Obamacare: lower than expected premium rates.

[RandFan]

Unexpected Health Insurance Rate Shock-California Obamacare Insurance Exchange Announces Premium Rates

Yesterday, Covered California—the name given to the healthcare exchange created pursuant to the Affordable Care Act that will serve the largest population of insured citizens in the nation—released the premium rates submitted by participating health insurance companies for the four health insurance program categories (bronze, silver, gold and platinum) established by the Affordable Care Act, along with the catastrophic policy created for and available to those under the age of 30.

Upon reviewing the data, I was indeed shocked by the proposed premium rates—but not in the way you might expect. The jolt that I was experiencing was not the result of the predicted out-of-control premium costs but the shock of rates far lower than what I expected—even at the lowest end of the age scale.

I wonder when the GOP will stop voting to end it?

 

[Twiggett]

It's definitely an early strike against one aspect to the opposition and I'm interested to see if it holds true on a national level once the ACA is in full effect. As for the GOP as long as they think it is what their constituents want I think we can all bank on them continuing to try to repeal it.

 

[DGM]

But, Is it still affordable. More affordable is not the point, is it?

I've read that it's still out of reach for a large percentage of the working class and poor. I also see how it's dependent on employer support but, only for full time. What about the shift for most larger employers (retail mostly) to part time. Low hourly wage is still screwed.

Just the other day. I saw a sign at The Home Depot (around the time clock) for part timers to make sure they don't exceed 29 hours.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's definitely an early strike against one aspect to the opposition and I'm interested to see if it holds true on a national level once the ACA is in full effect.

I'm certain it won't hold true nationally for one reason: many states have refused to implement the expansion of Medicaid (and rejected the injection of federal dollars that would go with it).

I spent wasted some time yesterday trying to point out that the fact that some working poor still won't be able to afford insurance coverage isn't a good argument for repealing the ACA.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But, Is it still affordable. More affordable is not the point, is it?

I've read that it's still out of reach for a large percentage of the working class and poor. I also see how it's dependent on employer support but, only for full time. What about the shift for most larger employers (retail mostly) to part time. Low hourly wage is still screwed.

The word "still" is the key point here. In states that refused to implement the expansion of Medicaid, we'll see this. But even these working poor aren't going to be worse off than they were before. (By definition, if they can't afford coverage, they won't be subject to the tax penalty.)

And I utterly reject the argument that employers who were willing to provide insurance for their employees even before they were required to do so will now take measures to stop providing insurance (or to provide a lower quality of insurance) to their employees now that there is a minimum requirement. That argument makes no sense. Whatever reasons they had for doing that before (market forces, compassion, wanting to be a good corporate citizen, etc.) shouldn't be taken away by the ACA's minimum requirement.

 

[RandFan]

The word "still" is the key point here. In states that refused to implement the expansion of Medicaid, we'll see this. But even these working poor aren't going to be worse off than they were before. (By definition, if they can't afford coverage, they won't be subject to the tax penalty.)

And I utterly reject the argument that employers who were willing to provide insurance for their employees even before they were required to do so will now take measures to stop providing insurance (or to provide a lower quality of insurance) to their employees now that there is a minimum requirement. That argument makes no sense. Whatever reasons they had for doing that before (market forces, compassion, wanting to be a good corporate citizen, etc.) shouldn't be taken away by the ACA's minimum requirement.

Agreed.

 

[DGM]

The word "still" is the key point here. In states that refused to implement the expansion of Medicaid, we'll see this. But even these working poor aren't going to be worse off than they were before. (By definition, if they can't afford coverage, they won't be subject to the tax penalty.)

And I utterly reject the argument that employers who were willing to provide insurance for their employees even before they were required to do so will now take measures to stop providing insurance (or to provide a lower quality of insurance) to their employees now that there is a minimum requirement. That argument makes no sense. Whatever reasons they had for doing that before (market forces, compassion, wanting to be a good corporate citizen, etc.) shouldn't be taken away by the ACA's minimum requirement.

I'm not so sure.

Many retail companies are shifting to part time only labor to combat the shorter margins. If you can employ two part timers to fill the job of one full time for less money, what would be the direction you would take?

The kids that are just starting out are going to get hit the hardest. I already see kids that work two part time jobs to get the needed hours but, none offer benefits (or would have to).

You did not respond to this part of my post.

Just the other day. I saw a sign at The Home Depot (around the time clock) for part timers to make sure they don't exceed 29 hours.

 

[Kaylee]

Anybody find a link to the premium rates? I had no luck.

 

[DGM]

Challenge:

Ask anyone that knows anyone that works in retail (a very large part of the labor group), if they've heard the words "twenty nine hours" used recently.

The results will be shocking.

 

[Twiggett]

I'm certain it won't hold true nationally for one reason: many states have refused to implement the expansion of Medicaid (and rejected the injection of federal dollars that would go with it).

I spent wasted some time yesterday trying to point out that the fact that some working poor still won't be able to afford insurance coverage isn't a good argument for repealing the ACA.

Yeah that seems to me to not make a lot of sense unless the argument includes replacing it with something better which I am guessing it did not?

 

[Twiggett]

I'm not so sure.

Many retail companies are shifting to part time only labor to combat the shorter margins. If you can employ two part timers to fill the job of one full time for less money, what would be the direction you would take?

The kids that are just starting out are going to get hit the hardest. I already see kids that work two part time jobs to get the needed hours but, none offer benefits (or would have to).

You did not respond to this part of my post.

To make sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying retail companies who once voluntarily provided health benefits are now cutting some employee hours to less than thirty per week so as to be able to stop once the ACA requires them to do what they already were?

 

[DGM]

To make sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying retail companies who once voluntarily provided health benefits are now cutting some employee hours to less than thirty per week so as to be able to stop once the ACA requires them to do what they already were?

No. They are not replacing older full time jobs. They are being phased out. A job that was once full time is now replaced by two part time.

Don't assume retail supplies full time workers with health care. Most only offer a group plan that allows reduced cost but, does not contribute monetarily.

 

[applecorped]

The water, she is a heavy.

 

[Twiggett]

No. They are not replacing older full time jobs. They are being phased out. A job that was once full time is now replaced by two part time.

Don't assume retail supplies full time workers with health care. Most only offer a group plan that allows reduced cost but, does not contribute monetarily.

I am under the impression that retail and the food service industries didn't typically provide insurance, that's what confused me about what you said. To me it seems like they are cutting hours to avoid having to comply with the companies above a certain size being required to provide insurance to what the ACA defines as full time employees or face tax penalties.

Unfortunately that does seem to be an unintended harm to the very people that need the help the most because not only do they not gain the coverage from their employer but now they make less money due to less hours. Not necessarily good grounds to call for throwing out the whole bill but it does seem to be a pretty big problem to my somewhat uneducated self.

Personally I think the only way to really solve the issue is with a single payer system but since to implement it without a significant increase in the budget deficit would require accompanying tax increases or major cuts elsewhere it's a non-starter to a large portion of the public and I don't see it happening any time soon.

 

[DGM]

I am under the impression that retail and the food service industries didn't typically provide insurance, that's what confused me about what you said. To me it seems like they are cutting hours to avoid having to comply with the companies above a certain size being required to provide insurance to what the ACA defines as full time employees or face tax penalties.

You understand correctly. Retail margins are so small today (we love our cheap ****), it's a sink or swim.

Unfortunately that does seem to be an unintended harm to the very people that need the help the most because not only do they not gain the coverage from their employer but now they make less money due to less hours. Not necessarily good grounds to call for throwing out the whole bill but it does seem to be a pretty big problem to my somewhat uneducated self.

I never said it was. Unfortunately for the people that it was supposed to help, it will hurt. This is kind of like the argument where we need to get the rich to pay more. Sounds good as a rally cry but, when taken in context.......

Personally I think the only way to really solve the issue is with a single payer system but since to implement it without a significant increase in the budget deficit would require accompanying tax increases or major cuts elsewhere it's a non-starter to a large portion of the public and I don't see it happening any time soon.

Sucks, huh?

 

[RandFan]

Obama Guesses His Way to Trillions in Health Savings

(commentary by Ezra Klein)

 

[DGM]

Obama Guesses His Way to Trillions in Health Savings

(commentary by Ezra Klein)

And?

Can you explain why we should read this?

I hate when people expect me to work at getting their point (lazy in my book)

 

[Brainster]

I find it completely believable that we could cover lots of pre-existing conditions, cover lots more people, cover lots of things that weren't covered before, and bring down costs.

However, this other Forbes guy is just a bit skeptical:

If you’re a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month. (By “average,” I mean the median monthly premium across California’s 19 insurance rating regions.)

The next cheapest plan, the “bronze” comprehensive plan, costs $205 a month. But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com (NASDAQ:EHTH), the median cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92.

In other words, for the typical 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No. They are not replacing older full time jobs. They are being phased out. A job that was once full time is now replaced by two part time.

So you're saying that the ACA has failed to change anything in this situation?

Employers who previously didn't provide health insurance have found a way around the new minimum requirement? I'm still not hearing any reason for repealing it. If anything, it sounds like an argument to pass stricter employee mandates or close up loopholes that allow them to get around the requirement.

But the ACA doesn't somehow persuade employers who used to provide decent insurance to stop doing so.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I find it completely believable that we could cover lots of pre-existing conditions, cover lots more people, cover lots of things that weren't covered before, and bring down costs.

It depends on what you mean by "bring down costs". I could certainly see it bringing down overall costs when you consider that the cost of people being uninsured at least sometimes leads to providers eating (or taxpayer providing) more expensive treatments. (Unless you're willing to repeal EMTALA and possibly even outlaw implied consent to treatment, as when people are brought unconscious to the ER. In fact, you'd even have to prohibit the practice of doing pro-bono treatment that contributes to increases in costs to others.) In other words, just because people had no means of paying for costly treatment, doesn't mean they weren't receiving costly treatment.

For people individually, it most definitely does bring down costs (or makes having coverage affordable at all) for some. In other situations--like those who could afford to buy insurance but weren't*--it will certainly increase their costs. They'll have to pay in something rather than nothing, even when they're a relatively low risk.

For insurance companies, I don't know what the overall effect is. Their profit margins are effectively limited (by requiring that they spend a certain percentage of premiums collected paying claims), but they'll get more customers. But I do know that the industry said the only possible way they could stop the practice of rescission and post claim underwriting was to have some kind of comprehensive reform that included an individual mandate of some sort.

*ETA: And that sounds like the example the Forbes guy was using: "In other words, for the typical 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent." It might even bring it up from zero to something, so there's really no way to even talk about a percentage increase.

Since a single payer system was off the table, this complex and huge piece of legislation attempting to accomplish nearly the same end result using insurance coverage was what we got. Some people will always pay in more than they get back out. Others will require treatment they can't possibly pay for themselves. The degree of medical treatment our bodies require isn't distributed evenly in the population--and it's certainly not distributed in direct proportion to one's ability to pay for it. So, some low risk people will have to pay more than they get in return.