Obama knew millions could not keep their health insurance

[astralis]

note that this article talks about how Medicare Advantage is doing poorly. Medicare Advantage was an experiment in privatizing Medicare: it was meant to be the more efficient counterpart to traditional Medicare, as payments were routed through private insurance companies (guess which party supported this miniature analogue to the ACA itself).

unfortunately the magic of the market did not work so well here, and the result is that Medicare Advantage actually costs significantly more than regular Medicare. the ACA reduces the payments made to the private insurance companies to the level of regular Medicare, and thus the article above.

[Minskaya]

Obamacare fix "a logistical nightmare," insurance industry consultant says
November 16, 2013

(CBS News) The confusion over the Affordable Care Act only seems to deepen for many Americans trying to figure out what exactly is going to happen to their health insurance. President Obama is now calling for a one-year extension of policies that insurance companies have already canceled, but the companies and state regulators are saying it's not that simple. It's the customers who are caught in the middle. In the next week, millions of people who received cancellation notices of their health care insurance may be getting another letter in the mail, this time a way to extend coverage that was canceled.

"It's a logistical nightmare that if done is likely to lead to serious customer service problems," said Robert Laszewski, a prominent insurance industry consultant with Health Policy and Strategy Associates. Mr. Obama is pressing insurance companies to re-issue canceled plans, but whether that happens also depends on states' insurance commissioners. And while a majority tells CBS News they continue to research the president's fix, at least three states - Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington - have already rejected it. Meanwhile, the enrollment clock is ticking, and insurers are staring down Dec. 15. It is a key date on the calendar for anyone wishing to have coverage at the start of the new year.

Source

The ACA farcical fix is sliding down the rabbit hole.

[JAD_333]

I agree, but Obamacare is not in anyway shape or form paying your own way. Obamacare is the already old and already sick demanding the young and healthy give up their future.

Z:

Of the many arguments against the insurance mandate in Obamcare, this one is the weakest. Insurance is shared risk. I am sure you know how insurance works, but you're overlooking some basic realities when it comes to health insurance. While 'Young and healthy' is a static demographic, the people who make it up are not. They're aging all the time. The insurance premiums they pay into the system, when they need little healthcare, go to pay for the care of their older compatriots, who in time they will join. Come on, stoke up some of the true objections to Obamacare. :)

[JAD_333]

note that this article talks about how Medicare Advantage is doing poorly. Medicare Advantage was an experiment in privatizing Medicare: it was meant to be the more efficient counterpart to traditional Medicare, as payments were routed through private insurance companies (guess which party supported this miniature analogue to the ACA itself).

unfortunately the magic of the market did not work so well here, and the result is that Medicare Advantage actually costs significantly more than regular Medicare. the ACA reduces the payments made to the private insurance companies to the level of regular Medicare, and thus the article above.

Retired people love Medicare Advantage, and they pay for it. It covers things straight Medicare doesn't. I don't care what party came up with it, it's good. Now it's under threat because of the ACA. You'll have to poke through all 2,700 pages of the ACA to find out why.

[zraver]

Z:

Of the many arguments against the insurance mandate in Obamcare, this one is the weakest. Insurance is shared risk. I am sure you know how insurance works, but you're overlooking some basic realities when it comes to health insurance. While 'Young and healthy' is a static demographic, the people who make it up are not. They're aging all the time. The insurance premiums they pay into the system, when they need little healthcare, go to pay for the care of their older compatriots, who in time they will join. Come on, stoke up some of the true objections to Obamacare. :)

If we charge people aged 26-40 up to $20 dollars a day or more to pay for the health care of older people so the older people can avoid the costs and protect their estates by the time the now young are older there wont be any wealth left to tax. Its bullshit, lets call Obamacare what it is- theft of the young's future by the old and/or sick in order to protect corporate profits.

Obamacare will cost a reasonably frugal family more per day than food or shelter, maybe more than food and shelter....

[Doktor]

Z,

If it costs you more then food and shelter when you are young, what it's gonna cost you when you are old?

[zraver]

Z,

If it costs you more then food and shelter when you are young, what it's gonna cost you when you are old?

Dok, thats just it, it doesn't cost more when young except for a federal law that requires premiums to be equalized between members of the pool instead of risk. Say you are 27 and I am 60 and Acme insurance figures the total cost of insuring us will be $1000 a month. Individually before ACA they would charge me $875 and you $125. Under ACA my bills dramatically drop and yours go up to pick up the slack. This protects my wealth and tanks your ability to ever build wealth. It also means premiums are not based on individual risk anymore. There is no incentive to live healthy, it doesn't matter.

[Doktor]

Dok, thats just it, it doesn't cost more when young except for a federal law that requires premiums to be equalized between members of the pool instead of risk. Say you are 27 and I am 60 and Acme insurance figures the total cost of insuring us will be $1000 a month. Individually before ACA they would charge me $875 and you $125. Under ACA my bills dramatically drop and yours go up to pick up the slack. This protects my wealth and tanks your ability to ever build wealth. It also means premiums are not based on individual risk anymore. There is no incentive to live healthy, it doesn't matter.

Are you saying that before you were evaluated and your premium was settled according to your own risk (smoker, addict, miner, etc) and now it's just a % of your incomes?

If that's the case it sucks. I can tell it to you first hand, since we have that system over here.

Moreover, in our system it doesn't matter how much you earn (therefor how much you contribute to the system), you get the same services and wait the same.

[bonehead]

Dok, thats just it, it doesn't cost more when young except for a federal law that requires premiums to be equalized between members of the pool instead of risk. Say you are 27 and I am 60 and Acme insurance figures the total cost of insuring us will be $1000 a month. Individually before ACA they would charge me $875 and you $125. Under ACA my bills dramatically drop and yours go up to pick up the slack. This protects my wealth and tanks your ability to ever build wealth. It also means premiums are not based on individual risk anymore. There is no incentive to live healthy, it doesn't matter.

Having health insurance in no way keeps the younger generation from building wealth. At worse it will make it harder for them to squander money on things they really didn't need, ie smart phones cars with thousands of dollars of accessories, etc. A few might even have to not be able to afford smoking to pay for their insurance..oh the horror.

"There is no incentive to live healthy, it doesn't matter" Z, that is about the most offensive thing you have ever posted and you have posted some whoppers. Health is one of the most important things one can have. If you don't have health you aint building wealth.

[Doktor]

Having health insurance in no way keeps the younger generation from building wealth. At worse it will make it harder for them to squander money on things they really didn't need, ie smart phones cars with thousands of dollars of accessories, etc. A few might even have to not be able to afford smoking to pay for their insurance..oh the horror.

"There is no incentive to live healthy, it doesn't matter" Z, that is about the most offensive thing you have ever posted and you have posted some whoppers. Health is one of the most important things one can have. If you don't have health you aint building wealth.

BH,

I believe Z was talking in terms of finance. That the system, not the individual, gives no incentives to live healthier life.
I wouldn't be surprised many people to take that as a 'do what you please, we'll cover you'. After all, it seems everywhere people like the idea the state to be their nanny and not to be personally responsible for anything.

[zraver]

Are you saying that before you were evaluated and your premium was settled according to your own risk (smoker, addict, miner, etc) and now it's just a % of your incomes?

Yup, its called premium equalization. In effect it shifts the bulk of the costs of health care on to the backs of young healthy men (who use the least amount of healthcare)

Bonehead,

stop with the personal attacks.

Having health insurance in no way keeps the younger generation from building wealth

Forcing them from a poo of likes (other young healthy people) into a pool polluted with the old and infirm leading to massive subsidy spikes does indeed wreck wealth building. In some cases ACA will cost more than food and shelter... That is crippling.

At worse it will make it harder for them to squander money on things they really didn't need, ie smart phones cars with thousands of dollars of accessories, etc. A few might even have to not be able to afford smoking to pay for their insurance..oh the horror.

And you talk about me saying offensive things? Now you want to control what they spend their money on, well what of it they have left adter you pic-pocket them to pay for your health care. That is offensive.

There is no incentive to live healthy, it doesn't matter" Z, that is about the most offensive thing you have ever posted and you have posted some whoppers. Health is one of the most important things one can have. If you don't have health you aint building wealth.

The system had powerful incentives to live healthy. Lifestyle choices decided what insurance pool you went into. That system of rewarding behavior has been wrecked.

[JAD_333]

If we charge people aged 26-40 up to $20 dollars a day or more to pay for the health care of older people so the older people can avoid the costs and protect their estates by the time the now young are older there wont be any wealth left to tax. Its bullshit, lets call Obamacare what it is- theft of the young's future by the old and/or sick in order to protect corporate profits.

Obamacare will cost a reasonably frugal family more per day than food or shelter, maybe more than food and shelter....

You know very well that the $20 a day isn't paid directly to old people. It's the premium on a healthcare insurance policy. Young people get sick, too.

Preventing the estates of seniors from being drained away by healthcare costs was never the primary reason for Obamacare. You talk about stealing young people's futures. How about stealing their inheritances. The daily cost of intensive care can run $8,000. Insurance might cover half that. With extraordinary measures it's possible to keep someone alive weeks or months. The average estate will be drained dry, and then the hospital or Medicaid, eats the on-going costs.

I agree, it seems unfair that young people should be forced to buy the same policy as old people. It's much the same as taxing everyone the same amount no matter what they earn. If we had a single-payer system paid for out of tax revenues, that wouldn't happen Then young people would have full access to health care, but pay less, because as a group they pay less taxes. But, in reality, they'd be paying more taxes than today, just relatively 'less' than people in higher tax brackets. All brackets would pay more. Here's why. The per capita cost for healthcare in the US is $8,000 a year. Times that by a population of 330,000,000 million and get $2.64 trillion. That would be the tax bill for a single-payer system; (maybe somewhat less with price controls and the elimination non-essential medical procedures.) The bill is the same no matter which system you use. We would just pay it in different ways.

Here's the deal, we can go along more or less as we have for years, buying insurance where we can, relying on Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for the poor, using ERs for minor illnesses, and relying on all the other entitlements and niche programs that pay for healthcare. We can let 27 million Americans go without access to adequate healthcare. Or, we can come up with a system that delivers healthcare for everybody.

Obama went with the insurance mandate because it was the path of least resistance. The insurance industry liked it, hospitals liked it, medical providers liked it, big pharma liked it, and all sorts of associations and advocacy groups liked it. Using the insurance model seemed sensible to people. Most already have insurance and a lot wish they could get it. The catch was, it would only work if everyone had a policy. So they made a law that required you to buy one.

The other way, a single-payer system, has a much smaller constituency, the medical industry in general opposes it, and not many Dems are for it, because it meant substantially higher taxes, and that's a bugaboo for voters. It wouldn't have gotten out of committee. So, it's either pay for an insurance policy or go with single payer and pay higher taxes, or just freeload on existing programs and keep taxes where they are.

I'm against the insurance mandate because I believe government has no right to force me to buy anything. I like to think I could live in the woods and survive off nature without some IRS agent hunting me down to make me sign up for Obamacare. At least with single-payer, I would have the choice to work and pay taxes or not work and pay no taxes. Military service is the only government mandate I accept.

[Doktor]

JAD,

I can see where are you coming from for elders vs youngsters pay.

Reading you and Z I am under an impression your old system bankrupted. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the today youngsters to fill the gap.

You have mentioned $2.64tn health care costs being covered by the people. Does that mean all the taxes collected from cigs, booze, lottery etc that were going into health care (I assume you have/had those), are now going to stop being taxed? Does it also mean Federal budget will have no health care in it? Because people will pay to the insurers, they will pay the doctors, circle closed? 26% of federal budget saved. Yay. Is it?

Trying to understand it, for a foreigner it is really complicated.

[snapper]

Retired people love Medicare Advantage, and they pay for it. It covers things straight Medicare doesn't. I don't care what party came up with it, it's good. Now it's under threat because of the ACA. You'll have to poke through all 2,700 pages of the ACA to find out why.

Seems more mature Ladies are actually paying for younger ones potential to have children.

[zraver]

You know very well that the $20 a day isn't paid directly to old people. It's the premium on a healthcare insurance policy. Young people get sick, too.

It is paid directly to the old and already sick in the form of premium supports via premium equalization. That $20 is way more than they use. Todays young face a net lifetime loss of over $300,000. They will never get back what they pay in because our already old and sick keep demanding more. To the point of getting $250,000 per capita more out of the system than they paid in. It is a massive inter-generational theft of wealth.

Preventing the estates of seniors from being drained away by healthcare costs was never the primary reason for Obamacare. You talk about stealing young people's futures. How about stealing their inheritances. The daily cost of intensive care can run $8,000. Insurance might cover half that. With extraordinary measures it's possible to keep someone alive weeks or months. The average estate will be drained dry, and then the hospital or Medicaid, eats the on-going costs.

We need to stop spending millions of dollars to extend the lives of the elderly by 6 months... sorry, hate to sound cruel but its stupid. If I have an estate worth anything I'd want the plug pulled so my kids and grandkids have something. It also means i should not be able to rob your kids and grand kids to buy me another six months. Terminal cases outside of a few exceptions like the very young, war heroes etc need palliative care.

I agree, it seems unfair that young people should be forced to buy the same policy as old people. It's much the same as taxing everyone the same amount no matter what they earn.

Wrong, young people are taxed disproportionately to what they use via premium equalization. Nothing fair or balanced about it.

If we had a single-payer system paid for out of tax revenues, that wouldn't happen Then young people would have full access to health care, but pay less, because as a group they pay less taxes. But, in reality, they'd be paying more taxes than today, just relatively 'less' than people in higher tax brackets.

Look, we know roughly speaking what each age bracket is going to use on health care... we can tax in increasing increments as people both age and earn more in order to protect the wealth building capabilities that are so vital to our economic progress.

All brackets would pay more. Here's why. The per capita cost for healthcare in the US is $8,000 a year. Times that by a population of 330,000,000 million and get $2.64 trillion. That would be the tax bill for a single-payer system; (maybe somewhat less with price controls and the elimination non-essential medical procedures.) The bill is the same no matter which system you use. We would just pay it in different ways.

It would be roughly 7% less minus the insurance company profits. More would be saved by running people under a single administrative system. Reforming end of life care would save huge amounts, even if much of the savings was siphoned off to preserve research on cures. We would also save hundreds of millions on uncompensated care in ER's. There are a lot of costs in our system that are massively inflated.

Here's the deal, we can go along more or less as we have for years, buying insurance where we can, relying on Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for the poor, using ERs for minor illnesses, and relying on all the other entitlements and niche programs that pay for healthcare. We can let 27 million Americans go without access to adequate healthcare. Or, we can come up with a system that delivers healthcare for everybody.

better than Obamacare...

Obama went with the insurance mandate because it was the path of least resistance. The insurance industry liked it, hospitals liked it, medical providers liked it, big pharma liked it, and all sorts of associations and advocacy groups liked it. Using the insurance model seemed sensible to people. Most already have insurance and a lot wish they could get it. The catch was, it would only work if everyone had a policy. So they made a law that required you to buy one.

Obamacare's mandate is immoral becuase it put everyone in to the same pot and then deliberately shifted the costs to the least able to pay.

The other way, a single-payer system, has a much smaller constituency, the medical industry in general opposes it, and not many Dems are for it, because it meant substantially higher taxes, and that's a bugaboo for voters. It wouldn't have gotten out of committee. So, it's either pay for an insurance policy or go with single payer and pay higher taxes, or just freeload on existing programs and keep taxes where they are.

Single payer makes more ethical and constitutional sense than Obamacare.

I'm against the insurance mandate because I believe government has no right to force me to buy anything.

I agree

I like to think I could live in the woods and survive off nature without some IRS agent hunting me down to make me sign up for Obamacare. At least with single-payer, I would have the choice to work and pay taxes or not work and pay no taxes. Military service is the only government mandate I accept.

Again I agree.