The trouble I see in Obamacare

[fskimospy]

Which is even more reason why there will be a big rate shock in 2015 for say, a 26 y/o male as they readjust the rates. There goes even more young people from the risk pool.

Some younger males are going to be dumb and just risk it without insurance, because frankly, it is kind of a rip off. In the individual market, supply and demand, econ 101 here. You raise rates on younger males, say 15-20%, will enrollment in that age group go up or down?

Wait, what? Do you guys think that the insurance companies just forgot about the age 26 rule when they made the rates this year? That's already priced in.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I could have sworn the age 26 rule went into effect in 2012.

 

[Jhhnn]

I could have sworn the age 26 rule went into effect in 2012.

So what? That doesn't contradict what Eskimospy offered in the slightest. That's still priced in for 2014.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So what? That doesn't contradict what Eskimospy offered in the slightest. That's still priced in for 2014.

It was not meant to contradict Eskimospy's post, it was supporting what he was saying.

You just can help being a hack, can you????

 

[Jhhnn]

It was not meant to contradict Eskimospy's post, it was supporting what he was saying.

You just can help being a hack, can you????

My mistake.

 

[OverVolt]

The age 26 rule really doesn't change much. Chart 5. Sheesh.

http://www.healthcostinstitute.org/files/Age-Curve-Study_0.pdf

This really ties into the government knowing better than me how to spend my money. Know what I was going to do with every penny I saved? Help out my spouse when I start a family, and save some for old age. Now they are doing it for me. Thanks! I must've been too stupid before. Here, please take my money, save me from myself.

I don't mind paying my share, I'd just rather not also pay for baby mommas and the baby boomer demographic who just voted themselves my money.

You know what the demographics curve looks like yes? Its really not a surprise now that the boomers are all 65+ they just voted themselves some of that working prime age money without paying for it when they were young. Its just the fair thing to do, lol. What a joke.

Eskimopy is like thank you sir may I please have another? I think you are stupid, fwiw, and you think I am stupid as well. But at least I have my own interests in mind. The boomers made it pretty clear they have their own interests in mind as well. I'm of the opinion that you and people like you have been tricked out of voting for your own self interests, but everybody has to learn on their own I guess.

IF I was in your situation Eski I'd probably be saying the same thing that you are. I figure the pre-existing conditions is what costs the additional 2.4%. Thats totally fine. Its the 3-1 rule I disagree with. I also disagree with pooling male/female insurance. Thats why you're supposed to get married.

 

[chucky2]

Do you know how hypothesis testing works?

Yes.

You said something, you prove it.

Don't care to.

You though are interested in duhflecting the Dems failure, and you threw out a 10+ number. If you want to prove something, prove your own 10+ - not 20 or 30 or 40+, but 10+ - number. While you do that, people will be suffering and dying because of the Dems sellout. Good job!

 

[werepossum]

It was not meant to contradict Eskimospy's post, it was supporting what he was saying.

You just can help being a hack, can you????

LOL If he could, he . . . Well, he probably wouldn't if he could.

The age 26 rule really doesn't change much. Chart 5. Sheesh.

http://www.healthcostinstitute.org/files/Age-Curve-Study_0.pdf

This really ties into the government knowing better than me how to spend my money. Know what I was going to do with every penny I saved? Help out my spouse when I start a family, and save some for old age. Now they are doing it for me. Thanks! I must've been too stupid before. Here, please take my money, save me from myself.

I don't mind paying my share, I'd just rather not also pay for baby mommas and the baby boomer demographic who just voted themselves my money.

You know what the demographics curve looks like yes? Its really not a surprise now that the boomers are all 65+ they just voted themselves some of that working prime age money without paying for it when they were young. Its just the fair thing to do, lol. What a joke.

Eskimopy is like thank you sir may I please have another? I think you are stupid, fwiw, and you think I am stupid as well. But at least I have my own interests in mind. The boomers made it pretty clear they have their own interests in mind as well. I'm of the opinion that you and people like you have been tricked out of voting for your own self interests, but everybody has to learn on their own I guess.

IF I was in your situation Eski I'd probably be saying the same thing that you are. I figure the pre-existing conditions is what costs the additional 2.4%. Thats totally fine. Its the 3-1 rule I disagree with. I also disagree with pooling male/female insurance. Thats why you're supposed to get married.

I agree with you on the 3-1 rule and the overall power grab, but I can see pooling male/female insurance. From the insurance company's standpoint, what's the difference between someone who actuarially will cost more because of her sex and someone who actuarially will cost more because of a pre-existing condition? From the individual's point of view, one cannot help being born female any more than one can help being born diabetic. That's not quite the same as age since women will not grow more male and thus cheaper, but continue to be more expensive to cover. (I think - someone correct me if that's wrong.)

 

[berzerker60]

That's not quite the same as age since women will not grow more male and thus cheaper, but continue to be more expensive to cover. (I think - someone correct me if that's wrong.)

I don't know the overall figures, but women do eventually stop being fertile and thus carrying those potential costs, while men have the ticking time bombs called prostates that will eventually get cancer if nothing else kills them first, and that becomes more relevant with age.

 

[werepossum]

I don't know the overall figures, but women do eventually stop being fertile and thus carrying those potential costs, while men have the ticking time bombs called prostates that will eventually get cancer if nothing else kills them first, and that becomes more relevant with age.

True. I had it in my mind that women are always more expensive to insure, but that may be wrong.

 

[Ban Bot]

I don't know the overall figures, but women do eventually stop being fertile and thus carrying those potential costs, while men have the ticking time bombs called prostates that will eventually get cancer if nothing else kills them first, and that becomes more relevant with age.

Because breast, ovarian, cervical, and uterine cancers are exceptionally rare and when they occur are relatively benign. (Sarcasm!)

Prostate cancer, while common, in many cases is not treated for long periods of time (treatment causes more harm/risks than non-treatment) and has a very high survival rate. Breast, ovarian, uterine, and cervical cancers collectively much more common and, sadly, collectively result in many, many more deaths--especially of younger women whereas prostate cancer tends to prey on older men.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/survival/common-cancers/
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/can...ancer-incidence-statistics-for-common-cancers

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

True. I had it in my mind that women are always more expensive to insure, but that may be wrong.

You are correct. Women use more health care than men...even after their childbearing years are over.

 

[SaurusX]

But since the population of the US IS all ages and genders at once it looks pretty good?

By "hit the lottery" you of course mean "age normally". This is typical shortsighted thinking.

I think he means that the baby boomers got theirs again at the expense of everyone younger.

 

[Jhhnn]

BS. The Dems could have gotten it through, they just lacked the gumption to push their on the fence/non-supportive members hard enough. It's not even Bummers fault, it's Pelosi and Reid. Blaming O'Bummer for lack of UHC is dishonest.

Complete absurdity of revisionist history.

 

[michal1980]

I think he means that the baby boomers got theirs again at the expense of everyone younger.

boomers are a parasite.

 

[ivwshane]

boomers are a parasite.

The fact that I agree with you must mean my position is a defective one.

Having said that, I still wouldn't want the services they use taken away. My only hope is that the worst generation will die off soon and the rest of us can get back to making things work.

 

[senseamp]

What's with Republicans trying to divide Americans and pit them against each other over health insurance? Boomers, 26 year old males, fertile women, etc?
We have all sorts of people in our work pool, and we all pay the same premium, so the younger healthier ones of us are subsidizing the older, sicker, pregnant, etc. But no one ever complains about it. People accept that it's just the right thing to do to make sure people are healthy and not kick them when they are down by charging them more because they are sick, or pregnant, or old. What your major malfunction, Republicans?

 

[michal1980]

The fact that I agree with you must mean my position is a defective one.

Having said that, I still wouldn't want the services they use taken away. My only hope is that the worst generation will die off soon and the rest of us can get back to making things work.

no there are a few times where even the people I completely disagree with have things in common.

 

[michal1980]

What's with Republicans trying to divide Americans and pit them against each other over health insurance? Boomers, 26 year old males, fertile women, etc?
We have all sorts of people in our work pool, and we all pay the same premium, so the younger healthier ones of us are subsidizing the older, sicker, pregnant, etc. But no one ever complains about it. People accept that it's just the right thing to do to make sure people are healthy and not kick them when they are down by charging them more because they are sick, or pregnant, or old. What your major malfunction, Republicans?

really? just republicans work to divide the country?

LOL.

Look at the dems. The 'rich' are holding you back. Whitey is holding you back. etc etc. plenty of division on both sides of the isle. How else would you get someone to pick a side?

 

[senseamp]

really? just republicans work to divide the country?

LOL.

Look at the dems. The 'rich' are holding you back. Whitey is holding you back. etc etc. plenty of division on both sides of the isle. How else would you get someone to pick a side?

We are talking about people's health here. I have disagreements with people about taxes and fiscal policy, but if they are sick, I don't complain that they are getting health care subsidized out of premiums I pay. There is a time to be political, and a time to be human.

 

[michal1980]

We are talking about people's health here. I have disagreements with people about taxes and fiscal policy, but if they are sick, I don't complain that they are getting health care subsidized out of premiums I pay. There is a time to be political, and a time to be human.

no that's called being emotional. and that's something government shouldn't be. Elected officials should do things that are right for the country, not because someone is pulling at their heart strings.

 

[OverVolt]

We are talking about people's health here. I have disagreements with people about taxes and fiscal policy, but if they are sick, I don't complain that they are getting health care subsidized out of premiums I pay. There is a time to be political, and a time to be human.

Vision and dental, which young people actually use, would go a long way toward smoothing it over, as would lower deductibles for people unlikely to use the insurance. Although the ACA mandates minimum coverage, vision and dental are of course not included. Its almost too funny.

Employer plans are good insurance plans, thats why no one complains. Better group pricing.

 

[senseamp]

no that's called being emotional. and that's something government shouldn't be. Elected officials should do things that are right for the country, not because someone is pulling at their heart strings.

How do you define what's "right for the country" if ensuring the citizens are healthy doesn't qualify?

 

[Veliko]

no that's called being emotional. and that's something government shouldn't be. Elected officials should do things that are right for the country, not because someone is pulling at their heart strings.

Ensuring the citizens are healthy would be something that is right for the country.

 

[AViking]

really? just republicans work to divide the country?

LOL.

Look at the dems. The 'rich' are holding you back. Whitey is holding you back. etc etc. plenty of division on both sides of the isle. How else would you get someone to pick a side?

Both sides divide and conquer.