Obamacare 5 years later. Crow, anyone?

[psionl0]

Permanent Life Policies: Whole Vs. Universal - Investopedia

Just to complete this discussion: The difference between life insurance and life assurance

 

[Nihilianth]

Purchasing Universal or Whole Life is an investment in a way that Term life insurance isn't.

Universal and Whole Life have face values that can be redeemed. They earn interest that increases the value of the policy that can be liquidated.

Permanent Life Policies: Whole Vs. Universal - Investopedia

Whole life insurance - Caters to long-term goals by offering consumers consistent premiums and guaranteed cash value accumulation.

NO FREAKIN WAY! I did NOT know this! This is perhaps the single most valuable peice of information I have ever garnered from these forums on a personal level! My credit is crap right now, but I have a decent job finally. I am starting to build my credit back up. Meanwhile, I could get in on a whole life insurance policy where I can begin to accrue a little bit of wealth, while having a little something to fall back on in case of emergency, as opposed to just having a simple saving's account?

I may have to do a little bit of reasearch. Thanks.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

To be fair, Obamacare is not actually insurance. It is a law that allows people to purchase decent insurance

To be fair, it is what a law does that defines it - not the law itself. The ACA is just a law, but 'Obamacare' is a widely used colloquialism for the implementation of that law.

Obamacare was originally a pejorative referring to 'socialized' government-managed health insurance.

'Obamacare': The word that defined the health care debate

It first appeared on the campaign trail in May of that year, when Romney distinguished his effort on health reforms as governor of Massachusetts.

"In my state, I worked on health care for some time. We had half a million people without insurance, and I said, 'How can we get those people insured without raising taxes and without having government take over heath care,'" he said in Des Moines, Iowa, advocating for states to find free market solutions.

"And let me tell you, if we don't do it, the Democrats will. If the Democrats do it, it will be socialized medicine; it'll be government-managed care. It'll be what's known as Hillarycare or Barack Obamacare, or whatever you want to call it."

Now that it's law the government has owned the term - yet still thinks it refers to health insurance.
Obamacare

An informal name sometimes used to refer to the health coverage plans available through the Health Insurance Marketplace.

 

[RandFan]

NO FREAKIN WAY! I did NOT know this! This is perhaps the single most valuable peice of information I have ever garnered from these forums on a personal level! My credit is crap right now, but I have a decent job finally. I am starting to build my credit back up. Meanwhile, I could get in on a whole life insurance policy where I can begin to accrue a little bit of wealth, while having a little something to fall back on in case of emergency, as opposed to just having a simple saving's account?

I may have to do a little bit of reasearch. Thanks.

Make no investments based on anything I've said. I do not advocate one over the other. I recommend making an informed choice and not falling for hype. There are pros and cons depending on you and whether you are disciplined. Some people can increase net worth by renting, buying term and investing the difference. Most people WON'T do that. So it's kinda like tax refunds and home equity. For those not prone to investing or saving it can be done doing what you already do, pay for a place to live, pay taxes and buy insurance.

 

[Nihilianth]

Make no investments based on anything I've said. I do not advocate one over the other. I recommend making an informed choice and not falling for hype. There are pros and cons depending on you and whether you are disciplined. Some people can increase net worth by renting, buying term and investing the difference. Most people WON'T do that. So it's kinda like tax refunds and home equity. For those not prone to investing or saving it can be done doing what you already do, pay for a place to live, pay taxes and buy insurance.

Nah, I need to get life insurance anyway, as I am planning on starting a family. I'm still young (31,) and it seems like a long-term investment. I make enough money (right now) to invest in an initially pricey plan.

 

[Lowpro]

Nah, I need to get life insurance anyway, as I am planning on starting a family. I'm still young (31,) and it seems like a long-term investment. I make enough money (right now) to invest in an initially pricey plan.

Pshh, I'm transferring my brain into a robot body, so life insurance is a laughable investment for me!

 

[ponderingturtle]

In the free market a lot of people wouldn't have health insurance at all. Also, the system has never been a free market because of the federal reimbursements. So, rather than starting from a hypothetical free market you need to start with reality which was the old reimbursement system and explain why this one is worse.

And if it was truely a free market we wouldn't be forcing ER's to treat them just because they are dying. Of course any minor hick up in paper work would leave someone who should be legally treated in an ER to die with the vermin outside it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Wrong

Egads, I mislike doing this, but ElfGrinder is correct with respect to ACA. It's not insurance - it's a law that increases access to insurance. It's a quibbling difference, but it's up there with conflating health insurance with health care.

As for Social Security... it's technically not insurance either. Yes, I know it's got "insurance" in the name, and some people call it that. Then again, China is named Democratic People's Republic of China... and I don't think anyone really considers it to be either democratic or a republic.

SS is an intergenerational transfer entitlement program. It technically fails to meet the characteristics of actual insurance. In particular, there's not a transfer of risk for a contingent event in exchange for a premium. The cost of SS isn't born by the beneficiaries - it's born by currently working individuals. The funds collected aren't for the risks of the pool from which it's being collected - it's for a different pool of people. It's welfare, not insurance.

It does bear a lot of resemblance in application to how a person accesses health care via insurance - deductibles, cost shares, paperwork, etc. But structurally, it's not insurance.

As with the comment regarding ACA, it's a quibbling point. The distinction is a technical one, and has little bearing on any actual discussion of the topics, unless you're really digging down into the details.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I understand exactly what you're saying here. Should I be worried?

I'm going to take ti as a sign that I'm less communication-challenged than you run of the mill actuary!

I think that throwing the health insurance companies a bone by allowing the to sell richer plans (as in the Swiss model, and as they are allowed to do with Medicare Advantage plans) might ease passage of single-payor. Granted, it'll be an uphill fight due to the entrenched interests, but the status quo ante-ACA is simply unsustainable and the ACA itself is at best a temporary fix.

Meh. Right now, I'd really like everyone to just quit messing with ACA. Just leave it alone. It's not so horrible. It's not great, but it's a good step. And some of the mechanisms are actually pretty good. In particular, the risk adjustment mechanism is actually pretty spot on - it captures real risk well, and it evens the playing field quite well. The only problem with it right now is the lag between when carriers incur the risk, and when the transfer to account for risk happens. But honestly, HHS did a surprisingly good job coming up with the risk model and the formulas for it. I'd really like to see it play out for several years before we start messing with it more.

 

[Emily's Cat]

To be pedantic, there is a class of insurance (these plans are life insurance, NOT HEALTH) that is equity based (Universal and Whole Life). I'm not an expert and I might be completely off base though.

This is true. EG has previously said that s/he is a life actuary, not a health actuary. Depending on what specific products and markets EG has worked with, there could be a huge amount of stuff that s/he doesn't know about the rest of the world.

For consideration, please don't ask me about life insurance or pensions. I can spell them and give you some very basic wikipedia-style information about them, but I'm not qualified to give advice or offer opinions about them. They aren't my practice area.

Beyond that, I would hesitate to give too detailed information about group health insurance or other employee benefits. That's not my specialty, and I could be materially wrong. For official communications regarding employee-sponsored health insurance details, I would want oversight from someone with experience in that field.

EG doesn't seem to hold the same standards and prudence as I generally expect from fellow actuaries in the US, and his conduct frequently makes me raise an eyebrow.

 

[jhunter1163]

Nah, I need to get life insurance anyway, as I am planning on starting a family. I'm still young (31,) and it seems like a long-term investment. I make enough money (right now) to invest in an initially pricey plan.

You could also investigate variable insurance products, in which the policy's cash value can be invested in stock or bond mutual funds. This option offers potentially greater returns, but carries investment risks.

 

[Nihilianth]

Egads, I mislike doing this, but ElfGrinder is correct with respect to ACA. It's not insurance - it's a law that increases access to insurance. It's a quibbling difference, but it's up there with conflating health insurance with health care.

As for Social Security... it's technically not insurance either. Yes, I know it's got "insurance" in the name, and some people call it that. Then again, China is named Democratic People's Republic of China... and I don't think anyone really considers it to be either democratic or a republic.

SS is an intergenerational transfer entitlement program. It technically fails to meet the characteristics of actual insurance. In particular, there's not a transfer of risk for a contingent event in exchange for a premium. The cost of SS isn't born by the beneficiaries - it's born by currently working individuals. The funds collected aren't for the risks of the pool from which it's being collected - it's for a different pool of people. It's welfare, not insurance.

It does bear a lot of resemblance in application to how a person accesses health care via insurance - deductibles, cost shares, paperwork, etc. But structurally, it's not insurance.

As with the comment regarding ACA, it's a quibbling point. The distinction is a technical one, and has little bearing on any actual discussion of the topics, unless you're really digging down into the details.

As for SS, I was thinking of what you were saying, without further explanation when I agreed that it was "insurance." It is "insurance," in the same way that FEMA is "insurance." It is a program that is paid into that will be needed for certain members of society. Just like with FEMA. It is money that Congress sets aside and allocates when it is needed for certain regions of society.

It is all about risk management.

 

[Nihilianth]

You could also investigate variable insurance products, in which the policy's cash value can be invested in stock or bond mutual funds. This option offers potentially greater returns, but carries investment risks.

Thanks. I have a contact with a solid financial advisor. (His most famous client is Vanessa Williams. He was the former CEO of a leather store in my hometown, and is a father of a good friend of mine. Just a really, really busy business man. But I think I can get hooked up with the guy.)

I'm a bit afraid of going into stocks. I was messing around with penny stocks for a bit, but it got nowhere. Considering I am thinking of starting a family, I am not sure I am up for the risking a life insurance policy on stocks. Bonds or mutual funds I wouldn't mind so much.

 

[varwoche]

Obamacare has been upheld by SC. I'm happy because I support Obamacare. But I'm especially happy seeing the right wingers go apoplectic (I'm small-minded like that).

 

[KDLarsen]

I can't decide if it's good or bad that the case wasn't thrown out on the standings issue. On the one, it means that future challengers will have an even bigger obstacle to overcome, but on the other hand, it was ridiciolous that the case was allowed to go ahead when the plaintiffs only had standing due to their own incompetence.

Hell, one of them wasn't even aware she was a plaintiff, and was concerned that a ruling in her favour would have a negative effect on the ACA!

 

[BobTheCoward]

Obamacare has been upheld by SC. I'm happy because I support Obamacare. But I'm especially happy seeing the right wingers go apoplectic (I'm small-minded like that).

What was your take on the actual legal question at hand?

I ask because I am so bothered by how often a person's opinion of what is good policy lines up so well with their legal interpretation.

 

[Olowkow]

Obamacare has been upheld by SC. I'm happy because I support Obamacare. But I'm especially happy seeing the right wingers go apoplectic (I'm small-minded like that).

Fox is sounding like an asylum full of nut jobs...more than the normal nutty stuff. I wonder what all presidential hopeful "Obamacare repealists" will have to say with 70% of Americans favoring subsidies. Scalia chides everyone for protecting Obamacare because....who knows? Sounds like he's accusing the court of playing politics. He and Thomas are not really qualified to be on a high court.

"We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," he [Scalia] wrote.

He continued: "Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act's limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges, Scalia wrote.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Scalia is a right-wing hack. But that's not news to anyone.

 

[Spindrift]

Scalia is a right-wing hack. But that's not news to anyone.

He has to destroy America to save America.

 

[varwoche]

What was your take on the actual legal question at hand?

I ask because I am so bothered by how often a person's opinion of what is good policy lines up so well with their legal interpretation.

The actual legal question is above my pay grade.