Healthcare going forward

[Benvolio]

We pause our regularly scheduled thread for a brief fact check.

The typical 27 year old enrolled in the Individual Market has a $200/month premium before subsidies. Since about 85% of of enrollees qualify for a subsidy that covers all or part of their premium, their out-of pocket is next-to-nothing.

As is so often the case, your post is your opinion, not based in fact.

I do not see how your chart establishes that their out of pocket is "nexrt to nothing". It does show high premiums for the young which appear to be disproportionate to the risk for young individuals.
If 85% recieve subsidies and pay next to nothing it confirms my position that it is in large part a socialist, single payer, scheme. Based on the history of social security there can be little doubt that future Congresses will increase the number who qualify for subsidies and increase the amount of the subsidies. That 85% pay next to nothing showes that the scheme is for part of the population to pay for their own coverage PLUS pay the income taxes to subsidize the other part of the population. It is single payer for a large part of the population at the expense of the few who pay income taxes and also have to pay for their own insurance.

 

[Benvolio]

The purpose of the mandate is to pay for the preexisting coverage of others, and that only works if the healthy pay premiums disproportionate to their risk--or the taxpayers pay it for them. See, e.g. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...-may-wind-up-using-penalties-like-the-mandate

 

[Stardreamer]

So reports on the emergency meetings going on following the President's meeting on Anderson Cooper says that Replace is back on the table as there is simply too many no votes on a Repeal only option.

 

[Kulindahr]

So reports on the emergency meetings going on following the President's meeting on Anderson Cooper says that Replace is back on the table as there is simply too many no votes on a Repeal only option.

Okay, which GOP Senate-person would be likely to entertain the idea of putting a 0.01% tax on financial transaction into the bill and make it a grand reconciliation bill aimed at paying off the debt and putting health care along with Social Security on a firm foundation?

 

[KaraBulut]

I do not see how your chart establishes that their out of pocket is "nexrt to nothing". .. socialist..scheme...social security...scheme...

The chart refuted your claim of "huge premiums" for young people.

But nice attempt to derail and change the subject away from your invalid and incorrect statements again.

 

[Stardreamer]

So more rumors leaking out at the Hill, it seems the approach is 'throw money at it' once again more ACA taxes will be left in place so they throw $200 billion at the states that took the Medicaid expansion in the hopes of convincing their senators.

In a bold move to revive their healthcare bill, Senate Republican leaders are getting ready to propose giving $200 billion in assistance to states that expanded Medicaid, according to a person familiar with internal Senate negotiations.

The huge sum would be funded by leaving in place ObamaCare’s net investment income tax and its Medicare surtax on wealthy earners, according to the source briefed on the proposal.

Source: Senate leaders to offer $200 billion to win over moderates

 

[KaraBulut]

And just in time for the latest CBO score.

• 32 million more people would be uninsured under new Senate Obamacare repeal bill
• Three-quarters of the nation would live in areas with no insurers participating in the individual market by 2026 -- leaving many without an option if they do not have employer-provided or government health insurance, such as Medicare or Medicaid.
• Premiums would be roughly 25% higher mainly because many younger and healthier people would drop their coverage since they would no longer be penalized for being uninsured.
• By 2026, a total of some 59 million people would lack coverage under this bill, compared to 28 million under current law, the agency estimated.

Trump still didn't even have a clue...

Listening to what Trump has been saying about "great healthcare" in the past few weeks, it's really unclear whether he's using typical marketing lines about something he clearly doesn't comprehend or whether he's just flat out lying.

There's something non compos mentis to the things he says and does these days. Made up "facts". Cringeworthy statements. Irrational behavior.

 

[ballcaphair]

And just in time for the latest CBO score.

• 32 million more people would be uninsured under new Senate Obamacare repeal bill
• Three-quarters of the nation would live in areas with no insurers participating in the individual market by 2026 -- leaving many without an option if they do not have employer-provided or government health insurance, such as Medicare or Medicaid.
• Premiums would be roughly 25% higher mainly because many younger and healthier people would drop their coverage since they would no longer be penalized for being uninsured.
• By 2026, a total of some 59 million people would lack coverage under this bill, compared to 28 million under current law, the agency estimated.

Listening to what Trump has been saying about "great healthcare" in the past few weeks, it's really unclear whether he's using typical marketing lines about something he clearly doesn't comprehend or whether he's just flat out lying.

There's something non compos mentis to the things he says and does these days. Made up "facts". Cringeworthy statements. Irrational behavior.

This is his mo and half of us rode this Trojan Farce into the castle. I stood on the drawbridge awaiting some logic. I did not vote for him, but hoped I had been wrong. The castle is burning. Now we must be firefighters.

 

[Benvolio]

The chart refuted your claim of "huge premiums" for young people.

But nice attempt to derail and change the subject away from your invalid and incorrect statements again.

On the contrary. The premiums are so large that the government has to pay most of it for them. $1237 a month is probably huge to a Wyoming cowboy.

 

[Benvolio]

And just in time for the latest CBO score.

• 32 million more people would be uninsured under new Senate Obamacare repeal bill
• Three-quarters of the nation would live in areas with no insurers participating in the individual market by 2026 -- leaving many without an option if they do not have employer-provided or government health insurance, such as Medicare or Medicaid.
• Premiums would be roughly 25% higher mainly because many younger and healthier people would drop their coverage since they would no longer be penalized for being uninsured.
• By 2026, a total of some 59 million people would lack coverage under this bill, compared to 28 million under current law, the agency estimated.

Listening to what Trump has been saying about "great healthcare" in the past few weeks, it's really unclear whether he's using typical marketing lines about something he clearly doesn't comprehend or whether he's just flat out lying.

There's something non compos mentis to the things he says and does these days. Made up "facts". Cringeworthy statements. Irrational behavior.

The CBO is necessarily assuming that the "current law" will get ever increasing funding to keep it alive, and that insurers will not continue to drop out.
Notice that without the mandate, younger and healthier people will drop out. You can quarrel over the word huge, but the mandate is intended to force people to pay out of proportion to their risk, so that preexisting can be covered.

 

[thewiz]

I do not see how your chart establishes that their out of pocket is "nexrt to nothing". It does show high premiums for the young which appear to be disproportionate to the risk for young individuals.
If 85% recieve subsidies and pay next to nothing it confirms my position that it is in large part a socialist, single payer, scheme. Based on the history of social security there can be little doubt that future Congresses will increase the number who qualify for subsidies and increase the amount of the subsidies. That 85% pay next to nothing showes that the scheme is for part of the population to pay for their own coverage PLUS pay the income taxes to subsidize the other part of the population. It is single payer for a large part of the population at the expense of the few who pay income taxes and also have to pay for their own insurance.

It is clear you either make up "facts" to support your unfounded statements or you don't understand insurance. I suppose next we should allow younger people to "opt out" of auto insurance...or should we allow older individuals like me to be able to simply not pay because I've never had an accident, drive very little, and if I find myself in an accident, let me go to the "emergency room" and receive free repairs, medical coverage, perhaps a replacement vehicle and have the younger individuals pay? I drive less than 3,000 miles per year on my vehicle yet I have replacement coverage in case I have an accident. Auto insurance also carries a medical rider (that most people are unaware of). When my son was hit by a car (not mine) years ago, my car insurance paid his hospital bill for surgery, the ambulance, and doctor. My health insurance eventually paid the majority of the bill but my auto insurance covered the remainder. Why do I need two coverages? If everyone has health insurance, auto insurance should reduce because there should be no need for medical coverage in accidents.

Nice try on claiming how massive amounts young people are paying only to be, again, proven wrong. For the $200 per month they are paying, they could not get Truvada, birth control medications or even a doctor's visit on their own dime. I believe the last I looked, Truvada is about $1,300 per prescription and even my Allegra-D for allergies is nearly $1,000 per month if I paid the bill. With my insurance, it is $0 for the Truvada and $25 for the Allegra.

 

[Benvolio]

It is clear you either make up "facts" to support your unfounded statements or you don't understand insurance. I suppose next we should allow younger people to "opt out" of auto insurance...or should we allow older individuals like me to be able to simply not pay because I've never had an accident, drive very little, and if I find myself in an accident, let me go to the "emergency room" and receive free repairs, medical coverage, perhaps a replacement vehicle and have the younger individuals pay? I drive less than 3,000 miles per year on my vehicle yet I have replacement coverage in case I have an accident. Auto insurance also carries a medical rider (that most people are unaware of). When my son was hit by a car (not mine) years ago, my car insurance paid his hospital bill for surgery, the ambulance, and doctor. My health insurance eventually paid the majority of the bill but my auto insurance covered the remainder. Why do I need two coverages? If everyone has health insurance, auto insurance should reduce because there should be no need for medical coverage in accidents.

Nice try on claiming how massive amounts young people are paying only to be, again, proven wrong. For the $200 per month they are paying, they could not get Truvada, birth control medications or even a doctor's visit on their own dime. I believe the last I looked, Truvada is about $1,300 per prescription and even my Allegra-D for allergies is nearly $1,000 per month if I paid the bill. With my insurance, it is $0 for the Truvada and $25 for the Allegra.

No, no, no. The auto insurance you are require to buy is liability insurance to pay the people you injure with your driving. I do not believe any state requires you to buy insurance to pay your own expenses. If you have a loan against your car the lender will require you to have collision and comprehensive coverage on the car, and might require some personal insurance, but not the state.
The w00 plus which young people are required to pay is substantially in excess of what the premium would be if the premium was based on the risk of health problems of healthy 27 year old males. The excess of the premium over the healthy 27 year old male level goes to pay for those less health with preexisting illness. 200 may seem low to you but it is so high that, KarBulut informs us, the government has to subsidize it, and he says, without the mandate many younger and healthier people would drop their coverage..

 

[gsdx]

It is clear you either make up "facts" to support your unfounded statements or you don't understand insurance.

I mentioned that earlier.

It's almost as though you don't have a clue how insurance works. Not a clue.

My guess is 'both'. He both makes up 'facts' AND doesn't understand how insurance works.

Insurance of any kind is a betting game. Life insurance is a bet that you will live long enough for the premium investments to earn them enough to pay off your policy when you die (with a healthy profit afterwards). Car insurance is a bet that you will drive accident-free long enough for the premium investments to earn them enough money to pay off an accident claim if you have one (with a healthy profit afterwards). Health insurance is bet that you will stay healthy long enough for the premium investments to earn them enough money to pay off your healthcare if and when you need it.

It's all a betting game and, from the size of their bank accounts, the insurance companies are winning.

 

[Benvolio]

I mentioned that earlier.



My guess is 'both'. He both makes up 'facts' AND doesn't understand how insurance works.

Insurance of any kind is a betting game. Life insurance is a bet that you will live long enough for the premium investments to earn them enough to pay off your policy when you die (with a healthy profit afterwards). Car insurance is a bet that you will drive accident-free long enough for the premium investments to earn them enough money to pay off an accident claim if you have one (with a healthy profit afterwards). Health insurance is bet that you will stay healthy long enough for the premium investments to earn them enough money to pay off your healthcare if and when you need it.

It's all a betting game and, from the size of their bank accounts, the insurance companies are winning.

No, insurance is based on actuarially computed statistical probabilities. If they sell life insurance policies to health 25 year olds, the know his probable life expectancy, but each year along the way a predictable percent will die prematurely but anothe percentage will beat the odd. The company does recieve income from the use of the money, and needs a profit. These factor permit the computation of a premium which as a matter of statistical probability should achieve those goals.
Insuring healthy people can be computed much the same way. But insuring existing illnesses is much more complicated. Insuring a defined poll or group pool is one thing because it can be computed how many of the proud will already have heat disease, how many will develop it in a given year. But with ACA there is no way to predict how many heart diseases will apply in any year. It will be rational for people to avoid buying health insurance until he is seriously ill.

 

[Kulindahr]

On the contrary. The premiums are so large that the government has to pay most of it for them. $1237 a month is probably huge to a Wyoming cowboy.

O
M
G

You can't even read a chart that's right in front of you on a screen.

 

[gsdx]

No, insurance is based on actuarially computed statistical probabilities.

I know this. I used to sell insurance years ago. I took the courses. I took the tests. I had a licence and everything. That's why I know about investments and 'the bet'.

I know how insurance works and I know how insurance 'works' the clients.

 

[KaraBulut]

On the contrary. The premiums are so large that the government has to pay most of it for them. $1237 a month is probably huge to a Wyoming cowboy.

You can't even read a chart that's right in front of you on a screen.

Wyoming is one of the more expensive states because there are fewer hospitals and they are farther apart geographically.

From that chart, $1237 a month for health insurance for a family of four is still a good deal. And there's 2 reasons why that can be explained in a simple comparison of the cost of a newborn delivery. With insurance, you're probably looking at about $8,000 for the cost of delivering a newborn. If you don't have insurance, you're probably looking at $20,000-$25,000. Just having insurance gets you discounts that reduce the cost by 50-60%.

Also keep in mind that many of the rural ACA consumers are business owners on family farms or small businesses, so this is comparable or in some cases cheaper than a employer-based group insurance policy.

...you don't understand insurance...

He's in good company though. Here's a recent Trump quote:

“So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan.”

$12 a year for health insurance? WTF?

Trump seems to be confusing "health insurance" and "life insurance" which is something else that they have in common.

No, no, no. The auto insurance you are require to buy is liability insurance to pay the people you injure with your driving. I do not believe any state requires you to buy insurance to pay your own expenses.

...because major medical covers you if third party liability does not.

This is why we want everyone to have healthcare insurance- so that if you are injured and there's no other payer, your insurance will cover the costs of your injury.

 

[smokeshadow]

If you're over the age of 50, and the conservatives succeed in repealing the PPACA without any replacement, expect this: http://americablog.com/2017/07/cbo-...sured-13k-deductible-premiums-soar-older.html

 

[Benvolio]

If you're over the age of 50, and the conservatives succeed in repealing the PPACA without any replacement, expect this: http://americablog.com/2017/07/cbo-...sured-13k-deductible-premiums-soar-older.html

How easily socialism and welfare become ingrained. How quickly freedom is lost and how difficulty regained.

 

[DantheManFL]

Are you speaking of the freedom to die in the streets? Yea, let's bring that back.