3 ms·

Not exactly. The people who saw their premiums rise the most as a percentage of their income as a result of the ACA were mostly low income.

scarface74 8y ago
The ACA hasn’t been shown to be the cause of group insurance to go up. Not too many “low income” people could have afforded private insurance anyway. All of the mandates for what qualified as a real plan were things that were being offered voluntarily by both of my parents health plans in the 90s. My mom is a retired teacher and my dad is a retired factory worker.
- manfredo 8y ago
  How is expanding coverage to a larger pool of people (many of which have preexisting conditions that are forbidden from being factored into premiums) and subsidizing healthcare for the poor supposed to make healthcare cheaper? This is just voodoo economics, you don't get to simultaneously reduce costs while expanding coverage to higher risk people and people who don't pay market rates. Getting nostalgic about the 90s isn't going to solve anyone's problem - not unless we're okay with euthanizing the elderly en masse to reduce the percentage of retirees back down to 1990s levels.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Most people come under group insurance for an employer. Insurance companies have never been able to exclude for preexisting conditions if you were part of the eligible group. Also the plan offered through the exchange comes under a different pool with different cost. Insurance companies decide how to price group insurance for a company based on the demographics of a company. Subsidizing health care for the poor would theoretically raise taxes not the amount you pay for your insurance. Universal healthcare costing less per capita with a sane plan is not voodoo economics - we already pay more per person than every other industrial nation. There was nothing sane about keeping private insurance in the mix instead of just having a public option. And seeing that retirees in the 90s and today come under Medicare, what does that have to do with private premiums?
    - manfredo 8y ago
      > Most people come under group insurance for an employer. Insurance companies have never been able to exclude for preexisting conditions if you were part of the eligible group 2 million workers lost their employer provided health insurance following the ACA. Now they're paying for their insurance out of pocket. Granted their employers were paying their premiums, but from the person's perspective they went down from paying little or nothing to paying for all their insurance on their own. > Subsidizing health care for the poor would theoretically raise taxes not the amount you pay for your insurance. This is assuming that the subsidy covers the full cost of insurance. If this isn't the case then you're stuck paying an extra tax because your didn't buy the insurance that your can't afford. > And seeing that retirees in the 90s and today come under Medicare, what does that have to do with private premiums? Older people cost insurance companies more. 80% of healthcare costs are usually spent in a person's last year of life. Insurance companies can't factor age into cost beyond a government set limit. So the other insurance buyers subsidize the ageing insured population. Fundamentally you're trying to say that the insurance companies can provide more services, charge high-risk people the same as everyone else, and greatly expand the covered population while reducing cost. That just doesn't happen. If a company provides more services and more expensive services then it's costs are going to rise. And because putting those costs onto the people that incur those costs mean than the majority of the insured population is subsidizing their healthcare and thus their premiums rise.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        2 million workers lost their employer provided health insurance following the ACA. Now they're paying for their insurance out of pocket. Granted their employers were paying their premiums, but from the person's perspective they went down from paying little or nothing to paying for all their insurance on their own. https://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/millions-lost-insurance/ https://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/millions-lost-insurance/ This is assuming that the subsidy covers the full cost of insurance. If this isn't the case then you're stuck paying an extra tax because your didn't buy the insurance that your can't afford. That was repealed last year.... Older people cost insurance companies more. 80% of healthcare costs are usually spent in a person's last year of life. Insurance companies can't factor age into cost beyond a government set limit. So the other insurance buyers subsidize the ageing insured population. Older people wouldn’t be part of the private insurance pool. They would be part of Medicare. Fundamentally you're trying to say that the insurance companies can provide more services, charge high-risk people the same as everyone else, and greatly expand the covered population while reducing cost. That just doesn't happen. If a company provides more services and more expensive services then it's costs are going to rise. And because putting those costs onto the people that incur those costs mean than the majority of the insured population is subsidizing their healthcare and thus their premiums rise. And none of that is true. The insurance companies have a separate pool for what they offer for group insurance and what they offer on the exchange. And older workers would be getting insurance through Medicare. You’re conflating multiple risk pools. The insurance companies don’t do that.

scarface74 8y ago

The ACA hasn’t been shown to be the cause of group insurance to go up. Not too many “low income” people could have afforded private insurance anyway. All of the mandates for what qualified as a real plan were things that were being offered voluntarily by both of my parents health plans in the 90s. My mom is a retired teacher and my dad is a retired factory worker.

manfredo 8y ago
How is expanding coverage to a larger pool of people (many of which have preexisting conditions that are forbidden from being factored into premiums) and subsidizing healthcare for the poor supposed to make healthcare cheaper? This is just voodoo economics, you don't get to simultaneously reduce costs while expanding coverage to higher risk people and people who don't pay market rates. Getting nostalgic about the 90s isn't going to solve anyone's problem - not unless we're okay with euthanizing the elderly en masse to reduce the percentage of retirees back down to 1990s levels.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Most people come under group insurance for an employer. Insurance companies have never been able to exclude for preexisting conditions if you were part of the eligible group. Also the plan offered through the exchange comes under a different pool with different cost. Insurance companies decide how to price group insurance for a company based on the demographics of a company. Subsidizing health care for the poor would theoretically raise taxes not the amount you pay for your insurance. Universal healthcare costing less per capita with a sane plan is not voodoo economics - we already pay more per person than every other industrial nation. There was nothing sane about keeping private insurance in the mix instead of just having a public option. And seeing that retirees in the 90s and today come under Medicare, what does that have to do with private premiums?
  - manfredo 8y ago
    > Most people come under group insurance for an employer. Insurance companies have never been able to exclude for preexisting conditions if you were part of the eligible group 2 million workers lost their employer provided health insurance following the ACA. Now they're paying for their insurance out of pocket. Granted their employers were paying their premiums, but from the person's perspective they went down from paying little or nothing to paying for all their insurance on their own. > Subsidizing health care for the poor would theoretically raise taxes not the amount you pay for your insurance. This is assuming that the subsidy covers the full cost of insurance. If this isn't the case then you're stuck paying an extra tax because your didn't buy the insurance that your can't afford. > And seeing that retirees in the 90s and today come under Medicare, what does that have to do with private premiums? Older people cost insurance companies more. 80% of healthcare costs are usually spent in a person's last year of life. Insurance companies can't factor age into cost beyond a government set limit. So the other insurance buyers subsidize the ageing insured population. Fundamentally you're trying to say that the insurance companies can provide more services, charge high-risk people the same as everyone else, and greatly expand the covered population while reducing cost. That just doesn't happen. If a company provides more services and more expensive services then it's costs are going to rise. And because putting those costs onto the people that incur those costs mean than the majority of the insured population is subsidizing their healthcare and thus their premiums rise.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      2 million workers lost their employer provided health insurance following the ACA. Now they're paying for their insurance out of pocket. Granted their employers were paying their premiums, but from the person's perspective they went down from paying little or nothing to paying for all their insurance on their own. https://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/millions-lost-insurance/ https://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/millions-lost-insurance/ This is assuming that the subsidy covers the full cost of insurance. If this isn't the case then you're stuck paying an extra tax because your didn't buy the insurance that your can't afford. That was repealed last year.... Older people cost insurance companies more. 80% of healthcare costs are usually spent in a person's last year of life. Insurance companies can't factor age into cost beyond a government set limit. So the other insurance buyers subsidize the ageing insured population. Older people wouldn’t be part of the private insurance pool. They would be part of Medicare. Fundamentally you're trying to say that the insurance companies can provide more services, charge high-risk people the same as everyone else, and greatly expand the covered population while reducing cost. That just doesn't happen. If a company provides more services and more expensive services then it's costs are going to rise. And because putting those costs onto the people that incur those costs mean than the majority of the insured population is subsidizing their healthcare and thus their premiums rise. And none of that is true. The insurance companies have a separate pool for what they offer for group insurance and what they offer on the exchange. And older workers would be getting insurance through Medicare. You’re conflating multiple risk pools. The insurance companies don’t do that.