4 ms·

Yes, because applying for private insurance is so easy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql9RVy6FWkg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql9RVy6FWkg > "Avik Roy is a

Yes, because applying for private insurance is so easy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql9RVy6FWkg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql9RVy6FWkg > "Avik Roy is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of the Forbes blog The Apothecary. He has stated he is an "outside adviser to the Romney campaign on health care issues." He is a contributor to National Review Online, where he was described as a member of Mitt Romney's Health Care Policy Advisory Group." Hmm, I wonder if this author has an axe to grind. > "The answer is that Obamacare wasn’t designed to help healthy people with average incomes get health insurance. It was designed to force those people to pay more for coverage, in order to subsidize insurance for people with incomes near the poverty line, and those with chronic or costly medical conditions." Um, isn't that literally the function of all insurance?

lowmagnet 13y ago
> Um, isn't that literally the function of all insurance? It used to be about spreading risk. Now, I'm not so sure. The reason the ACA exists is that instead of spreading risk into pools, insurance companies have been denying coverage to reduce risk. This seems like the opposite of what they once were.
- hga 13y ago
  The problem is that most medical insurance isn't really insurance as it's otherwise known. If you know someone has a preexisting condition that is (statistically) going to cost more than the maximum premiums you can charge, then cost shifting of some sort must occur. And it becomes a healthcare + insurance policy, the latter protecting against the true risks, like an unrelated auto accident or illness. I.e. the now outlawed high deductible "major medical" plans that covered catastrophic costs but expected you to pay out of pocket for the rest. Which of course is another reason healthcare has gotten so expensive and opaque, when a third party pays most everything. Your eyes may go wide at the total 6 figure cost of a major procedure, but since you're only paying a relatively small copay....
jnevill 13y ago
This article lacks any shred of analytics. There isn't an example given where someone pays more under ACA then they would have under private. It's all fluff with no substance. It's a shame too, because there are probably some very interesting numbers to come out of this change over to ACA. The addition of saying the website is slow because the powers-that-be are trying to hide that ACA causes people to pay more is ridiculous. The website is slow because it was built by the federal government. They are inept at this sort of thing. To say it's because folks are trying to hide a "truth" turns the whole thing into a conspiracy theory.
- hga 13y ago
  "There isn't an example given where someone pays more under ACA then they would have under private." I would assume the article didn't bother because it has been so well established by now. E.g. see it tangentially in the infamous "Of course, I want people to have health care," Vinson said. "I just didn't realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally." I cite elsewhere in this discussion http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacar...
  - NateDad 13y ago
    There have been a very small handful of people who have claimed (without much supporting evidence) that they would pay more. There has been pretty much zero evidence given that people who have insurance through their employer will see any changes. Saying "because it's so well established" 14 days after the website opened, when most people can't even get onto the site, and a vast majority of people aren't even trying... is BS.
    - hga 13y ago
      Your latter point is incorrect because we're hearing this from people who have insurance and are finding their policies canceled or drastically more expensive. I don't know if it was part of the plan, but rather obviously that should happen before or soon after the website opens, so they'll know they have to go to it, or should go to see if they can get a better deal. You're claiming it's "a very small handful" simply tells me your normal sources of information aren't seriously covering this problem.

lowmagnet 13y ago

> Um, isn't that literally the function of all insurance? It used to be about spreading risk. Now, I'm not so sure. The reason the ACA exists is that instead of spreading risk into pools, insurance companies have been denying coverage to reduce risk. This seems like the opposite of what they once were.

hga 13y ago
The problem is that most medical insurance isn't really insurance as it's otherwise known. If you know someone has a preexisting condition that is (statistically) going to cost more than the maximum premiums you can charge, then cost shifting of some sort must occur. And it becomes a healthcare + insurance policy, the latter protecting against the true risks, like an unrelated auto accident or illness. I.e. the now outlawed high deductible "major medical" plans that covered catastrophic costs but expected you to pay out of pocket for the rest. Which of course is another reason healthcare has gotten so expensive and opaque, when a third party pays most everything. Your eyes may go wide at the total 6 figure cost of a major procedure, but since you're only paying a relatively small copay....

jnevill 13y ago

This article lacks any shred of analytics. There isn't an example given where someone pays more under ACA then they would have under private. It's all fluff with no substance. It's a shame too, because there are probably some very interesting numbers to come out of this change over to ACA. The addition of saying the website is slow because the powers-that-be are trying to hide that ACA causes people to pay more is ridiculous. The website is slow because it was built by the federal government. They are inept at this sort of thing. To say it's because folks are trying to hide a "truth" turns the whole thing into a conspiracy theory.

hga 13y ago
"There isn't an example given where someone pays more under ACA then they would have under private." I would assume the article didn't bother because it has been so well established by now. E.g. see it tangentially in the infamous "Of course, I want people to have health care," Vinson said. "I just didn't realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally." I cite elsewhere in this discussion http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacar...
- NateDad 13y ago
  There have been a very small handful of people who have claimed (without much supporting evidence) that they would pay more. There has been pretty much zero evidence given that people who have insurance through their employer will see any changes. Saying "because it's so well established" 14 days after the website opened, when most people can't even get onto the site, and a vast majority of people aren't even trying... is BS.
  - hga 13y ago
    Your latter point is incorrect because we're hearing this from people who have insurance and are finding their policies canceled or drastically more expensive. I don't know if it was part of the plan, but rather obviously that should happen before or soon after the website opens, so they'll know they have to go to it, or should go to see if they can get a better deal. You're claiming it's "a very small handful" simply tells me your normal sources of information aren't seriously covering this problem.