Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

[Robrob]

Really? How much money do you make? How much money did your parent's have? Did you have a privileged childhood? Tell me about yourself.

$130k. I never really asked them but more than me. I didn't think it was particularly privileged. I'm not paranoid?

Of course none of those questions have anything to do with ACA. You just imagined them to be "uncomfortable" for an anonymous web poster...


Of course since I did not present an argument based on what I made/didn't make, your point would be moot.

If you chose to make a claim based on Argument from Authority, a reasonable person would expect to answer reasonable questions related to that claim. For example, if your claim is you paid $X for something which is priced on a percentage of your income and number of dependents, a reasonable person might ask what were those modifiers. On the internet, suddenly citing privacy concerns over something on which you based an earlier claim often makes people take your claims less seriously.

You might think it's paranoid... but you might also think it's paranoid if I don't wish to disclose any medical conditions I might have.

Strawman.

 

[plague311]

Care for the sick and elderly was the basis for ACA? And here I thought it was for the uninsured...

Evidence that the sick and the elderly are already insured? Or that they will not benefit from the ACA?

ETA: Sick = pre-existing condition, can't get on insurance because of it. Just a note.

 

[DGM]

ETA: Sick = pre-existing condition, can't get on insurance because of it. Just a note.

As a note, no one likes to address:

You can't actually insure against something you already have. It's a subsidy or payment plan.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Evidence that the sick and the elderly are already insured? Or that they will not benefit from the ACA?

ETA: Sick = pre-existing condition, can't get on insurance because of it. Just a note.

The elderly have Medicare.

 

[Kestrel]

You can't actually insure against something you already have. It's a subsidy or payment plan.

It happens all the time with insurance provided by large employers. Insurers expect a percentage of the workforce to have pre existing conditions and the premiums charged per employee reflect that fact.

 

[DGM]

It happens all the time with insurance provided by large employers. Insurers expect a percentage of the workforce to have pre existing conditions and the premiums charged per employee reflect that fact.

True but, this does not apply to people that have to pay out of pocket.

Related:

So why are the young and health going to pick up the extra tab?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/does-the-obamacare-penalty-actually-have-teeth--144740030.html

The law also prohibits the IRS from using liens or levies to collect any “payment you owe related to the law, if you, your spouse or a dependent included on your tax return does not have minimum essential coverage,”

It would be cheaper to self-insure and pay the penalty.

 

[xjx388]

It happens all the time with insurance provided by large employers. Insurers expect a percentage of the workforce to have pre existing conditions and the premiums charged per employee reflect that fact.

Right, because they use their actuarial-fu to figure out how big the risk pool is, average age of insured, etc (perhaps Emily Cat can provide some insight here) and come up with a price.

Asking health insurers to insure people with pre-existing conditions is like asking life insurers to insure people who are already dead or dying. And they can't even charge more based on health conditions. They aren't really insuring anything in those cases. Thus, premiums must go up across the board in an environment that was already seeing premiums rising.

Meanwhile, the young, healthy and invincible don't see any value in participating in the risk pool and would rather pay the much cheaper fine. And as DGM pointed out, there's no real way to enforce paying the fine so most people's reaction to it (that I've spoken with anyway) is a big, meh.

It remains to be seen how this will play out over the next few years but if I had to bet, I would bet on premiums rising to a point where the system starts to lose it's "affordable" tag very quickly.

 

[Kestrel]

To avoid paying the penalty for not having insurance, you have to make sure you never are due a tax refund. When a bad year comes along that would normally trigger a tax refund, the penalties for not buying insurance built up over the years will taken out of your refund check. The nasty part is that it will happen at a time when you could really use the money.

 

[DGM]

To avoid paying the penalty for not having insurance, you have to make sure you never are due a tax refund. When a bad year comes along that would normally trigger a tax refund, the penalties for not buying insurance built up over the years will taken out of your refund check. The nasty part is that it will happen at a time when you could really use the money.

That's not the point. Even if you pay the penalty it would still be cheaper for the healthy to self-insure (yes I know this ignores the unseen risks).

 

[xjx388]

To avoid paying the penalty for not having insurance, you have to make sure you never are due a tax refund. When a bad year comes along that would normally trigger a tax refund, the penalties for not buying insurance built up over the years will taken out of your refund check. The nasty part is that it will happen at a time when you could really use the money.

Well, I believe that anyone who gets a refund either: 1)Is poor enough that they won't have to worry about the penalty or 2)Is not managing their finances wisely -proper withholding eliminates the problem. I've always thought that if I have a significant refund at tax time, I've done something wrong.

 

[DGM]

I've always thought that if I have a significant refund at tax time, I've done something wrong.

I like to pay. If I get a refund they've had my money with no interest.

People are saying to me, "so what? My refund is $100 less, I still didn't pay $2000 for something I won't use".

Healthcare is a tough sell to the young and healthy (especially males).

 

[Kestrel]

That's not the point. Even if you pay the penalty it would still be cheaper for the healthy to self-insure (yes I know this ignores the unseen risks).

It also ignores the financial reality of the typical American. Most of us were not born with a silver spoon in our mouth and a trust fund full of stocks and bonds. We paid for college with loans, grants and working part time jobs. We don't have a couple hundred thousand sitting in the bank just in case we get sick.

 

[DGM]

It also ignores the financial reality of the typical American. Most of us were not born with a silver spoon in our mouth and a trust fund full of stocks and bonds. We paid for college with loans, grants and working part time jobs. We don't have a couple hundred thousand sitting in the bank just in case we get sick.

..............or do they (I say this because I'm older now and think about these things)think they will need to spend large amounts on healthcare. Remember, to the young, healthcare is not preventative, it's for if you get sick.

Example: I didn't go to the doctor for almost 25 years (age 18 to 42). I did after that and was declared healthy and have been more diligent since.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Actually it's more like the un-insurable and the ones that need subsidies.

I figure they make up enough of the currently uninsured that it's reasonable to generalize the category.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you chose to make a claim based on Argument from Authority, a reasonable person would expect to answer reasonable questions related to that claim. For example, if your claim is you paid $X for something which is priced on a percentage of your income and number of dependents, a reasonable person might ask what were those modifiers. On the internet, suddenly citing privacy concerns over something on which you based an earlier claim often makes people take your claims less seriously.

First, it wasn't my claim. Second, Newtons Bits shared what his price used to be, and what it is now - the disbelief was related to what his prior premium was, which does NOT depend on income. Third, if I make a claim about my personal experience with something, you can choose to believe or disbelieve, but I don't think it is reasonable that you assume you can demand my personal information be revealed to you so you can evaluate the validity of my claim about my personal experience.

And fourth, I don't care if you think it's paranoid, it's still none of your darned business. And I don't think there's any rational argument you can make that will change that fact.

Strawman.

Not so.

Also... did you bother to read the rest of my post? Do you understand my perspective?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Evidence that the sick and the elderly are already insured? Or that they will not benefit from the ACA?

ETA: Sick = pre-existing condition, can't get on insurance because of it. Just a note.

The elderly are nearly all covered under Medicare. The sick, using your specific definition for it are benefited - I did not say they weren't. What I said (or at least intended to say) is that ACA is considerably broader in intent than your statement. It is intended to benefit ALL of the uninsured, very many of whom are neither elderly nor sick... but simply poor.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Right, because they use their actuarial-fu to figure out how big the risk pool is, average age of insured, etc (perhaps Emily Cat can provide some insight here) and come up with a price.

Pretty much nailed it. Age and gender, family size, geographic location, percent of employees participating in the plan, industry, size of company, sometimes I few other things. I rarely work with the group side of the house, my focus is on consumer lines. For larger groups, we also use the past experience of the group - how high their average costs are in each year.

Interesting (to me) side bar: It's the employer market that ruined health insurance. Prior to the late 1930s (I don't recall the date), insurance was all individually sold, and almost exclusively indemnity products (they paid you a lump sum based on the kind of service you had, and you were responsible for paying the doctor). Sometime in the 30s, though, there was a freeze on wages across the country, and employers had to compete in different ways - they started introducing employee benefit packages - pensions, health insurance, term life insurance, etc. as part of their compensation. Employers wanted their employees to be overall healthier, and pushed for a more comprehensive coverage package. Most of what health coverage looks like nowadays was born in the brains of employers looking for ways to compete for new employees.

 

[DGM]

I figure they make up enough of the currently uninsured that it's reasonable to generalize the category.

Probably true. You also shouldn't count on them to cover the cost of those that need it and can't afford it. This group is what I can't count on but the plan uses to balance the projected cost.

The fact everyone seems to expect "subsidies" to make it affordable is troubling to me. I(we) are paying for the subsidies in taxes (or reductions in other programs). There is no free money here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There is no free money here.

Agreed.

 

[DGM]

Agreed.

Good.

Also expect the cost of retail goods to go up when retailers are forced to pay a greater percentage of employee healthcare (not to mention the change over from full time jobs to part time). No one really thinks they are just going to suck it up?