4 ms·

The logic of this argument seems flawed. I assume the goal here is to get young, uninsured people to buy health insurance. The argument here is that by buying a

The logic of this argument seems flawed. I assume the goal here is to get young, uninsured people to buy health insurance. The argument here is that by buying an ACA plan, individuals will be more free to start their own business because they won't have to worry about getting sick without insurance. If I am risk averse, I will simply pursue full time employment that include health insurance benefits. If I am young and willing to forgo salary and benefits for a startup, why would I weigh the risk of getting sick while uninsured any more than the other risks involved in a business venture. Based on what I've seen of the costs of ACA plans, it seems like someone working in a ramen profitable startup would not even be able to afford the insurance offered.

Fomite 13y ago
There have been studies that have shown that the number of businesses started after people qualify for Medicaid goes up. There's a little blip the year of qualification, as you no longer need to be tied to a job to get healthcare. "Risk averse" isn't an on/off switch. It's a range, and removing "What happens if I get sick?" widens the range.
avoutthere 13y ago
> I assume the goal here is to get young, uninsured people to buy health insurance The goal here is to get young, HEALTHY people to buy health insurance in order to pay for those with preexisting conditions who can no longer be denied coverage.
- BrandonMarc 13y ago
  This. I wish I could upvote 10x. As things stand, the mix of ACA enrollees is far too high in older and/or sicker people (who need insurance to pay healthcare costs) and they need more young and/or healthy people (who need neither). Many officials have described how, if the ratio doesn't change, the policy groups may end up with far higher premiums and/or go into a death spiral.
  - kldavis4 13y ago
    The problem is that even with the tax subsidies these plans are too expensive. I was looking at them with my currently uninsured brother and the plans for his family of 5 start at ~$400 / month with the subsidy. These "cheap" plans have a $12k deductible. Unless something catastrophic occurs, he is essentially paying a minimum $4800 more per year and still having to pay the deductible for all his regular doctor visits. At this point it looks cheaper for him to just pay the penalty and out of pocket medical costs. It's basically a chicken and the egg situation. The only way out I can think of resolving this is dumping the ACA completely or going to single payer.
    - tzs 13y ago
      What would it have cost to get a comparable plan for your brother and his family before ACA? $400/month for a family of 5 is about 1/3 of what we have where I work through our employer-sponsored group plan. What I've seen is that for single people (or rather, people who only need to insure one person) who make enough to not qualify for any subsidy, the ACA plans where I am (Washington) that are close to our group plan cost about the same but provide less coverage (no dental and no vision). For those whose income is low enough for a substantial subsidy, or who have family members that would be on the plan, it looks like the ACA plans beat the employer group plan (except for the dental and vision coverage--although I believe some do offer that for children at least).
      - kldavis4 13y ago
        Yeah, I am not sure what he would have to pay for a comparable plan before ACA. My point is that he is now legally obligated to drop $5k on something that essentially only provides benefits if something catastrophic occurs.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Fomite 13y ago

There have been studies that have shown that the number of businesses started after people qualify for Medicaid goes up. There's a little blip the year of qualification, as you no longer need to be tied to a job to get healthcare. "Risk averse" isn't an on/off switch. It's a range, and removing "What happens if I get sick?" widens the range.

avoutthere 13y ago

> I assume the goal here is to get young, uninsured people to buy health insurance The goal here is to get young, HEALTHY people to buy health insurance in order to pay for those with preexisting conditions who can no longer be denied coverage.

BrandonMarc 13y ago
This. I wish I could upvote 10x. As things stand, the mix of ACA enrollees is far too high in older and/or sicker people (who need insurance to pay healthcare costs) and they need more young and/or healthy people (who need neither). Many officials have described how, if the ratio doesn't change, the policy groups may end up with far higher premiums and/or go into a death spiral.
- kldavis4 13y ago
  The problem is that even with the tax subsidies these plans are too expensive. I was looking at them with my currently uninsured brother and the plans for his family of 5 start at ~$400 / month with the subsidy. These "cheap" plans have a $12k deductible. Unless something catastrophic occurs, he is essentially paying a minimum $4800 more per year and still having to pay the deductible for all his regular doctor visits. At this point it looks cheaper for him to just pay the penalty and out of pocket medical costs. It's basically a chicken and the egg situation. The only way out I can think of resolving this is dumping the ACA completely or going to single payer.
  - tzs 13y ago
    What would it have cost to get a comparable plan for your brother and his family before ACA? $400/month for a family of 5 is about 1/3 of what we have where I work through our employer-sponsored group plan. What I've seen is that for single people (or rather, people who only need to insure one person) who make enough to not qualify for any subsidy, the ACA plans where I am (Washington) that are close to our group plan cost about the same but provide less coverage (no dental and no vision). For those whose income is low enough for a substantial subsidy, or who have family members that would be on the plan, it looks like the ACA plans beat the employer group plan (except for the dental and vision coverage--although I believe some do offer that for children at least).
    - kldavis4 13y ago
      Yeah, I am not sure what he would have to pay for a comparable plan before ACA. My point is that he is now legally obligated to drop $5k on something that essentially only provides benefits if something catastrophic occurs.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]