California introduces Covered CA; Obamacare Exchange is Cheaper than Anticipated

[sunzt]

The initial implementation is so cheap without any historical data to see how it will fare long term, and then...

..."Then again, most people paying for insurance on the California exchange will also a pay a lot less, because they will qualify for tax credits that are functionally the same as a discount."

What????

So it's not that it's cheaper, it's just subsidized. No win found...

I took it as it's cheaper and the tax credits make it even cheaper than the costs stated in the article. The impact of those tax credits will be lessened if you presume most wouldn't have spent the money on insurance anyway and therefore no tax on it. However, I do wonder how they considered the impact on the tax credits on the costs.

 

[xBiffx]

I'd be interested in seeing real numbers. I'm not doubting you, I'm genuinely curious.

I'll try and dig em up this weekend. I think it would be a shock to a lot of people.

 

[chucky2]

I took it as it's cheaper and the tax credits make it even cheaper than the costs stated in the article. The impact of those tax credits will be lessened if you presume most wouldn't have spent the money on insurance anyway and therefore no tax on it. However, I do wonder how they considered the impact on the tax credits on the costs.

This is CA and the Fed gov. You can bet whatever is being reported is not the whole story, not truly accurate, and the costs will be far higher than suggested/reported. EDIT: Time will tell...

 

[sunzt]

This is CA and the Fed gov. You can bet whatever is being reported is not the whole story, not truly accurate, and the costs will be far higher than suggested/reported. EDIT: Time will tell...

Probable, but i wouldn't mind my state setting up an exchange so i can at least have some decent alternatives. I personally think employer based health care is stupid as hell. I mean, i don't get employer based auto insurance or any other type of insurance.

 

[Genx87]

This is a glimpse into a liberal mind where pricing fixing and govt subsidizing a product is considered costing less.

afaik I dont believe many have ever claimed the cost to users within the exchange were going to be insanely expensive. How could they when dictated by price fixing the cost to an income level?

The increased costs were on the backend paid by business and individuals due to increased regulation and to the govt for any subsidy it needs to pay.

Then there is the whole issue of congress not including funding Obamacare when it passed. Think it would get passed if funding was included? If funding was included then HHS secretary wouldnt have to beg insurance companies to donate money to the cause 😀

To use a pelosi theme, we wont know the true costs of it until it is fully implemented.

But for those withnin the exchanges? Well congrats I guess...

 

[sunzt]

This is a glimpse into a liberal mind where pricing fixing and govt subsidizing a product is considered costing less.

afaik I dont believe many have ever claimed the cost to users within the exchange were going to be insanely expensive. How could they when dictated by price fixing the cost to an income level?

The increased costs were on the backend paid by business and individuals due to increased regulation and to the govt for any subsidy it needs to pay.

Then there is the whole issue of congress not including funding Obamacare when it passed. Think it would get passed if funding was included? If funding was included then HHS secretary wouldnt have to beg insurance companies to donate money to the cause 😀

To use a pelosi theme, we wont know the true costs of it until it is fully implemented.

But for those withnin the exchanges? Well congrats I guess...

I was talking to project manager whose company implements some of the new electronic data requirements for hospitals and medical groups. One of the major hurdles seen is that the older doctors have to actually learn how to use PCs.

If you every experienced training your parents on how to use the internet and computers then you'll know what I mean, and this is for a large portion of doctors in hospitals.

However, they can use iphones and iPads perfectly.....😕

 

[First]

This is a glimpse into a liberal mind where pricing fixing and govt subsidizing a product is considered costing less.

afaik I dont believe many have ever claimed the cost to users within the exchange were going to be insanely expensive. How could they when dictated by price fixing the cost to an income level?

The increased costs were on the backend paid by business and individuals due to increased regulation and to the govt for any subsidy it needs to pay.

Then there is the whole issue of congress not including funding Obamacare when it passed. Think it would get passed if funding was included? If funding was included then HHS secretary wouldnt have to beg insurance companies to donate money to the cause 😀

To use a pelosi theme, we wont know the true costs of it until it is fully implemented.

But for those withnin the exchanges? Well congrats I guess...

This is quite a mouthfull of herping and derping.

Frankly, the fact that you think gov't-subsidized healthcare doesn't work shows you're not capable of informing yourself about the successful (and massively popular) subsidized programs known here as Medicare, or NHS as it's known in England. No one particularly well informed doubts their success.

 

[xBiffx]

This is quite a mouthfull of herping and derping.

Frankly, the fact that you think gov't-subsidized healthcare doesn't work shows you're not capable of informing yourself about the successful (and massively popular) subsidized programs known here as Medicare, or NHS as it's known in England. No one particularly well informed doubts their success.

Spoken like a true shill.

 

[Genx87]

This is quite a mouthfull of herping and derping.

Frankly, the fact that you think gov't-subsidized healthcare doesn't work shows you're not capable of informing yourself about the successful (and massively popular) subsidized programs known here as Medicare, or NHS as it's known in England. No one particularly well informed doubts their success.

You are kidding me right? We have had govt subsidized healthcare since the 1960s. And govt spending is nearly half of our health spending in this country. Healthcare costs have increased faster than inflation in nearly every year. I mean we can go on and point at other govt subsidized disaster in the making if you like. Like for instance govt subsidized higher education.

I didnt say these subsidized programs arent popular. That imo doesnt make them a success in of itself.

But to come in and claim a subsidized insurance exchange providing lower than expected costs to those being subsidized is "costing" less? Who is herping and derping here?

Those price controls in the 1970s on gasoline were wildly successful under your definition.

 

[First]

You are kidding me right? We have had govt subsidized healthcare since the 1960s. Healthcare costs have increased faster than inflation in nearly every year. I mean we can go on and point at other govt subsidized disaster in the making if you like. Like for instance govt subsidized higher education.

Huh? Healthcare costs have been increasing long before the gov't every got involved and, frankly, I'm not sure what nonsense you're now spewing about gov't getting into higher education? When and in what significant way? No child left behind? How's that relevant to college tuition increases exactly?

I didnt say these subsidized programs arent popular. That imo doesnt make them a success in of itself.

Yes, because programs popular by supermajorities of Americans clearly indicates they can't have been a success, while I'm sure if the opposite had been true you'd be singing a different tune.

But to come in and claim a subsidized insurance exchange providing lower than expected costs to those being subsidized is "costing" less? Who is herping and derping here?

It costs less to consumers, Americans. That's a success. The CBO already scored Obamacare; it's going to add to the deficit over time, just not very substantially. The CBO similarly projected $700B in less Medicare spending over the next 10 years. So, frankly, the huffing and puffing about it not costing less makes no sense.

Those price controls in the 1970s on gasoline were wildly successful under your definition.

That's not the same thing.

 

[Attic]

30% out of pocket will be still unaffordable when the medical bills come in the thousands.

That's been my experience. Health care costs (not insurance costs)....IMO are root of the bigger problem.

Also, the cost the OP refers too as being lowered, we'll need to wait to at earliest October 1st to get the truth.

 

[Genx87]

Huh? Healthcare costs have been increasing long before the gov't every got involved and, frankly, I'm not sure what nonsense you're now spewing about gov't getting into higher education? When and in what significant way? No child left behind? How's that relevant to college tuition increases exactly?

Are you trolling now? Since when is NCLB applied to the university system? Who the fuck subsidizes\backs\funds college tuition loans exactly? The cost of education in this market is through the roof because the spiget for funding is turned on full blast. Govt intervention into the market making it cheaper for end users ends with the cost of the product increasing for those end users.

Yes, because programs popular by supermajorities of Americans clearly indicates they can't have been a success, while I'm sure if the opposite had been true you'd be singing a different tune.

If all you want is it to be popular why not subsidize it 100%? This is a really simple minded way to evaluate success for a program or project within govt. I am sure you are for military spending right? It is typically very well liked and accepted by the majorities. Especially those super majorities in military towns.

It costs less to consumers, Americans. That's a success. The CBO already scored Obamacare; it's going to add to the deficit over time, just not very substantially. The CBO similarly projected $700B in less Medicare spending over the next 10 years. So, frankly, the huffing and puffing about it not costing less makes no sense.

Like I said in my first response. The glimpse into the mind of a liberal where a subsidized product costing less than expected to the one being subsidized is a success.Talk about a narrow definition of success. Is this what we can expect from the champions of this cause? To point out these stories while ignoring the raging path of destruction going on around it?

That's not the same thing.

Why not? To you success is defined as having a low cost to consumers.

 

[Slew Foot]

Government cost projections are worth their weight in shit.

Anyoo, CA's problem isnt really with legal citizens, its with the millions of illegals who arent going to pay for insurance but still show up at the hospital.

 

[chucky2]

Probable, but i wouldn't mind my state setting up an exchange so i can at least have some decent alternatives. I personally think employer based health care is stupid as hell. I mean, i don't get employer based auto insurance or any other type of insurance.

No problems with a state setting up an exchange. There is no way we know what the true cost of these plans are though, way to early to tell (unless someone on the inside leaks it to someone who will report it).

 

[mect]

Are you trolling now? Since when is NCLB applied to the university system? Who the fuck subsidizes\backs\funds college tuition loans exactly? The cost of education in this market is through the roof because the spiget for funding is turned on full blast. Govt intervention into the market making it cheaper for end users ends with the cost of the product increasing for those end users.

State funding for higher education has been decreasing for at least the past 20 years. This is the reason tuition has been increasing at such an alarming pace, because students are required to cover the cost where government did before. Most public universities are trying to become as independent as possible from government funding because it is so unreliable, because funding has been systematically decreasing. The challenges our universities are facing are struggling because of a lack of commitment, not because the government is throwing a bunch of free money at them. At some universities, enrollments are increasing while government funding is decreasing, even not correcting for inflation. What else can they do but raise tuition? Believe me, it has nothing to do with the spiget for funding being turned on full blast, quite the opposite.

 

[First]

Are you trolling now? Since when is NCLB applied to the university system?

That's why I was perplexed at your bullshit post about the feds getting into higher education, tard. The feds hardly have a hand in it.

Who the fuck subsidizes\backs\funds college tuition loans exactly? The cost of education in this market is through the roof because the spiget for funding is turned on full blast. Govt intervention into the market making it cheaper for end users ends with the cost of the product increasing for those end users.

What kind of dumb shit is this? What do scholarship funds, which are dramatically and overwhelmingly privately backed, have to do with the feds? And what percentage of college tuition funds are subsidized by the gov't; it's a tiny fraction, not even worth considering. Pell grants are nowhere near a large enough portion of the college tuition picture to have impacted it dramatically. Again talking out of your ass.

If all you want is it to be popular why not subsidize it 100%? This is a really simple minded way to evaluate success for a program or project within govt. I am sure you are for military spending right? It is typically very well liked and accepted by the majorities. Especially those super majorities in military towns.

I'm for funding 100%, because it works so well around the world. Thanks for playing.

Your military example makes no sense.

Like I said in my first response. The glimpse into the mind of a liberal where a subsidized product costing less than expected to the one being subsidized is a success.Talk about a narrow definition of success. Is this what we can expect from the champions of this cause? To point out these stories while ignoring the raging path of destruction going on around it?

ACA doesn't cost Americans anything; there's no tax for it, unlike Medicare/Medicaid and SS, and it doesn't add significantly to the deficit. It's also privately subsidized and competed for. If and when there's a tax for it, then you can complain about it "costing" Americans anything.

Why not? To you success is defined as having a low cost to consumers.

Because you fail at economics.

 

[Genx87]

That's why I was perplexed at your bullshit post about the feds getting into higher education, tard. The feds hardly have a hand in it.



What kind of dumb shit is this? What do scholarship funds, which are dramatically and overwhelmingly privately backed, have to do with the feds? And what percentage of college tuition funds are subsidized by the gov't; it's a tiny fraction, not even worth considering. Pell grants are nowhere near a large enough portion of the college tuition picture to have impacted it dramatically. Again talking out of your ass.

I see you are narrowly defining the topic again. How many loans are directly given or backed the federal govt? You know exactly what I am bringing about the education bubble. Quit dancing.

I'm for funding 100%, because it works so well around the world. Thanks for playing.

That would certainly make is a success in your book.

Your military example makes no sense.

I am only using your definition of success to apply to programs you dont like. If you dont like it, decide your definition for success is pretty fucking stupid.

ACA doesn't cost Americans anything; there's no tax for it, unlike Medicare/Medicaid and SS, and it doesn't add significantly to the deficit. It's also privately subsidized and competed for. If and when there's a tax for it, then you can complain about it "costing" Americans anything.

Well does is add to the deficit? It costs americans something. And does it add to health care costs? Does it add to american's premiums? Does it add costs to business plans? Does it add costs to business,healthcare and insurance providers to comply with regulations? Does it affect part time workers hours? Well then it cost Americans something.

Because you fail at economics.

Whether I fail at economics or not is irrelevant here. We are applying your measure of success to other markets. Seems to have a problem with your definition if you dont like it.

 

[palehorse]

I'm interested to see what these plans will cost someone in the mid-to-upper middle class who currently pays $3600 per year for full family coverage with fantastic deductibles (employer-paid coverage). You know, such information would be useful for the day when each and every one of our employers decides that healthcare expenses just aren't worth it anymore!

IOW, how much will this nonsense cost ME?

And yes, I do absolutely consider any/all added costs to me as a TAX on the middle-class, regardless of others' attempts to paint this turd and call it gold.

If this ends up costing me a penny more than $3600/year (or the equivalent total after average yearly increases), then I will protest this TAX every step of the way...

 

[sunzt]

I'm interested to see what these plans will cost someone in the mid-to-upper middle class who currently pays $3600 per year for full family coverage with fantastic deductibles (employer-paid coverage). You know, such information would be useful for the day when each and every one of our employers decides that healthcare expenses just aren't worth it anymore!

IOW, how much will this nonsense cost ME?

And yes, I do absolutely consider any/all added costs to me as a TAX on the middle-class, regardless of others' attempts to paint this turd and call it gold.

If this ends up costing me a penny more than $3600/year (or the equivalent total after average yearly increases), then I will protest this TAX every step of the way...

Wouldn't you want to include the employer subsidized portion as part of the cost? Your employer can choose to reduce their subsidy and increase your cost.

 

[palehorse]

Wouldn't you want to include the employer subsidized portion as part of the cost? Your employer can choose to reduce their subsidy and increase your cost.

Ultimately, I couldn't care less what my employer has to pay for their share of the coverage as long as they continue to pay that share. During the last several years while I've worked for the same company, my personal share of the coverage costs -- again, with amazing PPO coverage and deductibles -- has only gone up about 7% per year.

The day that the Federal Government implements something that encourages my employer to completely stop paying their share of the coverage -- subsequently resulting in dramatically increased costs for ME -- is the day I get very VERY angry.

So, as I asked above, what will the GOLD or PLATINUM exchange plans cost for families making $100k/year, or more? If that number is higher than $3600/year, then "Houston, we have a big f'n problem."

 

[palehorse]

Very interesting data point from the California Covered website:

Several groups are exempt from the requirement to obtain coverage or pay the penalty, including:

• People who would have to pay more than 8 percent of their income for health insurance
• People with incomes below the threshold required for filing taxes (in 2012, $9,750 for a single person and $27,100 for a married couple with two children)
• People who qualify for religious exemptions
• Undocumented immigrants
• People who are incarcerated
• Members of Native American tribes

So undocumented immigrants are exempt from the coverage requirements and penalties?! lolwowwhut?!

This just gets better every time I look up!

 

[palehorse]

Nevermind, I just found the CA Covered coverage calculator:
http://www.coveredca.com/calculating_the_cost.html

According to that calculator, a SILVER plan will cost me approximately $719/month ($8628/yr) -- with no subsidies or credits available for those with my family's level of income.

In addition, at least as far as I can tell, the SILVER plans are A LOT worse than my current PPO coverage; so, I can expect to pay much more than $719/mo to continue receiving the same Gold/Platinum coverage I receive today.

In other words, if this damn exchange system results in my employer dropping healthcare benefits, I can expect to pay 3-4 times more per year than I pay right now.

You ACA supporters better hope that never happens... if it does happen -- and sadly, I do think we're headed that way -- things are going to get really ugly, really quickly.

 

[Brovane]

Tell this to the people whose medicare has damn near doubled. People who have no choice but to pay that as well.

Was it your monthly MediCare premium that doubled? Or was it out of pocket costs like co-pays etc that doubled? I assume you are reffering to cost increases from 2012-2013 that it doubled?

 

[werepossum]

Let's keep an eye on this one "costs controls" has come to mean "we aren't covering your costs."

Be interesting to see what happens over 5 years or so.

Things have already gotten interesting for me. My small company had to adopt Health Savings Accounts because we could no longer afford the continually rising premiums for conventional insurance. I love it, but under Obamacare our $2,700 out of pocket before insurance kicks in is "too good", so Blue Cross was legally forced to raise it to $3,700 out of pocket. So Obamacare has helped me out of a grand a year.

Government cost projections are worth their weight in shit.

Anyoo, CA's problem isnt really with legal citizens, its with the millions of illegals who arent going to pay for insurance but still show up at the hospital.

Not true at all. Shit makes a valuable fertilizer. Government cost projections are useful only for low grade recycled paper. Well, that and a good giggle.

Nevermind, I just found the CA Covered coverage calculator:
http://www.coveredca.com/calculating_the_cost.html

According to that calculator, a SILVER plan will cost me approximately $719/month ($8628/yr) -- with no subsidies or credits available for those with my family's level of income.

In addition, at least as far as I can tell, the SILVER plans are A LOT worse than my current PPO coverage; so, I can expect to pay much more than $719/mo to continue receiving the same Gold/Platinum coverage I receive today.

In other words, if this damn exchange system results in my employer dropping healthcare benefits, I can expect to pay 3-4 times more per year than I pay right now.

You ACA supporters better hope that never happens... if it does happen -- and sadly, I do think we're headed that way -- things are going to get really ugly, really quickly.

Of course it's going to result in employers dropping healthcare benefits; that's the main point.

One amusing point is that these "studies" count what an individual has to pay for insurance, without pointing out that government is subsidizing those examples. One might believe this is valid since "somebody else" is paying those taxes, but we're all "somebody else" to other people.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Something that has yet to be implemented you are linking to reduced health care costs. You're a smart one, aren't cha?

Seriously, slitting your wrists is the only thing useful at this point 🙄