3 ms·

This is FUD. Anecdotally, I managed to browse coverage on the healthcare.gov site a few days ago, and the cheapest plan offered is about what I currently pay f

by acabal 13y ago

This is FUD. Anecdotally, I managed to browse coverage on the healthcare.gov site a few days ago, and the cheapest plan offered is about what I currently pay for individual health insurance, but a much, much, better plan than what I have. (In fact I got a letter saying my plan was so bad that Obamacare made it illegal, and yet the cost compared to a much better Obamacare plan was about the same.) Obamacare might not have gotten everything right (single payer is the only good solution IMHO), and I too have doubts as to whether it will be a net plus in the long run, but your post is just FUD and not helping anyone.

001sky 13y ago
I'm not sure this is good 'analysis'. The entire premise is for a certain subset of the population to subsidize universal coverage. The US Supreme Court backed the legislation under this rationale. It is by design a 'synthetic' tax increase. The problem for everyone is that this is not saving anyone money on a net basis. The original purpose/goal of universal healthcare was to achieve the extension of coverage with a net synergy to the US Fed. budget (which picks up the tab for the uninsured). And this will be a failure if the risk-pool is not of proper metric. There is a story in the NYT today that details this. The system’s sustainability depends on getting enough healthy people to sign up, he pointed out, and if they don’t then insurers “will have to raise everyone’s premiums,” which “could create what actuaries call a ‘death spiral’: Rising premiums prompt people to drop out, causing premiums to increase even more.” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6581817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6581817
powertower 13y ago
Raising rates 100% across the board for healthy males below 40 in all but 3 states is not FUD. It's a documented fact based on statistical analysis (and even liberal-biased channels are beginning to report on it). You probably live in one of those 3 US states, or you perhaps fall into some sweet spot or other category such as being chronically ill, having pre-existing conditions, having abnormally expensive or bad existing insurance, low income, etc - categories that benefit from Obamacare. But the young, healthy, and the middle class mostly do not. http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator Let me give you an example - A person that never needed health insurance before, lives in NC, 30-40 years old, made 35k. You're going to fork out $3,000k/year for whatever that Silver level is. But if you get the pre-Obamacare plan.... Only $100/month. Thats a 3X increase. Here are some more examples - http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2013/10/17/the-horror-stories-of-obamacares-rate-shock-n1725475 http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2013/10/17/the-horro...
- KatieHartman 13y ago
  That may only hold true if you're looking at the cheapest available options. I skimmed over the options available through my state's exchange (Covered California) and ehealthinsurance.com; for a 25-year-old making $40k/year, Covered CA's options range from $252 to $305, and ehealthinsurance's range from $100 to $384. The $305 option looks pretty attractive compared to most of the more expensive ehealthinsurance plans (although that $384 plan is, admittedly, hard to top).

by acabal 13y ago

001sky 13y ago

I'm not sure this is good 'analysis'. The entire premise is for a certain subset of the population to subsidize universal coverage. The US Supreme Court backed the legislation under this rationale. It is by design a 'synthetic' tax increase. The problem for everyone is that this is not saving anyone money on a net basis. The original purpose/goal of universal healthcare was to achieve the extension of coverage with a net synergy to the US Fed. budget (which picks up the tab for the uninsured). And this will be a failure if the risk-pool is not of proper metric. There is a story in the NYT today that details this. The system’s sustainability depends on getting enough healthy people to sign up, he pointed out, and if they don’t then insurers “will have to raise everyone’s premiums,” which “could create what actuaries call a ‘death spiral’: Rising premiums prompt people to drop out, causing premiums to increase even more.” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6581817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6581817

powertower 13y ago

Raising rates 100% across the board for healthy males below 40 in all but 3 states is not FUD. It's a documented fact based on statistical analysis (and even liberal-biased channels are beginning to report on it). You probably live in one of those 3 US states, or you perhaps fall into some sweet spot or other category such as being chronically ill, having pre-existing conditions, having abnormally expensive or bad existing insurance, low income, etc - categories that benefit from Obamacare. But the young, healthy, and the middle class mostly do not. http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator Let me give you an example - A person that never needed health insurance before, lives in NC, 30-40 years old, made 35k. You're going to fork out $3,000k/year for whatever that Silver level is. But if you get the pre-Obamacare plan.... Only $100/month. Thats a 3X increase. Here are some more examples - http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2013/10/17/the-horror-stories-of-obamacares-rate-shock-n1725475 http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2013/10/17/the-horro...

KatieHartman 13y ago
That may only hold true if you're looking at the cheapest available options. I skimmed over the options available through my state's exchange (Covered California) and ehealthinsurance.com; for a 25-year-old making $40k/year, Covered CA's options range from $252 to $305, and ehealthinsurance's range from $100 to $384. The $305 option looks pretty attractive compared to most of the more expensive ehealthinsurance plans (although that $384 plan is, admittedly, hard to top).