CBO estimates cost of Obamacare even lower than before

[shira]

2018 It won't matter honestly.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertw...ls-royce-new-irs-guidance-makes-it-a-lemon/2/



Like I was saying... because healthcare spending totally tracks the CPI that $10,200 individual coverage isn't looking too cadillac by 2018.

So of course to get the premium down it will mean high deductibles for the more benefited. I'm getting way better insurance at my current job for half the obamacare premium. Actually my deductible is $0 now, hooray. By 2018 I'd imagine is my second round of getting buggered by obamacare. Employer contributions are included. Do you know how much your plan really cost? Hmm?? Hopefully you did that math on it when you voted for it back in 2010 surely? Hey I'm young what do I care. I don't have to go through all the trouble to be a stick in the mud. So in summary... whatever. I have my plan on dealing with it, which going by this forum is better than everyone elses plan who has no clue.

These are for GROUP health insurance plans, fool. $10,200 (2011 dollars) in yearly premiums for an individual plan is CRAZY expensive for a group plan. My own (fairly middle-of-the-road in a high-cost area) group policy comes in at about $5,500 (2015 dollars) for an individual plan, of which I pay $1100.

$27,500 for a family plan is even crazier. Again, in my own situation the family plan would be $14,000 a year.

Again, I live in a high-cost area. Those Cadillac-plan limits are going to squeeze almost no one at all for the foreseeable future. And when the pinch starts to be felt, companies will start offering slightly less generous plans that stay under the limits. Cry me a river.

 

[theeedude]

Obama done good. Awesome president.

 

[OverVolt]

These are for GROUP health insurance plans, fool. $10,200 (2011 dollars) in yearly premiums for an individual plan is CRAZY expensive for a group plan. My own (fairly middle-of-the-road in a high-cost area) group policy comes in at about $5,500 (2015 dollars) for an individual plan, of which I pay $1100.

$27,500 for a family plan is even crazier. Again, in my own situation the family plan would be $14,000 a year.

Again, I live in a high-cost area. Those Cadillac-plan limits are going to squeeze almost no one at all for the foreseeable future. And when the pinch starts to be felt, companies will start offering slightly less generous plans that stay under the limits. Cry me a river.

So they take out $21 bi-weekly? Something tells me you don't know wtf you're doing. Mine is $67 and its at a hospital which generally has some of the best employer insurance available. I would imagine its something like $400/mo with their contributions added. In a department with a bunch of old farts they are going to get hit with the Cadillac tax. And the way they made it track the CPI yet healthcare costs don't track the CPI is a disaster.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Cost of plan went up or district paying less percentage of it? Or both?

Both, cost went up 13%, and teachers now must contribute more.

 

[First]

The SCOTUS called the mandate a tax so I'm going to defer to their opinion. If it wasn't considered a type of tax, the ACA mandate would have been struck down. It's really that simple.

Yikes. I've already explained this to you.

I NEVER said the 2012 SCOTUS decision said anything about "middle class" taxes...I said they deemed the mandate to be effectively a tax, which accordingly, Congress is empowered to authorize.

Ok, fair enough. Your original quote before you decided to "defer" to the SCOTUS ACA decision; "I don't like the middle class 'taxes' in the ACA". I reply with "There are no middle class taxes in the ACA". I am, in fact, quite accurate, at the very least upwards of 99% accurate.

Btw, I like you've given up on addressing how onerous the ACA taxes on the rich and "upper middle class" are.

I was saying I personally thought of it as a punitive middle class tax. If you feel that I mislead you in some way on this point, please elaborate. In addition, I'm very curious about the logic you used to conclude that the mandate wasn't a tax since the Constitutionality of the ACA mandate revolved entirely around this very issue. I really don't get this...my head is spinning!

SCOTUS said nothing about the mandate being a middle class tax given that it'll hit very few people in that income bracket and those it actually does hit will have it taken from their refund, not levied in some way that would cut into the typical families' badly needed bi-monthly cashflow or something. That was my point, which I guess you weren't really arguing but kinda were? I guess it's hard for you to keep track when you weren't really sure where you were going from the beginning when you said ACA hits the middle class too hard with "taxes". Hell, you put it in quotes yourself.

Also, I already addressed why the mandate "tax" isn't onerous. Care to refute?

 

[First]

Hahaha.
1. DSF tries to concern troll about how the ACA was supposed to reduce the deficit.
2. Told he's wrong and that's still the case.
3. DSF tries to falsely claim the CBO said otherwise.
4. When corrected about what the CBO said, DSF links to an op-ed from ultra right wing think tank which tries to argue that the CBO is wrong about its own reporting by uncritically accepting altered CBO models generated by staffers for Senate Republicans.

Just stop digging.

Also, this needs to be bumped. Having courage to admit when you're wrong on the Internet isn't that hard.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yikes. I've already explained this to you.



Ok, fair enough. Your original quote before you decided to "defer" to the SCOTUS ACA decision; "I don't like the middle class 'taxes' in the ACA". I reply with "There are no middle class taxes in the ACA". I am, in fact, quite accurate, at the very least upwards of 99% accurate.

Btw, I like you've given up on addressing how onerous the ACA taxes on the rich and "upper middle class" are.



SCOTUS said nothing about the mandate being a middle class tax given that it'll hit very few people in that income bracket and those it actually does hit will have it taken from their refund, not levied in some way that would cut into the typical families' badly needed bi-monthly cashflow or something. That was my point, which I guess you weren't really arguing but kinda were? I guess it's hard for you to keep track when you weren't really sure where you were going from the beginning when you said ACA hits the middle class too hard with "taxes". Hell, you put it in quotes yourself.

Also, I already addressed why the mandate "tax" isn't onerous. Care to refute?

My head is spinning. Originally you said the mandate wasn't a tax and now you say it's not an onerous tax. WTF? And I never said the SCOTUS said it was a 'middle class' tax. Here we go again. We keep going in circles here and getting nowhere in a big hurry.

The ACA bill has many, many tax provisions besides the mandate tax penalty (which btw will adversely affect 6,000,000 people). The Cadillac tax will adversely affect millions as well (a 2011 Mercer study indicated that 61% of employers surveyed said their current plans would trigger the 40% excise tax unless they took steps to reduce benefits...61%!!!). Although this tax doesn't take effect until 2018, employers are even now doing their best to cut back on middle class healthcare benefits in order to stay under the upcoming tax penalty threshold. Do you not think that the middle class is not adversely affected by this tax as well?

In addition, do you not think that all the tax increases to business will not flow in some measure to middle class consumers?

 

[shira]

So they take out $21 bi-weekly? Something tells me you don't know wtf you're doing. Mine is $67 and its at a hospital which generally has some of the best employer insurance available. I would imagine its something like $400/mo with their contributions added. In a department with a bunch of old farts they are going to get hit with the Cadillac tax. And the way they made it track the CPI yet healthcare costs don't track the CPI is a disaster.

My paychecks are twice-monthly. So it's 1100/24 = $46/pay period.

Actually, I'm married. The above are the rates for single employees. For my wife, I pay another $2900/year as my share of her premium ($4000 total for the two of us, $167/pay period), and the total premium is $11,000.

But I'm confused by your comment about old farts in your department who will get hit with a Cadillac tax. That tax applies to group policies, and for group policies the premiums for ALL employees - old farts and youngsters alike - are the same

Note also that Obamacare actually has higher Cadillac limits for companies with a higher-than-typical percentage of older employees.

 

[First]

My head is spinning. Originally you said the mandate wasn't a tax and now you say it's not an onerous tax. WTF? And I never said the SCOTUS said it was a 'middle class' tax. Here we go again. We keep going in circles here and getting nowhere in a big hurry.

I see you've chosen dishonesty and obfuscation. Yawn. Already addressed everything you've said here.

The ACA bill has many, many tax provisions besides the mandate tax penalty (which btw will adversely affect 6,000,000 people). The Cadillac tax will adversely affect millions as well (a 2011 Mercer study indicated that 61% of employers surveyed said their current plans would trigger the 40% excise tax unless they took steps to reduce benefits...61%!!!). Although this tax doesn't take effect until 2018, employers are even now doing their best to cut back on middle class healthcare benefits in order to stay under the upcoming tax penalty threshold. Do you not think that the middle class is not adversely affected by this tax as well?

Haha.

1. Link the study, please. No one here takes your word on studies.
2. Everything you just said in this post is speculative otherwise. It hasn't actually happened. As you're well aware, Obama will delay or alter provisions considered onerous to the middle class.

In addition, do you not think that all the tax increases to business will not flow in some measure to middle class consumers?

They won't and haven't, but if we're going to cite the indirect effects of tax increases on businesses and the rich, then it needs to be balanced with the indirect effects of improved health and finances of Americans from ACA. If you were fair. Which, um, you're really not, otherwise you would have addressed by now whether you really consider the mandate to be onerous given it's entirely small and temporary nature.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I see you've chosen dishonesty and obfuscation. Yawn. Already addressed everything you've said here.



Haha.

1. Link the study, please. No one here takes your word on studies.
2. Everything you just said in this post is speculative otherwise. It hasn't actually happened. As you're well aware, Obama will delay or alter provisions considered onerous to the middle class.



They won't and haven't, but if we're going to cite the indirect effects of tax increases on businesses and the rich, then it needs to be balanced with the indirect effects of improved health and finances of Americans from ACA. If you were fair. Which, um, you're really not, otherwise you would have addressed by now whether you really consider the mandate to be onerous given it's entirely small and temporary nature.

There are roughly 6,000,000 adversely affected by the mandate tax penalty.

http://www.law360.com/articles/615674/aca-mandate-penalties-may-apply-to-6m-taxpayers-gov-t

I found a more recent study from Mercer...the percentage of employers expected to reach the penalty theshold for Cadillac plans is down from 61% to 33%. Looks like employers have made "good progress" in this area since 2011. How many millions of middle class do you think have been affected so far or will be affected in the future?

http://www.mercer.com/content/mercer/global/all/en/newsroom/modest-health-benefit-cost-growth-continues-as-consumerism-kicks-into-high-gear.html

 

[First]

There are roughly 6,000,000 adversely affected by the mandate tax penalty.

http://www.law360.com/articles/615674/aca-mandate-penalties-may-apply-to-6m-taxpayers-gov-t

Oy.

For one, your own link says 3M-6M, because they don't know given it hasn't actually happened yet.

Two, HHS specifically states that the mandate penalties for 2014 returns as follows:

f you didn’t have coverage in 2014, you’ll pay the higher of these two amounts:

1% of your yearly household income. (Only the amount of income above the tax filing threshold, about $10,000 for an individual, is used to calculate the penalty.) The maximum penalty is the national average premium for a bronze plan.

$95 per person for the year ($47.50 per child under 18). The maximum penalty per family using this method is $285.

I find none of this to be onerous given how it's calculated (starts above $10,000), given the years people have had to prepare, given that it's temporary and of course given the subsidies in place to help pay for the insurance assuming you're not put into Medicaid which, of course, is already paid for by decades-old payroll taxes.

So again, you can call this a "middle class" tax til the cows come home, but actual taxes people are accustomed to paying would be Social Security or Medicare, which are mandatory and perpetual. Meanwhile, the individual mandate "tax" is entirely avoidable with health insurance and very low cost even without health insurance (for 2014), so it's difficult to believe this could be considered an onerous tax on the middle class in any reasonable scenario.

I found a more recent study from Mercer...the percentage of employers expected to reach the penalty theshold for Cadillac plans is down from 61% to 33%. Looks like employers have made "good progress" in this area since 2011. How many millions of middle class do you think have been affected so far or will be affected in the future?

http://www.mercer.com/content/mercer/global/all/en/newsroom/modest-health-benefit-cost-growth-continues-as-consumerism-kicks-into-high-gear.html

Uh, tell me what you think this link means, I'm not going to pretend to understand what you think it says. That's a lost cause.

 

[First]

Also, an honest debater would address all points and not obfuscate by avoiding the inconvenient parts of an argument, as follows. If you can't address them it's OK, I'll selectively ignore your half-slick posts:

1. If you're going to cite the indirect effects of tax increases on businesses and the rich, then it needs to be balanced with the indirect effects of improved health and finances of Americans from ACA. If you were fair. Which, um, you're really not, otherwise you would have addressed by now whether you really consider the mandate to be onerous given it's entirely small and temporary nature.

2. Address why/how the ACA taxes on the rich and "upper middle class" are in your words "got hit fairly hard".

3. Address how you reconcile your original position on the CBO given clarification on the topic here.

 

[OverVolt]

Also, an honest debater would address all points and not obfuscate by avoiding the inconvenient parts of an argument, as follows. If you can't address them it's OK, I'll selectively ignore your half-slick posts:

1. If you're going to cite the indirect effects of tax increases on businesses and the rich, then it needs to be balanced with the indirect effects of improved health and finances of Americans from ACA. If you were fair. Which, um, you're really not, otherwise you would have addressed by now whether you really consider the mandate to be onerous given it's entirely small and temporary nature.

2. Address why/how the ACA taxes on the rich and "upper middle class" are in your words "got hit fairly hard".

3. Address how you reconcile your original position on the CBO given clarification on the topic here.

ACA hits the 30%ile/40%ile income bracket the hardest. Almost everyone starting out will go through that income bracket at some point.

Its hard to argue with people who don't even have a basic understanding of whats going on with so much bias in news articles. It makes the news when they can finally count how many people signed up, and counted correctly for once.

Maybe trident has you all beat and is just gonna sit back and chillax on his Section 8 housing, welfare and medicaid.

Almost all of your premises or base assumptions about how the law works are likely incorrect.

None really exists for the bolded. Wealth was moved around and there were winners and losers. Thats it. Mostly baby boomers, people with employer insurance the last few years barely felt it, etc. It hits the young, those starting out, and lower income people (who are just above the income threshold, say $30k and so don't qualify for subsidies.) Because the insurance is most definitely worse. Higher deductibles and such.

This really bends over a college student who doesn't have employer insurance and dares try to work a little so they aren't in debt up to their eyeballs. Expect all college students to have really bad dental coverage. It ain't happening at ACA prices. I got dental coverage for $4/mo with my employer. ACA was $30/mo on top of $210/mo for sucktastic dental coverage.

Whats intersting to me is the baby boomers already "got theirs." They weren't paying maternity coverage as a male in 1970 when they were starting out. They weren't paying extra to cover the old. They didn't save for higher healthcare costs when they were older, many of them. Too fucking bad is what they should have been told.

 

[First]

ACA hits the 30%ile/40%ile income bracket the hardest. Almost everyone starting out will go through that income bracket at some point.

Its hard to argue with people who don't even have a basic understanding of whats going on with so much bias in news articles. It makes the news when they can finally count how many people signed up, and counted correctly for once.

Maybe trident has you all beat and is just gonna sit back and chillax on his Section 8 housing, welfare and medicaid.

Almost all of your premises or base assumptions about how the law works are likely incorrect.

None really exists for the bolded. Wealth was moved around and there were winners and losers. Thats it. Mostly baby boomers, people with employer insurance the last few years barely felt it, etc. It hits the young, those starting out, and lower income people (who are just above the income threshold, say $30k and so don't qualify for subsidies.) Because the insurance is most definitely worse. Higher deductibles and such.

This really bends over a college student who doesn't have employer insurance and dares try to work a little so they aren't in debt up to their eyeballs. Expect all college students to have really bad dental coverage. It ain't happening at ACA prices. I got dental coverage for $4/mo with my employer. ACA was $30/mo on top of $210/mo for sucktastic dental coverage.

Whats intersting to me is the baby boomers already "got theirs." They weren't paying maternity coverage as a male in 1970 when they were starting out. They weren't paying extra to cover the old. They didn't save for higher healthcare costs when they were older, many of them. Too fucking bad is what they should have been told.

Link the Brookings study.

And you realize that all college students can stay on their parents plan until age 26, so it's a complete non-issue for the overwhelming majority of college students, yes?

Your posts are just so odd.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Link the Brookings study.

And you realize that all college students can stay on their parents plan until age 26, so it's a complete non-issue for the overwhelming majority of college students, yes?

Your posts are just so odd.

So do you still think that the ACA doesn't adversely affect middle class income and further exasperate the wealth inequity problem in this country?

 

[fskimospy]

So do you still think that the ACA doesn't adversely affect middle class income and further exasperate the wealth inequity problem in this country?

Hmmm, by that chart it is pretty blindingly obvious that it lessens income inequality.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Hmmm, by that chart it is pretty blindingly obvious that it lessens income inequality.

The poor have made significant gains and the middle class continues to lose ground compared to the rich.

 

[fskimospy]

The poor have made significant gains and the middle class continues to lose ground compared to the rich.

So you didn't mean income inequality, you meant middle class incomes.

By your chart, the middle class outperformed the poor, btw.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So you didn't mean income inequality, you meant middle class incomes.

By your chart, the middle class outperformed the poor, btw.

“That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong.” ― Christopher Buckley

I'm not going to split hairs with you.

 

[fskimospy]

“That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong.” ― Christopher Buckley

I'm not going to split hairs with you.

Good news, you don't have to!

You implied the ACA was making income inequality worse, but from the chart you were referring to that's not the case. If you meant middle class incomes vs. the rich that's fine, but then your definition of 'income inequality' leaves out poor people, which makes no sense. What you said was simply wrong.

You then said that the poor have made significant gains but the middle class was losing ground when your chart shows that real income for the bottom 20% has basically not increased at all, while the middle class had their real income go up ~17% during the same time period. Your claim was explicitly contradicted by your own chart.

I think you just need to read these charts better, haha.

 

[OverVolt]

Link the Brookings study.

And you realize that all college students can stay on their parents plan until age 26, so it's a complete non-issue for the overwhelming majority of college students, yes?

Your posts are just so odd.

Meh. There is a growing number of atypical college students, students there on parental need/scholarship. And for many subjects now grad school is practically required. The ACA screwed over affordable dental and vision for med school, dental school, Rx school, optimetry school, nursing school, grad & Phd students, etc. etc (Re: spiking number of Phd students on foodstamps, and such). Its not trivial. Cause everyone is a 19 year old with a parent with employer insurance right? These are the types of assumptions that get you in trouble when you apply them to 320million people and mandate it by law. And that is where we likely fundamentally disagree. I know how life is for regular people. Middle class suburbia school at 18 grad at 22 part time job, etc. That way of life is actually dying in modern day. Thats what you don't realize. The people you're helping are the idealized way things were in 1990's and the early 2000's.

ACA also hurts people who have to hobble together a career out of a couple part time jobs. Again, typically people getting back on their feet. Unheard of in middle class suburbia land, I know.

 

[OverVolt]

Good news, you don't have to!

You implied the ACA was making income inequality worse, but from the chart you were referring to that's not the case. If you meant middle class incomes vs. the rich that's fine, but then your definition of 'income inequality' leaves out poor people, which makes no sense. What you said was simply wrong.

You then said that the poor have made significant gains but the middle class was losing ground when your chart shows that real income for the bottom 20% has basically not increased at all, while the middle class had their real income go up ~17% during the same time period. Your claim was explicitly contradicted by your own chart.

I think you just need to read these charts better, haha.

Well technically speaking its making upward mobility worse. I knew what he meant. Since something is fried in your brain and you take everything so literal... I figured it had to be mentioned since it wouldn't "click" up there for you otherwise.

Nice grammar though.

 

[First]

So do you still think that the ACA doesn't adversely affect middle class income and further exasperate the wealth inequity problem in this country?

Yikes.

 

[Jhhnn]

Meh. There is a growing number of atypical college students, students there on parental need/scholarship. And for many subjects now grad school is practically required. The ACA screwed over affordable dental and vision for med school, dental school, Rx school, optimetry school, nursing school, grad & Phd students, etc. etc (Re: spiking number of Phd students on foodstamps, and such). Its not trivial. Cause everyone is a 19 year old with a parent with employer insurance right? These are the types of assumptions that get you in trouble when you apply them to 320million people and mandate it by law. And that is where we likely fundamentally disagree. I know how life is for regular people. Middle class suburbia school at 18 grad at 22 part time job, etc. That way of life is actually dying in modern day. Thats what you don't realize. The people you're helping are the idealized way things were in 1990's and the early 2000's.

ACA also hurts people who have to hobble together a career out of a couple part time jobs. Again, typically people getting back on their feet. Unheard of in middle class suburbia land, I know.

A young adult doesn't need to be a student to stay on their parents' policy until 26. They don't even need to live with their parents. They're automatically covered unless they have coverage by other means. Even if a daughter should marry & have children, she's covered for all of it, if not her children.

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fsdependentcoverage.html

And, uhh, how exactly did the ACA screw over affordable dental & vision coverage for students? It's not about that at all.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well technically speaking its making upward mobility worse. I knew what he meant. Since something is fried in your brain and you take everything so literal... I figured it had to be mentioned since it wouldn't "click" up there for you otherwise.

Nice grammar though.

How does being insured up to age 26 on your parents' policy reduce upward mobility?

How does receiving subsidies for healthcare insurance reduce upward mobility?