3 ms·

> They even made costs rise when more people were insured because of ACA. In what world does that make sense? I'm surprised you don't remember the reason becau

> They even made costs rise when more people were insured because of ACA. In what world does that make sense? I'm surprised you don't remember the reason because it was in the news 24/7. It's because insurance costs 10X for sick people (because they also draw 10X in insurance), those sick people could not afford their insurance, and the ACA gave those uninsured sick people deeply subsidized insurance, raising the average cost to insurance companies of each insured person

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
The ACA reduced the rate of price rises, so it can't possibly be the cause of the price rises.
- harryh 9y ago
  You and sol_remmy are talking about two different things. You are talking about overall expenditures in the health care system. He is talking about insurance prices charged to individual purchasers, in particular ones that are relatively young and healthy.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    I'm not sure that's a fair characterisation of either position. sol_remmy seems to be making the case that lots of sick people didn't have coverage before ACA (Which would be a massive plus point for it if true) and that the number of new sick people buying insurance outweighed the number of new young, healthy people entering the pool, driving costs up. There seems to be a lot of conflicting info on this, but at least Brookings made the case that the expected effect of ACA did actually happen, lots more people started paying for insurance and the average cost paid by individuals therefore went down (even while the average coverage they could recieve went up). So we seem to be talking about the same thing, just with radically different facts about the same situation.
FLUX-YOU 9y ago
>It's because insurance costs 10X for sick people (because they also draw 10X in insurance) Is that before or after the sticker price that hospitals give insurance companies? I'm not sure anyone can get accurate prices, so I'm immediately distrustful of your 10x number.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

The ACA reduced the rate of price rises, so it can't possibly be the cause of the price rises.

harryh 9y ago
You and sol_remmy are talking about two different things. You are talking about overall expenditures in the health care system. He is talking about insurance prices charged to individual purchasers, in particular ones that are relatively young and healthy.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  I'm not sure that's a fair characterisation of either position. sol_remmy seems to be making the case that lots of sick people didn't have coverage before ACA (Which would be a massive plus point for it if true) and that the number of new sick people buying insurance outweighed the number of new young, healthy people entering the pool, driving costs up. There seems to be a lot of conflicting info on this, but at least Brookings made the case that the expected effect of ACA did actually happen, lots more people started paying for insurance and the average cost paid by individuals therefore went down (even while the average coverage they could recieve went up). So we seem to be talking about the same thing, just with radically different facts about the same situation.

FLUX-YOU 9y ago

>It's because insurance costs 10X for sick people (because they also draw 10X in insurance) Is that before or after the sticker price that hospitals give insurance companies? I'm not sure anyone can get accurate prices, so I'm immediately distrustful of your 10x number.