Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[Flopper]

That fundamental issue is what needs to be talked about because policy going forward depends on the position of the idea whether it is an entitlement. Again even if you consider it a right, a right is not something you can require someone else provide you. I think it's interesting, nuanced argument. For instance the founding fathers thought man had the right to life, but does that mean you have the right to make someone else protect your life? I don't think so. And if you want to get real philosophical perhaps we need to discuss whether, in the grand scheme of things as in health of planet not just the humans on it, we should try so hard to save so many.



That's another distinction; do people want free healthcare when needed or would they be satisfied with less expensive health care? Because that would be the end result of the above free market. If you insist you're entitled to care when needed regardless of ability to pay, morally that's something you need to get everyone to agree to because again, you don't have the right to make me responsible financially for your health outcomes.

I don't think people want a system where healthcare is free. I think people want a system where healthcare is at a cost they can afford and that's were government has to enter the picture. You could reduce the cost of treatments for serious disease by 50% and it would still be well beyond the means of most Americans. I don't think there is anything that can be done to make healthcare affordable for low income earners other than some type subsidy. If you have a family income of twice the federal poverty level and you come out of the hospital with a $10,000 bill, which is low these days, even a payment of a few hundred dollars would be hard to manage and paying the whole bill would be just about impossible.

Well think about it another way. Look at the other things Americans don't see to get too concerned about going into debt over; higher education even credit card debt. No one seems to have a problem making monthly payments on those things. I would think providers might even be amicable to that more as it would be a more constant revenue stream. There is a place for insurance of course, but it should be handled more like auto insurance. You don't use it for everything like your yearly physical or other run of the mill illnesses.

The plans on the exchanges certainly discourage usage of healthcare providers for minor problems. For family incomes at twice the federal poverty level, I could not find any plans with less than a $1,000 deductible. At 3 times FPL, deductibles were mostly $2,000 with only few at the $1500. If that doesn't discourage people from running to doctor with trivial problems I don't know what would. However, group health insurance is different. People like low deductible plans so most employee sponsered health insurance plans will have $250, $500, and $750 deductible plans.

In my experience, health care providers have little interest in carrying debt. They are more likely to discount the balance for a full payment, sell it to a collection agency, or just write it off.

According to the American Cancer Society, the average cost of treating an occurrence of Breast Cancer is $21,000, $42,000 for prostate cancer. The total cost of coronary bypass surgery is $80,000 to $250,000. If complications occur or their is a re-occurrence, then the costs can go through the roof. An average American family whose income is about $45,000 a year could not handle these costs if they half what they are.

 

[Bern80]

''how do you expect to establish the real market price of something when the consumer doesn't even have the choice of whether they want the product or not?''

Nobody wants health insurance. Everyone but the very wealthy needs health insurance.

The same can be said about auto liability insurance. Do you plan to go after the laws requiring that too?

Not an apples to apples comparison. And you asked the question how is it not an enterprise solution. Any solution that reduces choice, whether it be in purchasing the product entirely or in what form it may be purchased, runs counter to a market solution and therefore drive prices up. Not down.

That is such an over simplification. No wonder you fell for the propaganda so readily.

How much choice do you have when you buy any necessity? Can you buy a gallon of gas for a buck?

Tell us how exchanges drive prices up? Tell us how information about what's covered and not covered by a specific policy doesn't empower the consumer? Tell us how requiring people to cover the cost of their own healthcare isn't good?

You say that there's a difference between requiring auto liability insurance and health care insurance but you avoided explaining what that difference is.

Think!

Gosh I thought I was being clear on this, but apparently you just don't listen. I've said on multiple occasions that the concept of the exchange is not a bad thing. In theory, yes, such a mechanism that presents people with options should drive prices down. The operative words there are 'in theory'. In the real world of the Obamacare policies whatever help the exchanges may contribute in lowering costs is being counteracted by all of the other moronic mandates in the policy.

Here's an easy way to look at it. Forget the politics and just start looking at the mechanisms in place and their effect on price. What econmic mechanisms of Obamacare drive costs down and which drive costs up.

Down:
Exchanges

Up:
insurance mandate
tax on medical devices
community rating mandate
pre-existing condition mandate

Can you come up with other mechanisms that would drive cost of services and premiums down? I don't think choice counts, because the choices were there before. The exchange is just a means of presenting those choices.

 

[PMZ]

Not an apples to apples comparison. And you asked the question how is it not an enterprise solution. Any solution that reduces choice, whether it be in purchasing the product entirely or in what form it may be purchased, runs counter to a market solution and therefore drive prices up. Not down.

That is such an over simplification. No wonder you fell for the propaganda so readily.

How much choice do you have when you buy any necessity? Can you buy a gallon of gas for a buck?

Tell us how exchanges drive prices up? Tell us how information about what's covered and not covered by a specific policy doesn't empower the consumer? Tell us how requiring people to cover the cost of their own healthcare isn't good?

You say that there's a difference between requiring auto liability insurance and health care insurance but you avoided explaining what that difference is.

Think!

Gosh I thought I was being clear on this, but apparently you just don't listen. I've said on multiple occasions that the concept of the exchange is not a bad thing. In theory, yes, such a mechanism that presents people with options should drive prices down. The operative words there are 'in theory'. In the real world of the Obamacare policies whatever help the exchanges may contribute in lowering costs is being counteracted by all of the other moronic mandates in the policy.

Here's an easy way to look at it. Forget the politics and just start looking at the mechanisms in place and their effect on price. What econmic mechanisms of Obamacare drive costs down and which drive costs up.

Down:
Exchanges

Up:
insurance mandate
tax on medical devices
community rating mandate
pre-existing condition mandate

Can you come up with other mechanisms that would drive cost of services and premiums down? I don't think choice counts, because the choices were there before. The exchange is just a means of presenting those choices.

People with no option but emergency room services, the most expensive, least effective health care conceivable, finally having an affordable option.

The savings to businesses of having a healthier workforce.

The reduction in contagious disease due to many fewer untreated carriers.

Economically more robust health care delivery and insurance business with many more customers.

Preventative medicine for everyone, not just the wealthy.

A replacement for the previous system, health care insurance as part of workforce compensation, for which business is dropping the ball as quickly as possible.

 

[Flopper]

Not an apples to apples comparison. And you asked the question how is it not an enterprise solution. Any solution that reduces choice, whether it be in purchasing the product entirely or in what form it may be purchased, runs counter to a market solution and therefore drive prices up. Not down.

That is such an over simplification. No wonder you fell for the propaganda so readily.

How much choice do you have when you buy any necessity? Can you buy a gallon of gas for a buck?

Tell us how exchanges drive prices up? Tell us how information about what's covered and not covered by a specific policy doesn't empower the consumer? Tell us how requiring people to cover the cost of their own healthcare isn't good?

You say that there's a difference between requiring auto liability insurance and health care insurance but you avoided explaining what that difference is.

Think!

Gosh I thought I was being clear on this, but apparently you just don't listen. I've said on multiple occasions that the concept of the exchange is not a bad thing. In theory, yes, such a mechanism that presents people with options should drive prices down. The operative words there are 'in theory'. In the real world of the Obamacare policies whatever help the exchanges may contribute in lowering costs is being counteracted by all of the other moronic mandates in the policy.

Here's an easy way to look at it. Forget the politics and just start looking at the mechanisms in place and their effect on price. What econmic mechanisms of Obamacare drive costs down and which drive costs up.

Down:
Exchanges

Up:
insurance mandate
tax on medical devices
community rating mandate
pre-existing condition mandate

Can you come up with other mechanisms that would drive cost of services and premiums down? I don't think choice counts, because the choices were there before. The exchange is just a means of presenting those choices.

I don't see how the individual mandate will raise the cost of healthcare. The mandate provides an incentive, for healthy people who might otherwise not purchase health insurance to do so, thus adding more healthy people to the insurance pool which lowers premiums. At worst, the cost of healthier people buying insurance will be offset by lower premiums.

The medical device tax is 2.9% of the sale price. Most sales to the public are exempt from the tax so almost all of the tax is collected on sales to healthcare providers. So how much would this really raise the cost of healthcare in the US? This tax is suppose to raise maybe 10 billion dollars in ten years or a billion dollars a year. The size of the US healthcare market is approaching 3 trillion a year. The impact on the overall healthcare costs is negligible, in order of .03% and that's only if the entire cost of the tax is passed on to health providers and thus to patients. The uproar over the device tax is ridiculous. Increase sales of medical devices due to the increase in the size of the market will certainly overcome the cost of the tax. The fact is Republicans fought, this not based on economic impact but rather because it was a tax and it would help offset the cost of Obamacare.

I agree eliminating preexisting conditions will push premiums higher although there are some offsets.

 

[Bern80]

That is such an over simplification. No wonder you fell for the propaganda so readily.

How much choice do you have when you buy any necessity? Can you buy a gallon of gas for a buck?

Tell us how exchanges drive prices up? Tell us how information about what's covered and not covered by a specific policy doesn't empower the consumer? Tell us how requiring people to cover the cost of their own healthcare isn't good?

You say that there's a difference between requiring auto liability insurance and health care insurance but you avoided explaining what that difference is.

Think!

Gosh I thought I was being clear on this, but apparently you just don't listen. I've said on multiple occasions that the concept of the exchange is not a bad thing. In theory, yes, such a mechanism that presents people with options should drive prices down. The operative words there are 'in theory'. In the real world of the Obamacare policies whatever help the exchanges may contribute in lowering costs is being counteracted by all of the other moronic mandates in the policy.

Here's an easy way to look at it. Forget the politics and just start looking at the mechanisms in place and their effect on price. What econmic mechanisms of Obamacare drive costs down and which drive costs up.

Down:
Exchanges

Up:
insurance mandate
tax on medical devices
community rating mandate
pre-existing condition mandate

Can you come up with other mechanisms that would drive cost of services and premiums down? I don't think choice counts, because the choices were there before. The exchange is just a means of presenting those choices.

I don't see how the individual mandate will raise the cost of healthcare. The mandate provides an incentive, for healthy people who might otherwise not purchase health insurance to do so, thus adding more healthy people to the insurance pool which lowers premiums. At worst, the cost of healthier people buying insurance will be offset by lower premiums.

The medical device tax is 2.9% of the sale price. Most sales to the public are exempt from the tax so almost all of the tax is collected on sales to healthcare providers. So how much would this really raise the cost of healthcare in the US? This tax is suppose to raise maybe 10 billion dollars in ten years or a billion dollars a year. The size of the US healthcare market is approaching 3 trillion a year. The impact on the overall healthcare costs is negligible, in order of .03% and that's only if the entire cost of the tax is passed on to health providers and thus to patients. The uproar over the device tax is ridiculous. Increase sales of medical devices due to the increase in the size of the market will certainly overcome the cost of the tax. The fact is Republicans fought, this not based on economic impact but rather because it was a tax and it would help offset the cost of Obamacare.

I agree eliminating preexisting conditions will push premiums higher although there are some offsets.

Because lack of choice is a product is a mechanims by which the price of said product is increased. Put yourself in the position of insurance company. Why would lower the cost of something you know someone must purchase from you? Your notion above rests on the presumption that there are actually enough healthy people who currently don't purchase insurance to make that work. What we're currently observing simply does not bare that out. The actual cost of premiums is going up for most people. Dave Ramsey has said it best so far. You can be liberal, you can be conservative, whatever. You DON'T get to be exempt from math. It's not an opinion or rhetoric. It's a simple statement of fact; when you mandate that insurance companies not only must accept people with pre-existing conditions and they can't charge them more for the same policy as someone else, what does that mean for an insurance companies numbers? it means they will be paying out more than they previoulsy were because they actually have to take in and cover known sick people. Therefore the cost of premiums must go up. The proof is we're already seeing it. The only way(s) government has been able to claim that the cost of coverage is going down is either for those that were in poor health to begin with or by factoring in their subsidies, masking the true cost of premiums.

As to the medical device tax, this I have a little inside knowledge as my brother is a sales rep for one that makes hip implants. The 2.9% is a tax on the purchase of their product, which is the hospital. Hospitals not making much money to begin with pass that on to consumers. You're right, that the consumer will probably never feel that from a combination of their insurance and subsidies, but doesn't that seem extremely inefficient to you? Why not find ways of actually lower the cost of the implant instead putting policy in place to cover the unintended consequences.

 

[Bern80]

That is such an over simplification. No wonder you fell for the propaganda so readily.

How much choice do you have when you buy any necessity? Can you buy a gallon of gas for a buck?

Tell us how exchanges drive prices up? Tell us how information about what's covered and not covered by a specific policy doesn't empower the consumer? Tell us how requiring people to cover the cost of their own healthcare isn't good?

You say that there's a difference between requiring auto liability insurance and health care insurance but you avoided explaining what that difference is.

Think!

Gosh I thought I was being clear on this, but apparently you just don't listen. I've said on multiple occasions that the concept of the exchange is not a bad thing. In theory, yes, such a mechanism that presents people with options should drive prices down. The operative words there are 'in theory'. In the real world of the Obamacare policies whatever help the exchanges may contribute in lowering costs is being counteracted by all of the other moronic mandates in the policy.

Here's an easy way to look at it. Forget the politics and just start looking at the mechanisms in place and their effect on price. What econmic mechanisms of Obamacare drive costs down and which drive costs up.

Down:
Exchanges

Up:
insurance mandate
tax on medical devices
community rating mandate
pre-existing condition mandate

Can you come up with other mechanisms that would drive cost of services and premiums down? I don't think choice counts, because the choices were there before. The exchange is just a means of presenting those choices.

People with no option but emergency room services, the most expensive, least effective health care conceivable, finally having an affordable option.

The savings to businesses of having a healthier workforce.

The reduction in contagious disease due to many fewer untreated carriers.

Economically more robust health care delivery and insurance business with many more customers.

Preventative medicine for everyone, not just the wealthy.

A replacement for the previous system, health care insurance as part of workforce compensation, for which business is dropping the ball as quickly as possible.

And where does the above come from exactly? How exactly does the workforce become healthier? it appears you're no longer denying that health care will cost more as a result, rather you're contending the extra cost is worth it for a healthier society. Accept there's no real eveidence that will happen either. You typically don't see people taking more responsibility for themselves by removing the financial consequences of being irresponsible.

 

[PMZ]

Gosh I thought I was being clear on this, but apparently you just don't listen. I've said on multiple occasions that the concept of the exchange is not a bad thing. In theory, yes, such a mechanism that presents people with options should drive prices down. The operative words there are 'in theory'. In the real world of the Obamacare policies whatever help the exchanges may contribute in lowering costs is being counteracted by all of the other moronic mandates in the policy.

Here's an easy way to look at it. Forget the politics and just start looking at the mechanisms in place and their effect on price. What econmic mechanisms of Obamacare drive costs down and which drive costs up.

Down:
Exchanges

Up:
insurance mandate
tax on medical devices
community rating mandate
pre-existing condition mandate

Can you come up with other mechanisms that would drive cost of services and premiums down? I don't think choice counts, because the choices were there before. The exchange is just a means of presenting those choices.

I don't see how the individual mandate will raise the cost of healthcare. The mandate provides an incentive, for healthy people who might otherwise not purchase health insurance to do so, thus adding more healthy people to the insurance pool which lowers premiums. At worst, the cost of healthier people buying insurance will be offset by lower premiums.

The medical device tax is 2.9% of the sale price. Most sales to the public are exempt from the tax so almost all of the tax is collected on sales to healthcare providers. So how much would this really raise the cost of healthcare in the US? This tax is suppose to raise maybe 10 billion dollars in ten years or a billion dollars a year. The size of the US healthcare market is approaching 3 trillion a year. The impact on the overall healthcare costs is negligible, in order of .03% and that's only if the entire cost of the tax is passed on to health providers and thus to patients. The uproar over the device tax is ridiculous. Increase sales of medical devices due to the increase in the size of the market will certainly overcome the cost of the tax. The fact is Republicans fought, this not based on economic impact but rather because it was a tax and it would help offset the cost of Obamacare.

I agree eliminating preexisting conditions will push premiums higher although there are some offsets.

Because lack of choice is a product is a mechanims by which the price of said product is increased. Put yourself in the position of insurance company. Why would lower the cost of something you know someone must purchase from you? Your notion above rests on the presumption that there are actually enough healthy people who currently don't purchase insurance to make that work. What we're currently observing simply does not bare that out. The actual cost of premiums is going up for most people. Dave Ramsey has said it best so far. You can be liberal, you can be conservative, whatever. You DON'T get to be exempt from math. It's not an opinion or rhetoric. It's a simple statement of fact; when you mandate that insurance companies not only must accept people with pre-existing conditions and they can't charge them more for the same policy as someone else, what does that mean for an insurance companies numbers? it means they will be paying out more than they previoulsy were because they actually have to take in and cover known sick people. Therefore the cost of premiums must go up. The proof is we're already seeing it. The only way(s) government has been able to claim that the cost of coverage is going down is either for those that were in poor health to begin with or by factoring in their subsidies, masking the true cost of premiums.

As to the medical device tax, this I have a little inside knowledge as my brother is a sales rep for one that makes hip implants. The 2.9% is a tax on the purchase of their product, which is the hospital. Hospitals not making much money to begin with pass that on to consumers. You're right, that the consumer will probably never feel that from a combination of their insurance and subsidies, but doesn't that seem extremely inefficient to you? Why not find ways of actually lower the cost of the implant instead putting policy in place to cover the unintended consequences.

How does Obamacare reduce choice? Choice of what?

''Why would lower the cost of something you know someone must purchase from you?''

Because they don't have to buy from you. You have competition. And customer's are empowerd by having a convenient tool to make meaningful comparisons between your product and your competitors.

 

[Bern80]

I don't see how the individual mandate will raise the cost of healthcare. The mandate provides an incentive, for healthy people who might otherwise not purchase health insurance to do so, thus adding more healthy people to the insurance pool which lowers premiums. At worst, the cost of healthier people buying insurance will be offset by lower premiums.

The medical device tax is 2.9% of the sale price. Most sales to the public are exempt from the tax so almost all of the tax is collected on sales to healthcare providers. So how much would this really raise the cost of healthcare in the US? This tax is suppose to raise maybe 10 billion dollars in ten years or a billion dollars a year. The size of the US healthcare market is approaching 3 trillion a year. The impact on the overall healthcare costs is negligible, in order of .03% and that's only if the entire cost of the tax is passed on to health providers and thus to patients. The uproar over the device tax is ridiculous. Increase sales of medical devices due to the increase in the size of the market will certainly overcome the cost of the tax. The fact is Republicans fought, this not based on economic impact but rather because it was a tax and it would help offset the cost of Obamacare.

I agree eliminating preexisting conditions will push premiums higher although there are some offsets.

Because lack of choice is a product is a mechanims by which the price of said product is increased. Put yourself in the position of insurance company. Why would lower the cost of something you know someone must purchase from you? Your notion above rests on the presumption that there are actually enough healthy people who currently don't purchase insurance to make that work. What we're currently observing simply does not bare that out. The actual cost of premiums is going up for most people. Dave Ramsey has said it best so far. You can be liberal, you can be conservative, whatever. You DON'T get to be exempt from math. It's not an opinion or rhetoric. It's a simple statement of fact; when you mandate that insurance companies not only must accept people with pre-existing conditions and they can't charge them more for the same policy as someone else, what does that mean for an insurance companies numbers? it means they will be paying out more than they previoulsy were because they actually have to take in and cover known sick people. Therefore the cost of premiums must go up. The proof is we're already seeing it. The only way(s) government has been able to claim that the cost of coverage is going down is either for those that were in poor health to begin with or by factoring in their subsidies, masking the true cost of premiums.

As to the medical device tax, this I have a little inside knowledge as my brother is a sales rep for one that makes hip implants. The 2.9% is a tax on the purchase of their product, which is the hospital. Hospitals not making much money to begin with pass that on to consumers. You're right, that the consumer will probably never feel that from a combination of their insurance and subsidies, but doesn't that seem extremely inefficient to you? Why not find ways of actually lower the cost of the implant instead putting policy in place to cover the unintended consequences.

How does Obamacare reduce choice? Choice of what?

''Why would lower the cost of something you know someone must purchase from you?''

Because they don't have to buy from you. You have competition. And customer's are empowerd by having a convenient tool to make meaningful comparisons between your product and your competitors.

Because again, there really is very little choice. If you have comapny x, y, z selling widgets and you (government) tell them they all must sell widgets for x amount and they all must make them basically the same way where is the real difference in products? And that's what Obamacare has told the insurance companies. You ask questions that have such obvious answers. I no longer have the choice to purchase insurance or not. The choices within the insurance I must now purchase have also been reduced because Obamacare has to told me not only must I purchase insurance, but I must purchase insurance that covers specific things (see: a GOVERNMENT APPROVED plan). Look at the ridiculousness of that. I could conceivably defy the law by purchasing the specific insurance I want so I'm paying for that and STILL pay the fine as well for not having a 'government approved' plan. Things I may not want to pay for.

 

[Flopper]

Gosh I thought I was being clear on this, but apparently you just don't listen. I've said on multiple occasions that the concept of the exchange is not a bad thing. In theory, yes, such a mechanism that presents people with options should drive prices down. The operative words there are 'in theory'. In the real world of the Obamacare policies whatever help the exchanges may contribute in lowering costs is being counteracted by all of the other moronic mandates in the policy.

Here's an easy way to look at it. Forget the politics and just start looking at the mechanisms in place and their effect on price. What econmic mechanisms of Obamacare drive costs down and which drive costs up.

Down:
Exchanges

Up:
insurance mandate
tax on medical devices
community rating mandate
pre-existing condition mandate

Can you come up with other mechanisms that would drive cost of services and premiums down? I don't think choice counts, because the choices were there before. The exchange is just a means of presenting those choices.

I don't see how the individual mandate will raise the cost of healthcare. The mandate provides an incentive, for healthy people who might otherwise not purchase health insurance to do so, thus adding more healthy people to the insurance pool which lowers premiums. At worst, the cost of healthier people buying insurance will be offset by lower premiums.

The medical device tax is 2.9% of the sale price. Most sales to the public are exempt from the tax so almost all of the tax is collected on sales to healthcare providers. So how much would this really raise the cost of healthcare in the US? This tax is suppose to raise maybe 10 billion dollars in ten years or a billion dollars a year. The size of the US healthcare market is approaching 3 trillion a year. The impact on the overall healthcare costs is negligible, in order of .03% and that's only if the entire cost of the tax is passed on to health providers and thus to patients. The uproar over the device tax is ridiculous. Increase sales of medical devices due to the increase in the size of the market will certainly overcome the cost of the tax. The fact is Republicans fought, this not based on economic impact but rather because it was a tax and it would help offset the cost of Obamacare.

I agree eliminating preexisting conditions will push premiums higher although there are some offsets.

Because lack of choice is a product is a mechanims by which the price of said product is increased. Put yourself in the position of insurance company. Why would lower the cost of something you know someone must purchase from you? Your notion above rests on the presumption that there are actually enough healthy people who currently don't purchase insurance to make that work. What we're currently observing simply does not bare that out. The actual cost of premiums is going up for most people. Dave Ramsey has said it best so far. You can be liberal, you can be conservative, whatever. You DON'T get to be exempt from math. It's not an opinion or rhetoric. It's a simple statement of fact; when you mandate that insurance companies not only must accept people with pre-existing conditions and they can't charge them more for the same policy as someone else, what does that mean for an insurance companies numbers? it means they will be paying out more than they previoulsy were because they actually have to take in and cover known sick people. Therefore the cost of premiums must go up. The proof is we're already seeing it. The only way(s) government has been able to claim that the cost of coverage is going down is either for those that were in poor health to begin with or by factoring in their subsidies, masking the true cost of premiums.

As to the medical device tax, this I have a little inside knowledge as my brother is a sales rep for one that makes hip implants. The 2.9% is a tax on the purchase of their product, which is the hospital. Hospitals not making much money to begin with pass that on to consumers. You're right, that the consumer will probably never feel that from a combination of their insurance and subsidies, but doesn't that seem extremely inefficient to you? Why not find ways of actually lower the cost of the implant instead putting policy in place to cover the unintended consequences.

Where did you get the idea that there are less plans available for people looking for non-group insurance. There are plenty of individual plans available, not just on the exchanges but from insurance brokers. In my state there are 35 plans listed on the exchange from 5 companies. There are nine other companies with over 40 plans that have applied. In fact, people looking for individual plans have a lot more choices than prior to the ACA. Prior to the ACA, preexisting conditions severely limited choice.

If anyone makes the statement premiums are rising because of the ACA then you must ask for who and where? For those with family incomes less than 300% FPL, they will see lower insurance premiums in most state. In some states they will be much lower, in others they will about same, and a few will be higher. For those with family incomes between 300% and 400% FPL, you will see little change in premiums. In some states it will be slightly higher in other states slightly lower. Most families with income above 400% FPL, will see a moderate increase in most states. A few will see premiums significantly lower and a few will see premiums significantly higher. The variation in cost differentials between states is due to variations in state insurance requirements. Some states allowed companies to market policies with very limited benefit at very low premiums, which are no longer legal while other states were in line with ACA requirements and thus had only minor changes in premium.

All of the above has nothing to do with group insurance which is where 85% of Americans get their insurance. According to a survey by the Kaisier Foundation, employers expect cost increases in their plans to be less than 3% to 4% due to the ACA.

 

[Bern80]

I don't see how the individual mandate will raise the cost of healthcare. The mandate provides an incentive, for healthy people who might otherwise not purchase health insurance to do so, thus adding more healthy people to the insurance pool which lowers premiums. At worst, the cost of healthier people buying insurance will be offset by lower premiums.

The medical device tax is 2.9% of the sale price. Most sales to the public are exempt from the tax so almost all of the tax is collected on sales to healthcare providers. So how much would this really raise the cost of healthcare in the US? This tax is suppose to raise maybe 10 billion dollars in ten years or a billion dollars a year. The size of the US healthcare market is approaching 3 trillion a year. The impact on the overall healthcare costs is negligible, in order of .03% and that's only if the entire cost of the tax is passed on to health providers and thus to patients. The uproar over the device tax is ridiculous. Increase sales of medical devices due to the increase in the size of the market will certainly overcome the cost of the tax. The fact is Republicans fought, this not based on economic impact but rather because it was a tax and it would help offset the cost of Obamacare.

I agree eliminating preexisting conditions will push premiums higher although there are some offsets.

Because lack of choice is a product is a mechanims by which the price of said product is increased. Put yourself in the position of insurance company. Why would lower the cost of something you know someone must purchase from you? Your notion above rests on the presumption that there are actually enough healthy people who currently don't purchase insurance to make that work. What we're currently observing simply does not bare that out. The actual cost of premiums is going up for most people. Dave Ramsey has said it best so far. You can be liberal, you can be conservative, whatever. You DON'T get to be exempt from math. It's not an opinion or rhetoric. It's a simple statement of fact; when you mandate that insurance companies not only must accept people with pre-existing conditions and they can't charge them more for the same policy as someone else, what does that mean for an insurance companies numbers? it means they will be paying out more than they previoulsy were because they actually have to take in and cover known sick people. Therefore the cost of premiums must go up. The proof is we're already seeing it. The only way(s) government has been able to claim that the cost of coverage is going down is either for those that were in poor health to begin with or by factoring in their subsidies, masking the true cost of premiums.

As to the medical device tax, this I have a little inside knowledge as my brother is a sales rep for one that makes hip implants. The 2.9% is a tax on the purchase of their product, which is the hospital. Hospitals not making much money to begin with pass that on to consumers. You're right, that the consumer will probably never feel that from a combination of their insurance and subsidies, but doesn't that seem extremely inefficient to you? Why not find ways of actually lower the cost of the implant instead putting policy in place to cover the unintended consequences.

Where did you get the idea that there are less plans available for people looking for non-group insurance. There are plenty of individual plans available, not just on the exchanges but from insurance brokers. In my state there are 35 plans listed on the exchange from 5 companies. There are nine other companies with over 40 plans that have applied. In fact, people looking for individual plans have a lot more choices than prior to the ACA. Prior to the ACA, preexisting conditions severely limited choice.

If anyone makes the statement premiums are rising because of the ACA then you must ask for who and where? For those with family incomes less than 300% FPL, they will see lower insurance premiums in most state. In some states they will be much lower, in others they will about same, and a few will be higher. For those with family incomes between 300% and 400% FPL, you will see little change in premiums. In some states it will be slightly higher in other states slightly lower. Most families with income above 400% FPL, will see a moderate increase in most states. A few will see premiums significantly lower and a few will see premiums significantly higher. The variation in cost differentials between states is due to variations in state insurance requirements. Some states allowed companies to market policies with very limited benefit at very low premiums, which are no longer legal while other states were in line with ACA requirements and thus had only minor changes in premium.

All of the above has nothing to do with group insurance which is where 85% of Americans get their insurance. According to a survey by the Kaisier Foundation, employers expect cost increases in their plans to be less than 3% to 4% due to the ACA.

Again, you can't ignore math. If the insurance companies are forced to avg. out the permiums in a given risk pool AND must charge those with pre-existing conditions that same as those without there is no mathematical solution that can occur other than for premium rates to go up. And again the discounts you are citing don't reflect a drop in actual premium costs. They reflect what the plans cost AFTER the subsidy. That's fine if all you're concerned with is reducing the cost to the consumer, but such a solution ignores the real problem of the high cost of insurance and service. It's a 'solution' that doesn't directly address the problem. Obama is basically saying, let's subsidize the individuals and we'll patch of the consequences of that bad idea as we go.

Then you talk about group insurance only going up a little as the result of ACA. As if that's some type of victory. How can it be when the goal was to make health care cost less?

 

[Flopper]

Because lack of choice is a product is a mechanims by which the price of said product is increased. Put yourself in the position of insurance company. Why would lower the cost of something you know someone must purchase from you? Your notion above rests on the presumption that there are actually enough healthy people who currently don't purchase insurance to make that work. What we're currently observing simply does not bare that out. The actual cost of premiums is going up for most people. Dave Ramsey has said it best so far. You can be liberal, you can be conservative, whatever. You DON'T get to be exempt from math. It's not an opinion or rhetoric. It's a simple statement of fact; when you mandate that insurance companies not only must accept people with pre-existing conditions and they can't charge them more for the same policy as someone else, what does that mean for an insurance companies numbers? it means they will be paying out more than they previoulsy were because they actually have to take in and cover known sick people. Therefore the cost of premiums must go up. The proof is we're already seeing it. The only way(s) government has been able to claim that the cost of coverage is going down is either for those that were in poor health to begin with or by factoring in their subsidies, masking the true cost of premiums.

As to the medical device tax, this I have a little inside knowledge as my brother is a sales rep for one that makes hip implants. The 2.9% is a tax on the purchase of their product, which is the hospital. Hospitals not making much money to begin with pass that on to consumers. You're right, that the consumer will probably never feel that from a combination of their insurance and subsidies, but doesn't that seem extremely inefficient to you? Why not find ways of actually lower the cost of the implant instead putting policy in place to cover the unintended consequences.

Where did you get the idea that there are less plans available for people looking for non-group insurance. There are plenty of individual plans available, not just on the exchanges but from insurance brokers. In my state there are 35 plans listed on the exchange from 5 companies. There are nine other companies with over 40 plans that have applied. In fact, people looking for individual plans have a lot more choices than prior to the ACA. Prior to the ACA, preexisting conditions severely limited choice.

If anyone makes the statement premiums are rising because of the ACA then you must ask for who and where? For those with family incomes less than 300% FPL, they will see lower insurance premiums in most state. In some states they will be much lower, in others they will about same, and a few will be higher. For those with family incomes between 300% and 400% FPL, you will see little change in premiums. In some states it will be slightly higher in other states slightly lower. Most families with income above 400% FPL, will see a moderate increase in most states. A few will see premiums significantly lower and a few will see premiums significantly higher. The variation in cost differentials between states is due to variations in state insurance requirements. Some states allowed companies to market policies with very limited benefit at very low premiums, which are no longer legal while other states were in line with ACA requirements and thus had only minor changes in premium.

All of the above has nothing to do with group insurance which is where 85% of Americans get their insurance. According to a survey by the Kaisier Foundation, employers expect cost increases in their plans to be less than 3% to 4% due to the ACA.

Again, you can't ignore math. If the insurance companies are forced to avg. out the permiums in a given risk pool AND must charge those with pre-existing conditions that same as those without there is no mathematical solution that can occur other than for premium rates to go up. And again the discounts you are citing don't reflect a drop in actual premium costs. They reflect what the plans cost AFTER the subsidy. That's fine if all you're concerned with is reducing the cost to the consumer, but such a solution ignores the real problem of the high cost of insurance and service. It's a 'solution' that doesn't directly address the problem. Obama is basically saying, let's subsidize the individuals and we'll patch of the consequences of that bad idea as we go.

Then you talk about group insurance only going up a little as the result of ACA. As if that's some type of victory. How can it be when the goal was to make health care cost less?

I agree that adding people with preexisting conditions to a risk pool will increase premiums. However, I think you're missing a couple of points.

• Adding low risk subscribers will help lower premiums which is exactly what the individual mandate is all about. Of course some people will choose to pay the penalty in the first year. However, each year the penalty rises. By 2017 the penalty for most Americans will be $2,085. In my state a 30 year old male can buy a bronze policy with no subsidy at all for $164.50/mo. or $1974/yr. For someone with low income, the penalty drops but the subsidy rises so again it make no sense to pay the penalty to avoid having insurance.
  
• As the number of subscribers increase, the size of the risk pool will grow reducing premium costs. In itself, a larger pool size won't lower risk but it will reduce overhead and other costs while increasing profits.
  
• For companies that list on the exchanges, marketing cost will go down. The cost of listing on the exchanges are very low. No advertising is need and the application process is highly automated.
  
• Lastly the exchanges increase competition because the plans are standardized and you can see a side by side comparison of cost and benefits.

 

[PMZ]

Because lack of choice is a product is a mechanims by which the price of said product is increased. Put yourself in the position of insurance company. Why would lower the cost of something you know someone must purchase from you? Your notion above rests on the presumption that there are actually enough healthy people who currently don't purchase insurance to make that work. What we're currently observing simply does not bare that out. The actual cost of premiums is going up for most people. Dave Ramsey has said it best so far. You can be liberal, you can be conservative, whatever. You DON'T get to be exempt from math. It's not an opinion or rhetoric. It's a simple statement of fact; when you mandate that insurance companies not only must accept people with pre-existing conditions and they can't charge them more for the same policy as someone else, what does that mean for an insurance companies numbers? it means they will be paying out more than they previoulsy were because they actually have to take in and cover known sick people. Therefore the cost of premiums must go up. The proof is we're already seeing it. The only way(s) government has been able to claim that the cost of coverage is going down is either for those that were in poor health to begin with or by factoring in their subsidies, masking the true cost of premiums.

As to the medical device tax, this I have a little inside knowledge as my brother is a sales rep for one that makes hip implants. The 2.9% is a tax on the purchase of their product, which is the hospital. Hospitals not making much money to begin with pass that on to consumers. You're right, that the consumer will probably never feel that from a combination of their insurance and subsidies, but doesn't that seem extremely inefficient to you? Why not find ways of actually lower the cost of the implant instead putting policy in place to cover the unintended consequences.

Where did you get the idea that there are less plans available for people looking for non-group insurance. There are plenty of individual plans available, not just on the exchanges but from insurance brokers. In my state there are 35 plans listed on the exchange from 5 companies. There are nine other companies with over 40 plans that have applied. In fact, people looking for individual plans have a lot more choices than prior to the ACA. Prior to the ACA, preexisting conditions severely limited choice.

If anyone makes the statement premiums are rising because of the ACA then you must ask for who and where? For those with family incomes less than 300% FPL, they will see lower insurance premiums in most state. In some states they will be much lower, in others they will about same, and a few will be higher. For those with family incomes between 300% and 400% FPL, you will see little change in premiums. In some states it will be slightly higher in other states slightly lower. Most families with income above 400% FPL, will see a moderate increase in most states. A few will see premiums significantly lower and a few will see premiums significantly higher. The variation in cost differentials between states is due to variations in state insurance requirements. Some states allowed companies to market policies with very limited benefit at very low premiums, which are no longer legal while other states were in line with ACA requirements and thus had only minor changes in premium.

All of the above has nothing to do with group insurance which is where 85% of Americans get their insurance. According to a survey by the Kaisier Foundation, employers expect cost increases in their plans to be less than 3% to 4% due to the ACA.

Again, you can't ignore math. If the insurance companies are forced to avg. out the permiums in a given risk pool AND must charge those with pre-existing conditions that same as those without there is no mathematical solution that can occur other than for premium rates to go up. And again the discounts you are citing don't reflect a drop in actual premium costs. They reflect what the plans cost AFTER the subsidy. That's fine if all you're concerned with is reducing the cost to the consumer, but such a solution ignores the real problem of the high cost of insurance and service. It's a 'solution' that doesn't directly address the problem. Obama is basically saying, let's subsidize the individuals and we'll patch of the consequences of that bad idea as we go.

Then you talk about group insurance only going up a little as the result of ACA. As if that's some type of victory. How can it be when the goal was to make health care cost less?

You are assuming that the people today with pre-existing disease, when told that insurance doesn't cover them, just go out in the street and die?

I think that you grossly underestimate the human spirit.

Why do conservatives believe that an unhealthy workforce is the least expensive alternative?

 

[PMZ]

What's strange is that ACA sends a huge number of new customers to the health care delivery and insurance business and the so called party of business is dead set against it. Proving I guess that they're no longer the party of business but merely the party of wealth.

From that perspective things become somewhat clearer. What the wealthy really want is exclusivity. They want tangible proof of their wealth whether it's autos, fashion, mcmansions, trophy spouses, celebrity, private jets, etc.

Everyone with access to health care makes it ordinary, the death if exclusivity, the end of privileged.

Their worst nightmare.

 

[JimBowie1958]

What's strange is that ACA sends a huge number of new customers to the health care delivery and insurance business and the so called party of business is dead set against it. Proving I guess that they're no longer the party of business but merely the party of wealth.

From that perspective things become somewhat clearer. What the wealthy really want is exclusivity. They want tangible proof of their wealth whether it's autos, fashion, mcmansions, trophy spouses, celebrity, private jets, etc.

Everyone with access to health care makes it ordinary, the death if exclusivity, the end of privileged.

Their worst nightmare.

The neocons are the party of wealth and privilege, but the TPM is not.

They are against Obamacare because thus far it has been a disaster and is going to likely just get worse.

Where are all these millions signing on, bubba?

 

[Bern80]

Where did you get the idea that there are less plans available for people looking for non-group insurance. There are plenty of individual plans available, not just on the exchanges but from insurance brokers. In my state there are 35 plans listed on the exchange from 5 companies. There are nine other companies with over 40 plans that have applied. In fact, people looking for individual plans have a lot more choices than prior to the ACA. Prior to the ACA, preexisting conditions severely limited choice.

If anyone makes the statement premiums are rising because of the ACA then you must ask for who and where? For those with family incomes less than 300% FPL, they will see lower insurance premiums in most state. In some states they will be much lower, in others they will about same, and a few will be higher. For those with family incomes between 300% and 400% FPL, you will see little change in premiums. In some states it will be slightly higher in other states slightly lower. Most families with income above 400% FPL, will see a moderate increase in most states. A few will see premiums significantly lower and a few will see premiums significantly higher. The variation in cost differentials between states is due to variations in state insurance requirements. Some states allowed companies to market policies with very limited benefit at very low premiums, which are no longer legal while other states were in line with ACA requirements and thus had only minor changes in premium.

All of the above has nothing to do with group insurance which is where 85% of Americans get their insurance. According to a survey by the Kaisier Foundation, employers expect cost increases in their plans to be less than 3% to 4% due to the ACA.

Again, you can't ignore math. If the insurance companies are forced to avg. out the permiums in a given risk pool AND must charge those with pre-existing conditions that same as those without there is no mathematical solution that can occur other than for premium rates to go up. And again the discounts you are citing don't reflect a drop in actual premium costs. They reflect what the plans cost AFTER the subsidy. That's fine if all you're concerned with is reducing the cost to the consumer, but such a solution ignores the real problem of the high cost of insurance and service. It's a 'solution' that doesn't directly address the problem. Obama is basically saying, let's subsidize the individuals and we'll patch of the consequences of that bad idea as we go.

Then you talk about group insurance only going up a little as the result of ACA. As if that's some type of victory. How can it be when the goal was to make health care cost less?

I agree that adding people with preexisting conditions to a risk pool will increase premiums. However, I think you're missing a couple of points.

• Adding low risk subscribers will help lower premiums which is exactly what the individual mandate is all about. Of course some people will choose to pay the penalty in the first year. However, each year the penalty rises. By 2017 the penalty for most Americans will be $2,085. In my state a 30 year old male can buy a bronze policy with no subsidy at all for $164.50/mo. or $1974/yr. For someone with low income, the penalty drops but the subsidy rises so again it make no sense to pay the penalty to avoid having insurance.
  
• As the number of subscribers increase, the size of the risk pool will grow reducing premium costs. In itself, a larger pool size won't lower risk but it will reduce overhead and other costs while increasing profits.
  
• For companies that list on the exchanges, marketing cost will go down. The cost of listing on the exchanges are very low. No advertising is need and the application process is highly automated.
  
• Lastly the exchanges increase competition because the plans are standardized and you can see a side by side comparison of cost and benefits.

First, I just don't believe you're going to see this big influx of young healthy people who didn't have insurance into the market. I think the bulk of that demographic already has insurance. Secondly even if what you are saying is true, basic supply and demand doesn't bare that out either. Basically what you're saying is quantity demanded of the product is going to go up, right? Well when that happens price of said good doesn't go down. It goes up.

Now the opposite is true is well; if price goes down quantity demanded should go up. But price going down is something that has already happened in the insurance market. Not something that will happen in the future. The problem is it didn't go down because insurance companies lowered the price of their product. It went down and thus quantity demanded went up, because the price of the product got subsidized to a lot of people. So government has created an increase in quantity demanded and if you look at a supply and demand curve you'll see when that happens price goes up. Now when quantity supplied goes up, price goes down and I suppose one could argue the exchanges would be perceived as an increase in supply even though it really isn't, but again I just don't believe it's enough to counter all the other mechanisms that raise prices; the subsidies, quantity demanded, the mandated coverages, community rating mandate.

AND the fact that insurance companies weren't that profitable relatively speaking. Their profit margins are usually in the single digits. Now you add on to their expenses all the beauracracy of Obama care and just the extra things they need to cover. Not only do they have to take in enough to get back to their original profit margins. Businesses just don't do what you're saying either. They don't ever say 'yeah, we're making enough money now, we'll start lowering the price of our product'. Businesses just don't do that. They will lower prices when there is excess supply, or when demand goes down, or cost of proudction decreases. There isn't excess supply, Obamacare is adding to their overhead and cost of what they must actually pay out, and demand is going up, not down.

 

[PMZ]

Again, you can't ignore math. If the insurance companies are forced to avg. out the permiums in a given risk pool AND must charge those with pre-existing conditions that same as those without there is no mathematical solution that can occur other than for premium rates to go up. And again the discounts you are citing don't reflect a drop in actual premium costs. They reflect what the plans cost AFTER the subsidy. That's fine if all you're concerned with is reducing the cost to the consumer, but such a solution ignores the real problem of the high cost of insurance and service. It's a 'solution' that doesn't directly address the problem. Obama is basically saying, let's subsidize the individuals and we'll patch of the consequences of that bad idea as we go.

Then you talk about group insurance only going up a little as the result of ACA. As if that's some type of victory. How can it be when the goal was to make health care cost less?

I agree that adding people with preexisting conditions to a risk pool will increase premiums. However, I think you're missing a couple of points.

• Adding low risk subscribers will help lower premiums which is exactly what the individual mandate is all about. Of course some people will choose to pay the penalty in the first year. However, each year the penalty rises. By 2017 the penalty for most Americans will be $2,085. In my state a 30 year old male can buy a bronze policy with no subsidy at all for $164.50/mo. or $1974/yr. For someone with low income, the penalty drops but the subsidy rises so again it make no sense to pay the penalty to avoid having insurance.
  
• As the number of subscribers increase, the size of the risk pool will grow reducing premium costs. In itself, a larger pool size won't lower risk but it will reduce overhead and other costs while increasing profits.
  
• For companies that list on the exchanges, marketing cost will go down. The cost of listing on the exchanges are very low. No advertising is need and the application process is highly automated.
  
• Lastly the exchanges increase competition because the plans are standardized and you can see a side by side comparison of cost and benefits.

First, I just don't believe you're going to see this big influx of young healthy people who didn't have insurance into the market. I think the bulk of that demographic already has insurance. Secondly even if what you are saying is true, basic supply and demand doesn't bare that out either. Basically what you're saying is quantity demanded of the product is going to go up, right? Well when that happens price of said good doesn't go down. It goes up.

Now the opposite is true is well; if price goes down quantity demanded should go up. But price going down is something that has already happened in the insurance market. Not something that will happen in the future. The problem is it didn't go down because insurance companies lowered the price of their product. It went down and thus quantity demanded went up, because the price of the product got subsidized to a lot of people. So government has created an increase in quantity demanded and if you look at a supply and demand curve you'll see when that happens price goes up. Now when quantity supplied goes up, price goes down and I suppose one could argue the exchanges would be perceived as an increase in supply even though it really , but again I just don't believe it's enough to counter all the other mechanisms that raise prices; the subsidies, quantity demanded, the mandated coverages, community rating mandate.

You seem to be struggling to find reasons that it won't do what it's designed to do. Let's just wait and see.

 

[Bern80]

I agree that adding people with preexisting conditions to a risk pool will increase premiums. However, I think you're missing a couple of points.

• Adding low risk subscribers will help lower premiums which is exactly what the individual mandate is all about. Of course some people will choose to pay the penalty in the first year. However, each year the penalty rises. By 2017 the penalty for most Americans will be $2,085. In my state a 30 year old male can buy a bronze policy with no subsidy at all for $164.50/mo. or $1974/yr. For someone with low income, the penalty drops but the subsidy rises so again it make no sense to pay the penalty to avoid having insurance.
  
• As the number of subscribers increase, the size of the risk pool will grow reducing premium costs. In itself, a larger pool size won't lower risk but it will reduce overhead and other costs while increasing profits.
  
• For companies that list on the exchanges, marketing cost will go down. The cost of listing on the exchanges are very low. No advertising is need and the application process is highly automated.
  
• Lastly the exchanges increase competition because the plans are standardized and you can see a side by side comparison of cost and benefits.

First, I just don't believe you're going to see this big influx of young healthy people who didn't have insurance into the market. I think the bulk of that demographic already has insurance. Secondly even if what you are saying is true, basic supply and demand doesn't bare that out either. Basically what you're saying is quantity demanded of the product is going to go up, right? Well when that happens price of said good doesn't go down. It goes up.

Now the opposite is true is well; if price goes down quantity demanded should go up. But price going down is something that has already happened in the insurance market. Not something that will happen in the future. The problem is it didn't go down because insurance companies lowered the price of their product. It went down and thus quantity demanded went up, because the price of the product got subsidized to a lot of people. So government has created an increase in quantity demanded and if you look at a supply and demand curve you'll see when that happens price goes up. Now when quantity supplied goes up, price goes down and I suppose one could argue the exchanges would be perceived as an increase in supply even though it really , but again I just don't believe it's enough to counter all the other mechanisms that raise prices; the subsidies, quantity demanded, the mandated coverages, community rating mandate.

You seem to be struggling to find reasons that it won't do what it's designed to do. Let's just wait and see.

I'm not struggling at all. The basic principles of economics and its mechanisms are on my side. Not yours. Wait and see? We're already there. We already know the cost of premiums has risen. And basic economics already tell us what is most likely to happen. There's no reason to wait and see.

 

[PMZ]

First, I just don't believe you're going to see this big influx of young healthy people who didn't have insurance into the market. I think the bulk of that demographic already has insurance. Secondly even if what you are saying is true, basic supply and demand doesn't bare that out either. Basically what you're saying is quantity demanded of the product is going to go up, right? Well when that happens price of said good doesn't go down. It goes up.

Now the opposite is true is well; if price goes down quantity demanded should go up. But price going down is something that has already happened in the insurance market. Not something that will happen in the future. The problem is it didn't go down because insurance companies lowered the price of their product. It went down and thus quantity demanded went up, because the price of the product got subsidized to a lot of people. So government has created an increase in quantity demanded and if you look at a supply and demand curve you'll see when that happens price goes up. Now when quantity supplied goes up, price goes down and I suppose one could argue the exchanges would be perceived as an increase in supply even though it really , but again I just don't believe it's enough to counter all the other mechanisms that raise prices; the subsidies, quantity demanded, the mandated coverages, community rating mandate.

You seem to be struggling to find reasons that it won't do what it's designed to do. Let's just wait and see.

I'm not struggling at all. The basic principles of economics and its mechanisms are on my side. Not yours. Wait and see? We're already there. We already know the cost of premiums has risen. And basic economics already tell us what is most likely to happen. There's no reason to wait and see.

When is the last time in your memory that health care insurance costs have gone down? They never have. That’s under the system that you espouse. Good health as a privilege of wealth. There is absolutely nothing to recommend or support the doing nothing that conservatives want. We have by far the most expensive non system in the world, and, at best, it's effectiveness is mediocre.

Yet you stand in the way of any improvement.

As they say, lead, follow, or get out of the way.

 

[Immanuel]

Again, you can't ignore math. If the insurance companies are forced to avg. out the permiums in a given risk pool AND must charge those with pre-existing conditions that same as those without there is no mathematical solution that can occur other than for premium rates to go up. And again the discounts you are citing don't reflect a drop in actual premium costs. They reflect what the plans cost AFTER the subsidy. That's fine if all you're concerned with is reducing the cost to the consumer, but such a solution ignores the real problem of the high cost of insurance and service. It's a 'solution' that doesn't directly address the problem. Obama is basically saying, let's subsidize the individuals and we'll patch of the consequences of that bad idea as we go.

Then you talk about group insurance only going up a little as the result of ACA. As if that's some type of victory. How can it be when the goal was to make health care cost less?

I agree that adding people with preexisting conditions to a risk pool will increase premiums. However, I think you're missing a couple of points.

• Adding low risk subscribers will help lower premiums which is exactly what the individual mandate is all about. Of course some people will choose to pay the penalty in the first year. However, each year the penalty rises. By 2017 the penalty for most Americans will be $2,085. In my state a 30 year old male can buy a bronze policy with no subsidy at all for $164.50/mo. or $1974/yr. For someone with low income, the penalty drops but the subsidy rises so again it make no sense to pay the penalty to avoid having insurance.
  
• As the number of subscribers increase, the size of the risk pool will grow reducing premium costs. In itself, a larger pool size won't lower risk but it will reduce overhead and other costs while increasing profits.
  
• For companies that list on the exchanges, marketing cost will go down. The cost of listing on the exchanges are very low. No advertising is need and the application process is highly automated.
  
• Lastly the exchanges increase competition because the plans are standardized and you can see a side by side comparison of cost and benefits.

First, I just don't believe you're going to see this big influx of young healthy people who didn't have insurance into the market. I think the bulk of that demographic already has insurance. Secondly even if what you are saying is true, basic supply and demand doesn't bare that out either. Basically what you're saying is quantity demanded of the product is going to go up, right? Well when that happens price of said good doesn't go down. It goes up.

Now the opposite is true is well; if price goes down quantity demanded should go up. But price going down is something that has already happened in the insurance market. Not something that will happen in the future. The problem is it didn't go down because insurance companies lowered the price of their product. It went down and thus quantity demanded went up, because the price of the product got subsidized to a lot of people. So government has created an increase in quantity demanded and if you look at a supply and demand curve you'll see when that happens price goes up. Now when quantity supplied goes up, price goes down and I suppose one could argue the exchanges would be perceived as an increase in supply even though it really isn't, but again I just don't believe it's enough to counter all the other mechanisms that raise prices; the subsidies, quantity demanded, the mandated coverages, community rating mandate.

AND the fact that insurance companies weren't that profitable relatively speaking. Their profit margins are usually in the single digits. Now you add on to their expenses all the beauracracy of Obama care and just the extra things they need to cover. Not only do they have to take in enough to get back to their original profit margins. Businesses just don't do what you're saying either. They don't ever say 'yeah, we're making enough money now, we'll start lowering the price of our product'. Businesses just don't do that. They will lower prices when there is excess supply, or when demand goes down, or cost of proudction decreases. There isn't excess supply, Obamacare is adding to their overhead and cost of what they must actually pay out, and demand is going up, not down.

The young and healthy with full time jobs already have insurance. The ones without jobs will receive subsidies and end up increasing the cost of Obamacare.

So what is the benefit to society of adding people who do not need and cannot afford health insurance to basically another form of Welfare? Oh that's right, if you make them slaves of the government when they are young, they will remain as such for the rest of their lives.

Immie

 

[PMZ]

I agree that adding people with preexisting conditions to a risk pool will increase premiums. However, I think you're missing a couple of points.

• Adding low risk subscribers will help lower premiums which is exactly what the individual mandate is all about. Of course some people will choose to pay the penalty in the first year. However, each year the penalty rises. By 2017 the penalty for most Americans will be $2,085. In my state a 30 year old male can buy a bronze policy with no subsidy at all for $164.50/mo. or $1974/yr. For someone with low income, the penalty drops but the subsidy rises so again it make no sense to pay the penalty to avoid having insurance.
  
• As the number of subscribers increase, the size of the risk pool will grow reducing premium costs. In itself, a larger pool size won't lower risk but it will reduce overhead and other costs while increasing profits.
  
• For companies that list on the exchanges, marketing cost will go down. The cost of listing on the exchanges are very low. No advertising is need and the application process is highly automated.
  
• Lastly the exchanges increase competition because the plans are standardized and you can see a side by side comparison of cost and benefits.

First, I just don't believe you're going to see this big influx of young healthy people who didn't have insurance into the market. I think the bulk of that demographic already has insurance. Secondly even if what you are saying is true, basic supply and demand doesn't bare that out either. Basically what you're saying is quantity demanded of the product is going to go up, right? Well when that happens price of said good doesn't go down. It goes up.

Now the opposite is true is well; if price goes down quantity demanded should go up. But price going down is something that has already happened in the insurance market. Not something that will happen in the future. The problem is it didn't go down because insurance companies lowered the price of their product. It went down and thus quantity demanded went up, because the price of the product got subsidized to a lot of people. So government has created an increase in quantity demanded and if you look at a supply and demand curve you'll see when that happens price goes up. Now when quantity supplied goes up, price goes down and I suppose one could argue the exchanges would be perceived as an increase in supply even though it really isn't, but again I just don't believe it's enough to counter all the other mechanisms that raise prices; the subsidies, quantity demanded, the mandated coverages, community rating mandate.

AND the fact that insurance companies weren't that profitable relatively speaking. Their profit margins are usually in the single digits. Now you add on to their expenses all the beauracracy of Obama care and just the extra things they need to cover. Not only do they have to take in enough to get back to their original profit margins. Businesses just don't do what you're saying either. They don't ever say 'yeah, we're making enough money now, we'll start lowering the price of our product'. Businesses just don't do that. They will lower prices when there is excess supply, or when demand goes down, or cost of proudction decreases. There isn't excess supply, Obamacare is adding to their overhead and cost of what they must actually pay out, and demand is going up, not down.

The young and healthy with full time jobs already have insurance. The ones without jobs will receive subsidies and end up increasing the cost of Obamacare.

So what is the benefit to society of adding people who do not need and cannot afford health insurance to basically another form of Welfare? Oh that's right, if you make them slaves of the government when they are young, they will remain as such for the rest of their lives.

Immie

''The young and healthy with full time jobs already have insurance. ''

Some do, some don't. Companies are running away from paying that compensation as fast as they can get away from it.

''people who do not need and cannot afford health insurance''

Who does not need health insurance? Companies price health insurance based on risk. Insuring a group without risk would cost nothing.

What would you do if you were a young person w/o health insurance who required hospitalization? Die in the street?