|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 5, 2014 0:31:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 8, 2014 11:23:52 GMT
Just how many of the (reported) eight million signups for ObamaCare--many of these coming late in the game--actually paid their first month's premiums? And how many of these will continue paying those monthly premiums?
The House Commerce Committee's report was highly condemned by the insurance companies, the press, and even by many House Republicans because it was based upon extremely incomplete data.
More recent data from the insurance companies themselves placed the number that have paid their premiums at between 83%-90% (depending on the insurance company reporting) and that is likely to continue to rise before the dust settles.
finance.yahoo.com/news/gops-latest-anti-obamacare-talking-213658327.html
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 9, 2014 0:09:48 GMT
Just how many of the (reported) eight million signups for ObamaCare--many of these coming late in the game--actually paid their first month's premiums? And how many of these will continue paying those monthly premiums?
The House Commerce Committee's report was highly condemned by the insurance companies, the press, and even by many House Republicans because it was based upon extremely incomplete data.
More recent data from the insurance companies themselves placed the number that have paid their premiums at between 83%-90% (depending on the insurance company reporting) and that is likely to continue to rise before the dust settles.
finance.yahoo.com/news/gops-latest-anti-obamacare-talking-213658327.html
From the article itself: "The committee surveyed insurers for the total number of enrollments and premium payments as of April 15. That number, insurers said Wednesday, was about 70%. However, the surge in April enrollment was not reflected. Almost 1 million plan enrollments occurred in April after the Obama administration extended the sign-up deadline for people who had already started the process. For those people, the first premium payment wasn't due on April 15, but the committee counted them as unpaid enrollees." So, even if the late enrolees pay at the same rate as earlier enrolees--and that seems unlikely, given that the late enrolees tend to be less financially stable and less reliable than the others--the rate would remain at just 70 percent. In other words, a full 30 percent would not be paying their first month's premiums.And even of those who do , how many will continue to do so for, say, a full year?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 9, 2014 9:31:57 GMT
The House Commerce Committee's report was highly condemned by the insurance companies, the press, and even by many House Republicans because it was based upon extremely incomplete data.
More recent data from the insurance companies themselves placed the number that have paid their premiums at between 83%-90% (depending on the insurance company reporting) and that is likely to continue to rise before the dust settles.
finance.yahoo.com/news/gops-latest-anti-obamacare-talking-213658327.html
From the article itself: "The committee surveyed insurers for the total number of enrollments and premium payments as of April 15. That number, insurers said Wednesday, was about 70%. However, the surge in April enrollment was not reflected. Almost 1 million plan enrollments occurred in April after the Obama administration extended the sign-up deadline for people who had already started the process. For those people, the first premium payment wasn't due on April 15, but the committee counted them as unpaid enrollees." So, even if the late enrolees pay at the same rate as earlier enrolees--and that seems unlikely, given that the late enrolees tend to be less financially stable and less reliable than the others--the rate would remain at just 70 percent. In other words, a full 30 percent would not be paying their first month's premiums.And even of those who do , how many will continue to do so for, say, a full year?
The quotation noted was why the House Committee's report was so erroneous. They counted those who's premiums weren't even due to be paid as being "unpaid" to come up with the 70% number. When the insurance companies reported they addressed those that had made their payment by the "due date" and, depending on the company, it's between 83% and 90%.
Of course what happens by the end of 2014 isn't really relevant. What happens in 2015, 2016, and through about 2020 will be far more important.
It is also worthy of noting that the number of "uninsured" dropped from an estimated 20% to 15% across the nation and dipped into the 13% range in the states that set up their own insurance exchanges.
I still don't like Obamacare but to try and draw any conclusions this early when it's not even fully implemented is rather silly. This is all premature and based upon a lot of speculation as opposed to facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 10, 2014 1:20:14 GMT
From the article itself: "The committee surveyed insurers for the total number of enrollments and premium payments as of April 15. That number, insurers said Wednesday, was about 70%. However, the surge in April enrollment was not reflected. Almost 1 million plan enrollments occurred in April after the Obama administration extended the sign-up deadline for people who had already started the process. For those people, the first premium payment wasn't due on April 15, but the committee counted them as unpaid enrollees." So, even if the late enrolees pay at the same rate as earlier enrolees--and that seems unlikely, given that the late enrolees tend to be less financially stable and less reliable than the others--the rate would remain at just 70 percent. In other words, a full 30 percent would not be paying their first month's premiums.And even of those who do , how many will continue to do so for, say, a full year?
The quotation noted was why the House Committee's report was so erroneous. They counted those who's premiums weren't even due to be paid as being "unpaid" to come up with the 70% number. When the insurance companies reported they addressed those that had made their payment by the "due date" and, depending on the company, it's between 83% and 90%.
Of course what happens by the end of 2014 isn't really relevant. What happens in 2015, 2016, and through about 2020 will be far more important.
It is also worthy of noting that the number of "uninsured" dropped from an estimated 20% to 15% across the nation and dipped into the 13% range in the states that set up their own insurance exchanges.
I still don't like Obamacare but to try and draw any conclusions this early when it's not even fully implemented is rather silly. This is all premature and based upon a lot of speculation as opposed to facts.
First, I would just like to say that it is not "premature" to note that compulsion in healthcare insurance is exactly counter to the fundamental principles of freedom and liberty that I hold dear. (Is it wise to obtain good healthcare insurance? Of course! But to make it complusory is quite another matter.) And I believe it remains likely that an inordinately high percentage of these late enrolees--who tend to be younger, less financially stable, and therefore less reliable--will default upon their premiums before a full year is up. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 10, 2014 12:30:52 GMT
First, I would just like to say that it is not "premature" to note that compulsion in healthcare insurance is exactly counter to the fundamental principles of freedom and liberty that I hold dear. (Is it wise to obtain good healthcare insurance? Of course! But to make it complusory is quite another matter.) And I believe it remains likely that an inordinately high percentage of these late enrolees--who tend to be younger, less financially stable, and therefore less reliable--will default upon their premiums before a full year is up.
I tend to agree because I oppose the individual mandate but I don't oppose the regulation of enteprise that would require employers to provide for the health insurance needs of their employees that the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation and many Republicans supported in the past.
Whether some or many of the younger enrollees default on the their premiums later this year really isn't important as to the long term sustainability of Obamacare. What can be noted that the longer they pay their premium the less likely they are to default because they will reach the point where even with the low penalty this year it will be less expensive to pay the final months premiums than to pay the penalty on April 15th. We can also note that for many of these younger enrollees the subsidies pay most of their premium so they have little out of pocket expense each month. Finally most of these will be autopayments from their bank accounts as insurance companies tend to require that for monthly payment options. It isn't a question of them not writing a check but instead of them having to cancel an autopayment that most won't probably do.
As noted at the beginning though this has virtually nothing to do with the long term sustainability of Obamacare. As noted at the beginning I'd advocate expanding the "employer mandate" and dropping the individual mandate.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 11, 2014 0:47:34 GMT
First, I would just like to say that it is not "premature" to note that compulsion in healthcare insurance is exactly counter to the fundamental principles of freedom and liberty that I hold dear. (Is it wise to obtain good healthcare insurance? Of course! But to make it complusory is quite another matter.) And I believe it remains likely that an inordinately high percentage of these late enrolees--who tend to be younger, less financially stable, and therefore less reliable--will default upon their premiums before a full year is up.
I tend to agree because I oppose the individual mandate but I don't oppose the regulation of enteprise that would require employers to provide for the health insurance needs of their employees that the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation and many Republicans supported in the past.
Whether some or many of the younger enrollees default on the their premiums later this year really isn't important as to the long term sustainability of Obamacare. What can be noted that the longer they pay their premium the less likely they are to default because they will reach the point where even with the low penalty this year it will be less expensive to pay the final months premiums than to pay the penalty on April 15th. We can also note that for many of these younger enrollees the subsidies pay most of their premium so they have little out of pocket expense each month. Finally most of these will be autopayments from their bank accounts as insurance companies tend to require that for monthly payment options. It isn't a question of them not writing a check but instead of them having to cancel an autopayment that most won't probably do.
As noted at the beginning though this has virtually nothing to do with the long term sustainability of Obamacare. As noted at the beginning I'd advocate expanding the "employer mandate" and dropping the individual mandate.
How can you assert that it has "virtually nothing to do with the long term sustainability" of the program if adverse selection--i.e. too high of a percentage of older, sicker enrolees--results in what is typically known, in the insurance industry, as a "death spiral"? In other words, if the demographics are such that healthcare-insurance companies are forced to raise their premiums exponentially, thereby greatly reducing the number of people who will continue to pay these premiums? Of course, I suppose that always leaves us with the built-in option of a government bailout... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 11, 2014 9:57:13 GMT
How can you assert that it has "virtually nothing to do with the long term sustainability" of the program if adverse selection--i.e. too high of a percentage of older, sicker enrolees--results in what is typically known, in the insurance industry, as a "death spiral"? In other words, if the demographics are such that healthcare-insurance companies are forced to raise their premiums exponentially, thereby greatly reducing the number of people who will continue to pay these premiums? Of course, I suppose that always leaves us with the built-in option of a government bailout...
The ever increasing penalties for those that don't purchase insurance is going to drive enrollment and payment of premiums over time.
My greater concern is the costs of the subsidies for the individual mandate. I don't have the numbers but I'd hazard to guess that subidizing individuals will cost far more the covering potential losses if there is a shortage of "healthy" younger individuals signing up.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 11, 2014 22:49:45 GMT
How can you assert that it has "virtually nothing to do with the long term sustainability" of the program if adverse selection--i.e. too high of a percentage of older, sicker enrolees--results in what is typically known, in the insurance industry, as a "death spiral"? In other words, if the demographics are such that healthcare-insurance companies are forced to raise their premiums exponentially, thereby greatly reducing the number of people who will continue to pay these premiums? Of course, I suppose that always leaves us with the built-in option of a government bailout...
The ever increasing penalties for those that don't purchase insurance is going to drive enrollment and payment of premiums over time.
My greater concern is the costs of the subsidies for the individual mandate. I don't have the numbers but I'd hazard to guess that subidizing individuals will cost far more the covering potential losses if there is a shortage of "healthy" younger individuals signing up.
It will probably be several years before those penalties become substantial enough to prompt young, healthy individuals--who would probably prefer to spend their (often scarce) money elsewhere-- to purchase healthcare insurance. (There is a reason why these people are sometimes referred to as "The Young Invincibles.") But you are certainly correct that the subsidies are another major concern. They are yet another example of the fact that our government has become little more than a giant Income-Redistribution Machine. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 12, 2014 14:48:56 GMT
The ever increasing penalties for those that don't purchase insurance is going to drive enrollment and payment of premiums over time.
My greater concern is the costs of the subsidies for the individual mandate. I don't have the numbers but I'd hazard to guess that subidizing individuals will cost far more the covering potential losses if there is a shortage of "healthy" younger individuals signing up.
It will probably be several years before those penalties become substantial enough to prompt young, healthy individuals--who would probably prefer to spend their (often scarce) money elsewhere-- to purchase healthcare insurance. (There is a reason why these people are sometimes referred to as "The Young Invincibles.") But you are certainly correct that the subsidies are another major concern. They are yet another example of the fact that our government has become little more than a giant Income-Redistribution Machine.
As soon as the penalties come even close to being the same as the "out-of-pocket" costs to the person (i.e. after government subsidies) they will purchase the insurance and pay for it.
Yes, the individual insurance subsidies present a significant funding problem in the future which is why I'd eliminate the "Individual Mandate" and instead revise and expand the "Employer Mandate" to cover all workers in a manner like I've previously suggested. Non-workers or limited hour part-time workers would, of course, be covered by the exapnded Medicaid.
If we eliminated the "subsidies" that are going to create a huge financial burden for the American taxpayers then "Individual Mandate" just doesn't make sense at all because it still requires wages from the employer for the individual to pay the premiums. Why not just require the employers to fund the insurance needs directly through group health insurance? That takes the "taxpayer" off the hook and provides the necessary insurance for the individual that can't afford insurnace without taxpayer funded subsidies.
As has been noted elsewhere there are no "Free Lunches" so all we're addressing is who's going to pay the cost and ultimately it falls on employers no matter how we cut the pie. If I have to pay taxes to fund the subsidies then my employer is paying the costs because it pays my wages that pay my taxes.
Why should my employer be paying me wages so I can pay the taxes to subsidize the health insurance for someone else working for another employer? Ever think of the problem from that perspective? Ultimately the "employers always pay" but the only real issue is which employers are paying and which are not paying for a necessary expenditure in society.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 13, 2014 1:10:56 GMT
It will probably be several years before those penalties become substantial enough to prompt young, healthy individuals--who would probably prefer to spend their (often scarce) money elsewhere-- to purchase healthcare insurance. (There is a reason why these people are sometimes referred to as "The Young Invincibles.") But you are certainly correct that the subsidies are another major concern. They are yet another example of the fact that our government has become little more than a giant Income-Redistribution Machine.
As soon as the penalties come even close to being the same as the "out-of-pocket" costs to the person (i.e. after government subsidies) they will purchase the insurance and pay for it.
Yes, the individual insurance subsidies present a significant funding problem in the future which is why I'd eliminate the "Individual Mandate" and instead revise and expand the "Employer Mandate" to cover all workers in a manner like I've previously suggested. Non-workers or limited hour part-time workers would, of course, be covered by the exapnded Medicaid.
If we eliminated the "subsidies" that are going to create a huge financial burden for the American taxpayers then "Individual Mandate" just doesn't make sense at all because it still requires wages from the employer for the individual to pay the premiums. Why not just require the employers to fund the insurance needs directly through group health insurance? That takes the "taxpayer" off the hook and provides the necessary insurance for the individual that can't afford insurnace without taxpayer funded subsidies.
As has been noted elsewhere there are no "Free Lunches" so all we're addressing is who's going to pay the cost and ultimately it falls on employers no matter how we cut the pie. If I have to pay taxes to fund the subsidies then my employer is paying the costs because it pays my wages that pay my taxes.
Why should my employer be paying me wages so I can pay the taxes to subsidize the health insurance for someone else working for another employer? Ever think of the problem from that perspective? Ultimately the "employers always pay" but the only real issue is which employers are paying and which are not paying for a necessary expenditure in society.
I agree with you that the individual mandate should be eliminated. However, I would also eliminate the employer mandate. Any intrusion upon private business practices is problematic, in my opinion. Anti-trust laws are probably a necessary evil, in order to obviate the possibility of monopolies occuring--and thereby destroying the capitalist system itself. But this is one of the (rare!) exceptions that I would make, as regarding my general preference for something almost of a laissez-faire nature. (I am somewhat uncertain even about the efficacy of minimum-wage laws; and I most certainly would not wish to intrude any further upon private business practices--with the exception of OSHA standards regulating safety.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 13, 2014 10:36:13 GMT
I agree with you that the individual mandate should be eliminated. However, I would also eliminate the employer mandate. Any intrusion upon private business practices is problematic, in my opinion. Anti-trust laws are probably a necessary evil, in order to obviate the possibility of monopolies occuring--and thereby destroying the capitalist system itself. But this is one of the (rare!) exceptions that I would make, as regarding my general preference for something almost of a laissez-faire nature. (I am somewhat uncertain even about the efficacy of minimum-wage laws; and I most certainly would not wish to intrude any further upon private business practices--with the exception of OSHA standards regulating safety.)
I'm very much a "laisse-faire" capitalist as I certainly see capitalism as being the most viable economic model but we need to understand that capitalism is far from perfect. Laisse-faire capitalism doesn't imply no regulation but instead it implies regulation necessary to address the problems of capitalism that doesn't attempt to determine economic outcomes. Government interventionism should be to the least extent possible to address the problem but it must also resolve the problem....
.... and we do have a serious specific problem in our economy which is "working poverty" where a person/household simply doesn't earn enough income to fund their minimum expenditures. Because of "working poverty" tens of millions of people do not have health insurance that ensures they receive the medical services they need and, because of that, tens of thousands of people were dying annually.
If "capitalism" was perfect the problem of poverty (and the related problem of a lack of health care for tens of millions and death for tens of thousands) would not exist but we can't expect perfection and we have a very limited number of options on how to deal with it.
If we don't require either the "individual mandate" and/or the "employer mandate" then the only remaining option is the "government mandate" to address the problem.
The "government mandate" can mitigate the effects of the problem but does not resolve it. The "employer mandate" imposed by regulation actually resolves the problem which is why it is preferrable to me.
So what is your proposal?
How do we ensure that tens of millions of people have the health care services they need so that tens of thousands don't die from a lack of adequate health care services? The default "Republican" proposal of "(A) Don't get sick, or; (B) If you do get sick die quickly" doesn't do anything to address the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 13, 2014 15:35:40 GMT
I agree with you that the individual mandate should be eliminated. However, I would also eliminate the employer mandate. Any intrusion upon private business practices is problematic, in my opinion. Anti-trust laws are probably a necessary evil, in order to obviate the possibility of monopolies occuring--and thereby destroying the capitalist system itself. But this is one of the (rare!) exceptions that I would make, as regarding my general preference for something almost of a laissez-faire nature. (I am somewhat uncertain even about the efficacy of minimum-wage laws; and I most certainly would not wish to intrude any further upon private business practices--with the exception of OSHA standards regulating safety.)
I'm very much a "laisse-faire" capitalist as I certainly see capitalism as being the most viable economic model but we need to understand that capitalism is far from perfect. Laisse-faire capitalism doesn't imply no regulation but instead it implies regulation necessary to address the problems of capitalism that doesn't attempt to determine economic outcomes. Government interventionism should be to the least extent possible to address the problem but it must also resolve the problem....
.... and we do have a serious specific problem in our economy which is "working poverty" where a person/household simply doesn't earn enough income to fund their minimum expenditures. Because of "working poverty" tens of millions of people do not have health insurance that ensures they receive the medical services they need and, because of that, tens of thousands of people were dying annually.
If "capitalism" was perfect the problem of poverty (and the related problem of a lack of health care for tens of millions and death for tens of thousands) would not exist but we can't expect perfection and we have a very limited number of options on how to deal with it.
If we don't require either the "individual mandate" and/or the "employer mandate" then the only remaining option is the "government mandate" to address the problem.
The "government mandate" can mitigate the effects of the problem but does not resolve it. The "employer mandate" imposed by regulation actually resolves the problem which is why it is preferrable to me.
So what is your proposal?
How do we ensure that tens of millions of people have the health care services they need so that tens of thousands don't die from a lack of adequate health care services? The default "Republican" proposal of "(A) Don't get sick, or; (B) If you do get sick die quickly" doesn't do anything to address the problem.
The assertion that the "Republican" position is either not to get sick, or else to die quickly, is a Democratic talking point. It is unworthy of a serious person (which I certainly regard you as being); and much more appropriate to unabashed political hacks. Your reference to "working poverty" necessarily implies a preference for a living-wage solution. And here is where we differ. (I see it as a matter of individual responsibility for each person to upgrade his or her skillset so as to be able to make demands upon the prospective employer, rather than having to view each proposal on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. You appear, on the other hand, to view individual Americans as mere pawns, vulnerable to the whims of larger forces.) As for my "proposal": Whereas I am not sure that any proposal would be perfect, I do believe that the situation that existed pre-ObamaCare was far superior to what currently exists. (Note: There are some aspects of ObamaCare that I actually view positively, such as the elimination of annual or lifetime caps upon the insurance carriers' financial responsibilities, and the end to exclusions for pre-existing conditions--although the latter might have been addressed through the creation of high-risk pools; but I am very glad to see it go the way of the stegosaurus, anyway. I merely object to the compulsory nature of ObamaCare, as well as the Democrats' blatant shutting out of the GOP from discussions in 2009 and early 2010, when the latter would have preferred to suggest tort reform and the ability of insurance carriers to sell their policies across state lines, in addition to the expansion of HSAs.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 14, 2014 9:16:22 GMT
The assertion that the "Republican" position is either not to get sick, or else to die quickly, is a Democratic talking point. It is unworthy of a serious person (which I certainly regard you as being); and much more appropriate to unabashed political hacks. Your reference to "working poverty" necessarily implies a preference for a living-wage solution. And here is where we differ. (I see it as a matter of individual responsibility for each person to upgrade his or her skillset so as to be able to make demands upon the prospective employer, rather than having to view each proposal on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. You appear, on the other hand, to view individual Americans as mere pawns, vulnerable to the whims of larger forces.)
The fact is that we do have a serious problem with the "working poor" and that doesn't impy anything except there is a problem with capitalism. The "living wage" is a proposal by Democrats to address the problem. You should be aware by now that my proposals have focused on taxation instead because a person lives off of their "disposable income" and taxation on the bottom 50% of households that have the highest tax burden relative to income is where I see a significant problem. Republican proposals are all about the owners of business making more money but that doesn't translate into the "working poor" earning more money.
The problem of the "working poor" exists and is a serious problem with capitalism in the United States.
Democrats propose a "living wage" to address it.
I've proposed "tax reform" to address it.
Republicans propose funneling more money to the wealthy that don't need the money and which does nothing to help the "working poor" in America.
What is your proposal to address the problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 14, 2014 9:58:52 GMT
As for my "proposal": Whereas I am not sure that any proposal would be perfect, I do believe that the situation that existed pre-ObamaCare was far superior to what currently exists. (Note: There are some aspects of ObamaCare that I actually view positively, such as the elimination of annual or lifetime caps upon the insurance carriers' financial responsibilities, and the end to exclusions for pre-existing conditions--although the latter might have been addressed through the creation of high-risk pools; but I am very glad to see it go the way of the stegosaurus, anyway. I merely object to the compulsory nature of ObamaCare, as well as the Democrats' blatant shutting out of the GOP from discussions in 2009 and early 2010, when the latter would have preferred to suggest tort reform and the ability of insurance carriers to sell their policies across state lines, in addition to the expansion of HSAs.)
I have read that because of "Obamacare" the percentage of "uninsured" has dropped from 20% nationwide to 15% nationwide for 2014. More specifically it dropped to about 13% in "Democratic" states that embraced "Obamacare" but to only about 17% in "Republican" states probably because the Republican states rejected the expansion of Medicaid living millions without insurance.
How it can be rationalize that more Americans NOT receiving health care prior to "Obamacare" is better than more Americans receiving health care with "Obamacare" is a puzzlement to me. How is "not treating people's medical needs" better than "treating people's medical needs" is a question that I can't answer.
Republicans were not "shut-out" in 2009 or since but instead was the fact that they didn't address the problem.
Tort reform, allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines, expanding HSA's and even tax credits that Republicans have discussed are all worthy of consideration but the fact is that they only address those Americans that already have or can afford health insurance but that is not the problem.
The "Problem" was/is tens of millions of Americans that can't afford health care services and/or health insurance and tens of thousands of Americans dying annually because they don't have and/or can't afford health insurance.
Because "Capitalism" is not "perfect" pragmatically there are no "perfect solutions" so we must address the "best possible solution" instead but it must address the PROBLEM and not ignore it. We can also assume that the "best possible solution" is also going to have to be "complusory" because "voluntary" hasn't worked under Capitalism in the United States which is why we have the problem. This takes us back to basically the three choices (or a combination):
The Individual Mandate. The Employer Mandate. The Government Mandate.
|
|
