4 ms·

I don't find that a very enlightening point, but I will offer some real numbers. The widely cited 20 million is from the Congressional Budget Office, a non-part

I don't find that a very enlightening point, but I will offer some real numbers. The widely cited 20 million is from the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan organization, not CNN, as you state [1]. And even if you chose to reject that, the number of health insurance policies purchased on exchanges in 2016 was 12.7 million and is expected to top 13 million this year, not an insignificant amount and not including the "ripple effect" that would create in the insurance market. [1]: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52486 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52486

valuearb 10y ago
Obamacare made private medical insurance illegal, so millions of self employed lost coverage from that. The exchange policies have increased in cost so rapidly they are unaffordable for anyone not getting a massive subsidies. Many self employed are now without insurance because of that.
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  It's illegal? Or it doesn't meet the minimum qualifications for the tax benefit, because those are quite different. https://www.healthcare.gov/private-plan-exceptions-outside-open-enrollment/ https://www.healthcare.gov/private-plan-exceptions-outside-o... As to costs, those vary widely by state. This recent article in the NYTimes was a fairly good overview of how policy decisions can affect the premiums: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/health/how-gop-in-2-states-coaxed-the-health-law-to-success-or-crisis.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/health/how-gop-in-2-state...
  - valuearb 10y ago
    Illegal. The reason my families health insurance was $400 a month was because the insurer could exclude pre-existing conditions. That's no longer allowed. And I'm self employed. The ban on pre-existing conditions was done either because the drafters of Obamacare have no clue what insurance actually is, or they actually wanted to destroy health insurance. No one is going to pay for coverage when healthy if they can sign up when sick. Our first year of Obamacare was $1,100 a month for the same level of coverage as our banned $400 plan. The second year was $1,400 a month. This year the only available plan had the same $5k a year deductible, and was $1,800 month. So we don't have medical insurance any more. The NY Times link is LOL, I notice how it didn't track how exchange prices have exploded. New Mexico's exchange is going to get crushed like all the others, it can't stop rational behavior. It will soon have to subsidize everyone or all self employed people will be out.
    - stinkytaco 10y ago
      > The ban on pre-existing conditions was done either because the drafters of Obamacare have no clue what insurance actually is, or they actually wanted to destroy health insurance. No one is going to pay for coverage when healthy if they can sign up when sick. This is what the tax penalty was meant to prevent, correct? I'm curious, what is your solution to insuring people with pre-existing conditions?
      - burfog 10y ago
        If is to be insurance then people with pre-existing conditions should get coverage for everything that isn't related to the condition. Got cancer? Fine, we'll still cover breaking your leg, as long as the break isn't from cancer invading the bone or from cancer drugs weakening your bones. You're on your own for the cancer.
        astrange 10y ago
        You want a useless product that will guarantee your death because it meets the dictionary definition of insurance? This is why the real policy issue is lack of healthcare, not lack of "health insurance", which is a fake benefit invented to maybe get you healthcare.
        burfog 10y ago
        Real insurance involves a gamble. You pay a small amount to get what is essentially a lottery ticket. You win if disaster happens, giving you money to deal with the disaster. Would you buy a lottery ticket if it was known to be a winner? Sure! Would anybody want to sell it? No! That isn't a viable business model. What you are looking for is more like welfare. You have a problem, there is no gamble, you don't have the money, and you expect "society" to pay. That definitely isn't insurance. Those are the options: insurance, welfare, self-pay Imposing a duty to handle pre-existing conditions on "insurance" companies is forcing a business to provide welfare. Obviously, people will switch from the cheap company (or none) to the high-quality company when they get a problem. The tax on people without "insurance" is intended to discourage this, but it is ineffective because "insurance" costs more and because people will still switch from cheap to fancy. In any case, we've invented some pretty fancy health care. Giving it to everybody would exceed our GDP. This is obviously unworkable. The situation only worsens as we invent more. How do you propose to limit usage, if not by price? Would you just promise everything, but let people die on waiting lists? Would you rate and rank people, perhaps on a point system with extra points for politically-connected people?

valuearb 10y ago

Obamacare made private medical insurance illegal, so millions of self employed lost coverage from that. The exchange policies have increased in cost so rapidly they are unaffordable for anyone not getting a massive subsidies. Many self employed are now without insurance because of that.

stinkytaco 10y ago
It's illegal? Or it doesn't meet the minimum qualifications for the tax benefit, because those are quite different. https://www.healthcare.gov/private-plan-exceptions-outside-open-enrollment/ https://www.healthcare.gov/private-plan-exceptions-outside-o... As to costs, those vary widely by state. This recent article in the NYTimes was a fairly good overview of how policy decisions can affect the premiums: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/health/how-gop-in-2-states-coaxed-the-health-law-to-success-or-crisis.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/health/how-gop-in-2-state...
- valuearb 10y ago
  Illegal. The reason my families health insurance was $400 a month was because the insurer could exclude pre-existing conditions. That's no longer allowed. And I'm self employed. The ban on pre-existing conditions was done either because the drafters of Obamacare have no clue what insurance actually is, or they actually wanted to destroy health insurance. No one is going to pay for coverage when healthy if they can sign up when sick. Our first year of Obamacare was $1,100 a month for the same level of coverage as our banned $400 plan. The second year was $1,400 a month. This year the only available plan had the same $5k a year deductible, and was $1,800 month. So we don't have medical insurance any more. The NY Times link is LOL, I notice how it didn't track how exchange prices have exploded. New Mexico's exchange is going to get crushed like all the others, it can't stop rational behavior. It will soon have to subsidize everyone or all self employed people will be out.
  - stinkytaco 10y ago
    > The ban on pre-existing conditions was done either because the drafters of Obamacare have no clue what insurance actually is, or they actually wanted to destroy health insurance. No one is going to pay for coverage when healthy if they can sign up when sick. This is what the tax penalty was meant to prevent, correct? I'm curious, what is your solution to insuring people with pre-existing conditions?
    - burfog 10y ago
      If is to be insurance then people with pre-existing conditions should get coverage for everything that isn't related to the condition. Got cancer? Fine, we'll still cover breaking your leg, as long as the break isn't from cancer invading the bone or from cancer drugs weakening your bones. You're on your own for the cancer.
      - astrange 10y ago
        You want a useless product that will guarantee your death because it meets the dictionary definition of insurance? This is why the real policy issue is lack of healthcare, not lack of "health insurance", which is a fake benefit invented to maybe get you healthcare.
        burfog 10y ago
        Real insurance involves a gamble. You pay a small amount to get what is essentially a lottery ticket. You win if disaster happens, giving you money to deal with the disaster. Would you buy a lottery ticket if it was known to be a winner? Sure! Would anybody want to sell it? No! That isn't a viable business model. What you are looking for is more like welfare. You have a problem, there is no gamble, you don't have the money, and you expect "society" to pay. That definitely isn't insurance. Those are the options: insurance, welfare, self-pay Imposing a duty to handle pre-existing conditions on "insurance" companies is forcing a business to provide welfare. Obviously, people will switch from the cheap company (or none) to the high-quality company when they get a problem. The tax on people without "insurance" is intended to discourage this, but it is ineffective because "insurance" costs more and because people will still switch from cheap to fancy. In any case, we've invented some pretty fancy health care. Giving it to everybody would exceed our GDP. This is obviously unworkable. The situation only worsens as we invent more. How do you propose to limit usage, if not by price? Would you just promise everything, but let people die on waiting lists? Would you rate and rank people, perhaps on a point system with extra points for politically-connected people?