the group. And when you add lower-risk participants who pay the same premium as everyone else, the pool benefits because the premium-to-losses ratio increases (i.e., there are more assets to cover the losses). This, all other things being equal, will drive future premiums down for the pool. That's the way insurance works.
Again, your criticism of the extended age benefit for children is misguided, and appears to be based not on logic, but on false assumptions and hysteria fueled by partisanship rather than facts.
I'm going to let it go for now. All I'll really say is even if I agreed this ACA was a good idea we can't afford it. We are not a rich nation. We're 17 Trillion in the hole, and we're going to be at 23 Trillionish after we bail out the insurance companys. The interest has to push us over a tipping point eventually.
I'm going to let it go for now. All I'll really say is even if I agreed this ACA was a good idea we can't afford it. We are not a rich nation. We're 17 Trillion in the hole, and we're going to be at 23 Trillionish after we bail out the insurance companys. The interest has to push us over a tipping point eventually.
Another misguided criticism. The fact is that we're already paying for health care. When people use medical services and can't pay for them, the providers absorb the cost and pass it along to those who can pay. Our medicals bills are significantly higher than they otherwise would be because they include a markup to cover operating losses incurred by those who can't pay. The ACA seeks to shift this cost such that it is paid in the form of insurance premiums rather than higher medical bills. It won't cause our overall health care costs to increase--people will still get sick at the same rate they do today.
In fact, a side benefit is that people who now get coverage will be more inclined to use medical services sooner rather than later. This means better prevention, earlier detection, and lower overall cost of curing people. It's much cheaper to pay for a measles vaccine (for example) than it is to pay for treatment once you've contracted the disease.
ArbyUnc, I can't rep you until I "spread it around" but I understand ObamaCare better from reading your posts than from watching/reading the news or listening to the President and other politicians and pundits speak on it.
ArbyUnc, I can't rep you until I "spread it around" but I understand ObamaCare better from reading your posts than from watching/reading the news or listening to the President and other politicians and pundits speak on it.
Thanks Mac! I don't profess to be liberal or conservative, but very much a moderate who tries to understand the issues and form opinions based on that understanding. It's so frustrating to me that many people's political stances are developed from soundbites and heavily biased and often misleading information. Such is the case with Obamacare...many people oppose it simply because the Republican leadership and talking heads say it's bad. They really don't take the time and effort to really understand the facts.
Funny, I was at a conference last fall with an audience of several hundred college educated finance professionals. The speaker began by asking several questions about healthcare, such as:
--Do you believe insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions?
--Do you favor providing tax credits to small businesses that provide health insurance to their employees?
--Do you believe that lifetime caps on benefits are unfair, and that insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to cut off benefits after a certain amount has been paid?
There were 5 or 6 more such questions, and everyone in the room overwhelmingly answered "Yes". The final question was "Do you support Obamacare?", and again, probably 90% of the room answered "No".
They all felt foolish after the speaker revealed that every one of the "Yes" questions were a benefit provided by Obamacare, clearly demonstrating that even very intelligent people who oppose the ACA have no clue what it really does. Our country could be so much better if people would educate themselves and form their own opinions rather than falling for the BS!
Blue Cross reverses course and will offer family coverage to same-sex couples.
The state’s largest insurer said Wednesday it will now offer family coverage for gays and unmarried couples and will also extend the benefit to small businesses for the first time.
More than 160,000 North Carolina residents have signed up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, after a surge in applications in January when 52,000 people signed up on the online marketplace.
The state is now fifth in the number of enrollees, behind California, Florida, New York and Texas.
Another misguided criticism. The fact is that we're already paying for health care. When people use medical services and can't pay for them, the providers absorb the cost and pass it along to those who can pay. Our medicals bills are significantly higher than they otherwise would be because they include a markup to cover operating losses incurred by those who can't pay. The ACA seeks to shift this cost such that it is paid in the form of insurance premiums rather than higher medical bills. It won't cause our overall health care costs to increase--people will still get sick at the same rate they do today.
The last couple months of news shows this is not the case. Costs have doubled, tripled or quadrupled for people and continue to go up. Employers are also facing increased costs, and the extra taxes on medical device manufacturers will also lead to increases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbyunc
In fact, a side benefit is that people who now get coverage will be more inclined to use medical services sooner rather than later. This means better prevention, earlier detection, and lower overall cost of curing people. It's much cheaper to pay for a measles vaccine (for example) than it is to pay for treatment once you've contracted the disease.
A recent study regarding Medicare/Medicaid coverage showed there was no difference between covered vs. non-covered folks in health outcomes.
More than 160,000 North Carolina residents have signed up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, after a surge in applications in January when 52,000 people signed up on the online marketplace.
The state is now fifth in the number of enrollees, behind California, Florida, New York and Texas.
How many are receiving subsidies from the rest of us?
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.
