ObamaCare aka "Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act" (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

So, based on reading the analysis that matttyl posted on the last page (in which even liberal analysts noted that the penalty for not complying with the mandate is too small), what we're left with is this: Obamacare only works, theoretically, if everyone has to get insurance. That's the only way it can pay for itself. But the government can't possibly force everyone to get insurance. Even if the law is on the books, there's no means to enforce it. And let's face it: the government doesn't really WANT to enforce it, because they're terrified of the backlash.

So what we have is a program which has already provided many new benefits for lots of people- and the rest of us are going to have to pay more and be hit with onerous new rules and regulations. But we'll never get rid of it now. It's too late. And while the next logical step would be to go to single payer, I'll doubt we'll ever get there, because there are enough conservatives to always prevent that from happening.

So we're stuck. We will be worse off than we are before.

Who is we? Are the 30M who are now covered worse off than before?

No they are not. When I used the word "we" I was referring to those of us who already have insurance. We will have it worse, not mainly because of those 30 million, but because of the elimination of higher costs for pre-existing conditions. You can't expect to get something for nothing. Somebody's got to pay for it.

Surely this isn't just coming into focus for people. And it's true, once you have a large entitlement you can never be rid of it.

Increasing the amount of people who have access to adequate health care should be something we all want, and hopefully something we never get rid of.

Of course it is. But you continue to fail to discuss the main problem with Obamacare, which is the equalization of pre-existing condition costs. I don't mind paying more, either in taxes or health care, in order so that a person less fortunate than myself has access to proper health care. But I do mind having to pay more so that a person more affluent than I am with a pre-existing condition doesn't have to pay for it. The best health care system would be based on a free market for most people, with a safety net for those below a certain economic level, or for those who face an emergency situation which they can PROVE that they could not afford.

 

[timschochet]

So, based on reading the analysis that matttyl posted on the last page (in which even liberal analysts noted that the penalty for not complying with the mandate is too small), what we're left with is this: Obamacare only works, theoretically, if everyone has to get insurance. That's the only way it can pay for itself. But the government can't possibly force everyone to get insurance. Even if the law is on the books, there's no means to enforce it. And let's face it: the government doesn't really WANT to enforce it, because they're terrified of the backlash.

So what we have is a program which has already provided many new benefits for lots of people- and the rest of us are going to have to pay more and be hit with onerous new rules and regulations. But we'll never get rid of it now. It's too late. And while the next logical step would be to go to single payer, I'll doubt we'll ever get there, because there are enough conservatives to always prevent that from happening.

So we're stuck. We will be worse off than we are before.

Who is we? Are the 30M who are now covered worse off than before?

No they are not. When I used the word "we" I was referring to those of us who already have insurance. We will have it worse, not mainly because of those 30 million, but because of the elimination of higher costs for pre-existing conditions. You can't expect to get something for nothing. Somebody's got to pay for it.

You ever had any immediate family members in poor health tim? Did they get good care?

Yes. Most did, because we are lucky and well off in my family.There is, however, one exception: my grandmother was mentally ill for about 20 years. Because of mental health laws imposed by then Governor Reagan, there was no way to keep her cared for without her consent. She wandered away and there were months at a time when we couldn't find her. She died on a park bench in downtown Los Angeles.

That experience happened when I was a teenager, and it seared me for life. I never want to see ANYONE without adequate health care. In that, your goals and mine are exactly the same. But we disagree on whether or not Obamacare is the best way to achieve this. I honestly don't think it is.

That's horrible. Sorry for your loss.

Thanks. (you too Tommy). It was a long time ago.

 

[snogger]

So, based on reading the analysis that matttyl posted on the last page (in which even liberal analysts noted that the penalty for not complying with the mandate is too small), what we're left with is this: Obamacare only works, theoretically, if everyone has to get insurance. That's the only way it can pay for itself. But the government can't possibly force everyone to get insurance. Even if the law is on the books, there's no means to enforce it. And let's face it: the government doesn't really WANT to enforce it, because they're terrified of the backlash.

So what we have is a program which has already provided many new benefits for lots of people- and the rest of us are going to have to pay more and be hit with onerous new rules and regulations. But we'll never get rid of it now. It's too late. And while the next logical step would be to go to single payer, I'll doubt we'll ever get there, because there are enough conservatives to always prevent that from happening.

So we're stuck. We will be worse off than we are before.

Who is we? Are the 30M who are now covered worse off than before?

No they are not. When I used the word "we" I was referring to those of us who already have insurance. We will have it worse, not mainly because of those 30 million, but because of the elimination of higher costs for pre-existing conditions. You can't expect to get something for nothing. Somebody's got to pay for it.

Surely this isn't just coming into focus for people. And it's true, once you have a large entitlement you can never be rid of it.

Increasing the amount of people who have access to adequate health care should be something we all want, and hopefully something we never get rid of.

Of course.. We should do what is needed to help those in need.

Most of the issues I have with this bill( other then the mandate "fee/tax") is the outright lies by Obama and the Left that this is paid for and will save us money..

times a million

They know the cost to maintain this bill as it is written is well above any "fee's" they are going to impose.. but by the time the full impact is felt, and there is no turning back, most will be out of office and claim ignorance. That is what makes some of us

 

[RCon]

I don't think Obamacare is the best way to get EVERYONE covered - single payer is. But Obamacare is way, WAY better than what we had before, particularly if your goal is to get everyone covered. I don't even understand how you can argue otherwise.

Here's the thing: getting everyone covered is a worthwhile goal, but it's not the only goal we should be pursuing. Single payer is clearly the simplest way to achieve the goal of getting everyone covered. I don't think anyone would dispute that, if getting everyone covered was the only goal. It's also pretty clear that Obamacare is a step towards this goal (from what preceded it). I don't think anyone would dispute that either, if getting everyone covered was the only goal.

Other goals we should pursue include improving overall care (i.e. "better" health care) and more efficient overall care (i.e. "cheaper" and "faster" health care). My problem with Obamacare is that I don't believe it does either of those things. Worse, not only does it not help us move toward either of these goals, it effectively precludes us from moving towards those goals at any time in the near future, because politicians won't want to take up the health care issue again any time in the near future.

You are focused very specifically on the goal of getting everyone covered, while others are focused on the other goals I noted, which is why you often talk past each other in evaluating Obamacare.

 

[matttyl]

So, based on reading the analysis that matttyl posted on the last page (in which even liberal analysts noted that the penalty for not complying with the mandate is too small), what we're left with is this: Obamacare only works, theoretically, if everyone has to get insurance. That's the only way it can pay for itself. But the government can't possibly force everyone to get insurance. Even if the law is on the books, there's no means to enforce it. And let's face it: the government doesn't really WANT to enforce it, because they're terrified of the backlash.

So what we have is a program which has already provided many new benefits for lots of people- and the rest of us are going to have to pay more and be hit with onerous new rules and regulations. But we'll never get rid of it now. It's too late. And while the next logical step would be to go to single payer, I'll doubt we'll ever get there, because there are enough conservatives to always prevent that from happening.

So we're stuck. We will be worse off than we are before.

Who is we? Are the 30M who are now covered worse off than before?

Possibly. How do you know each and every one was uninsurable before? As I've said, I see people all the time who don't currently have insurance but could easily medically qualify to obtain it. Maybe they don't want to pay for it, maybe they just don't want it.

 

[matttyl]

So, based on reading the analysis that matttyl posted on the last page (in which even liberal analysts noted that the penalty for not complying with the mandate is too small), what we're left with is this: Obamacare only works, theoretically, if everyone has to get insurance. That's the only way it can pay for itself. But the government can't possibly force everyone to get insurance. Even if the law is on the books, there's no means to enforce it. And let's face it: the government doesn't really WANT to enforce it, because they're terrified of the backlash.

So what we have is a program which has already provided many new benefits for lots of people- and the rest of us are going to have to pay more and be hit with onerous new rules and regulations. But we'll never get rid of it now. It's too late. And while the next logical step would be to go to single payer, I'll doubt we'll ever get there, because there are enough conservatives to always prevent that from happening.

So we're stuck. We will be worse off than we are before.

Who is we? Are the 30M who are now covered worse off than before?

No they are not. When I used the word "we" I was referring to those of us who already have insurance. We will have it worse, not mainly because of those 30 million, but because of the elimination of higher costs for pre-existing conditions. You can't expect to get something for nothing. Somebody's got to pay for it.

You ever had any immediate family members in poor health tim? Did they get good care?

Yes. Most did, because we are lucky and well off in my family.

There is, however, one exception: my grandmother was mentally ill for about 20 years. Because of mental health laws imposed by then Governor Reagan, there was no way to keep her cared for without her consent. She wandered away and there were months at a time when we couldn't find her. She died on a park bench in downtown Los Angeles.

That experience happened when I was a teenager, and it seared me for life. I never want to see ANYONE without adequate health care. In that, your goals and mine are exactly the same. But we disagree on whether or not Obamacare is the best way to achieve this. I honestly don't think it is.

Sorry about your g-mom tim. That's horrible. Reagan's a #####.

I don't think Obamacare is the best way to get EVERYONE covered - single payer is. But Obamacare is way, WAY better than what we had before, particularly if your goal is to get everyone covered. I don't even understand how you can argue otherwise.

I thought the goal was that word being thrown around, what was it....oh year, affordable. For many more than 30M people prices will be going up and choices will be going away.

 

[Joe T]

So, based on reading the analysis that matttyl posted on the last page (in which even liberal analysts noted that the penalty for not complying with the mandate is too small), what we're left with is this: Obamacare only works, theoretically, if everyone has to get insurance. That's the only way it can pay for itself. But the government can't possibly force everyone to get insurance. Even if the law is on the books, there's no means to enforce it. And let's face it: the government doesn't really WANT to enforce it, because they're terrified of the backlash.

So what we have is a program which has already provided many new benefits for lots of people- and the rest of us are going to have to pay more and be hit with onerous new rules and regulations. But we'll never get rid of it now. It's too late. And while the next logical step would be to go to single payer, I'll doubt we'll ever get there, because there are enough conservatives to always prevent that from happening.

So we're stuck. We will be worse off than we are before.

Who is we? Are the 30M who are now covered worse off than before?

Yes.

 

[Joe T]

So, based on reading the analysis that matttyl posted on the last page (in which even liberal analysts noted that the penalty for not complying with the mandate is too small), what we're left with is this: Obamacare only works, theoretically, if everyone has to get insurance. That's the only way it can pay for itself. But the government can't possibly force everyone to get insurance. Even if the law is on the books, there's no means to enforce it. And let's face it: the government doesn't really WANT to enforce it, because they're terrified of the backlash.

So what we have is a program which has already provided many new benefits for lots of people- and the rest of us are going to have to pay more and be hit with onerous new rules and regulations. But we'll never get rid of it now. It's too late. And while the next logical step would be to go to single payer, I'll doubt we'll ever get there, because there are enough conservatives to always prevent that from happening.

So we're stuck. We will be worse off than we are before.

Who is we? Are the 30M who are now covered worse off than before?

No they are not. When I used the word "we" I was referring to those of us who already have insurance. We will have it worse, not mainly because of those 30 million, but because of the elimination of higher costs for pre-existing conditions. You can't expect to get something for nothing. Somebody's got to pay for it.

You ever had any immediate family members in poor health tim? Did they get good care?

Yes. Most did, because we are lucky and well off in my family.

There is, however, one exception: my grandmother was mentally ill for about 20 years. Because of mental health laws imposed by then Governor Reagan, there was no way to keep her cared for without her consent. She wandered away and there were months at a time when we couldn't find her. She died on a park bench in downtown Los Angeles.

That experience happened when I was a teenager, and it seared me for life. I never want to see ANYONE without adequate health care. In that, your goals and mine are exactly the same. But we disagree on whether or not Obamacare is the best way to achieve this. I honestly don't think it is.

Sorry about your g-mom tim. That's horrible. Reagan's a #####.

I don't think Obamacare is the best way to get EVERYONE covered - single payer is. But Obamacare is way, WAY better than what we had before, particularly if your goal is to get everyone covered. I don't even understand how you can argue otherwise.

But it doesn't cover everyone.

 

[matttyl]

But Obamacare is way, WAY better than what we had before, particularly if your goal is to get everyone covered. I don't even understand how you can argue otherwise.

I actually would like to "argue otherwise", expounding a bit on what I wrote earlier, and I'll use the very example you started a thread about here - New York.

There are currently about 2.6M uninsured people in New York, with only about 17,000 having individual coverage. But how can this be? They have guaranteed issue (aka no pre-existing conditions) which Obamacare will also have, and they have no "age-bands", something else that the ACA will place heavy limits on or the state can eliminate all together (having a 25 year old pay the same rate as a 60 year old).

Before those individual insurance rules were put in place, though, New York had over a million people covered on individual policies - young, old, sick, and healthy. At that time it's not like the other 1M uninsured were all uninsurable, but likely there were many who were. Because there were so many uninsured, though, the state said "everybody gets coverage, no more pre-ex" - exactly what Obamacare is doing now. After a few years, though, enrollment in individual coverage went from over 1,000,000 to only 17,000 - over a 98% reduction, not at all accomplishing the goal of "getting everyone covered".

So now I ask, how is Obamacare going to have a different outcome? What's going to happen is that all of the current uninsurable from that 30M number you bring up will jump in as soon as they can - and will have much higher than average claims. I doubt many currently insurable, but uninsured Americans will participate as it will be more costly to do so next year than this year (in most places, New York may be the lone exception). Many of the current young and healthy insured who are all getting a huge increase in premiums will choose to not participate and will pay the "relatively small" penalty/tax to do so, and these are precisely the folks that the ACA needs to participate in order to get this thing to work. The remaining pool will be older and sicker than current ones, and therefor annual increases will be more than what we see today - further hindering more people from participating.

I can honestly see the number of insured people in many places actually DROPPING because of this - mainly from the young and healthy market which again is exactly who's needed to keep this thing afloat.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I don't think Obamacare is the best way to get EVERYONE covered - single payer is. But Obamacare is way, WAY better than what we had before, particularly if your goal is to get everyone covered. I don't even understand how you can argue otherwise.

Here's the thing: getting everyone covered is a worthwhile goal, but it's not the only goal we should be pursuing. Single payer is clearly the simplest way to achieve the goal of getting everyone covered. I don't think anyone would dispute that, if getting everyone covered was the only goal. It's also pretty clear that Obamacare is a step towards this goal (from what preceded it). I don't think anyone would dispute that either, if getting everyone covered was the only goal.

Other goals we should pursue include improving overall care (i.e. "better" health care) and more efficient overall care (i.e. "cheaper" and "faster" health care). My problem with Obamacare is that I don't believe it does either of those things. Worse, not only does it not help us move toward either of these goals, it effectively precludes us from moving towards those goals at any time in the near future, because politicians won't want to take up the health care issue again any time in the near future.

You are focused very specifically on the goal of getting everyone covered, while others are focused on the other goals I noted, which is why you often talk past each other in evaluating Obamacare.

Obamacare does improve overall care and has several cost containment measures. They've been pointed out over and over and over again.

And the official, non-partisan scorekeeper on budget related matters studied the ACA and the analysis indicates that Obamacare will actually reduce the deficit over the next 10 years. So while uninformed Tea Party folks continue pushing the Obamacare will bankrupt us meme, the folks who are actually experts at interpreting legislation and accurately determining effects on our budget suggest our budget will be better off WITH Obamacare.

 

[matttyl]

Obamacare does improve overall care and has several cost containment measures. They've been pointed out over and over and over again.

Untrue. It improves overall access to care for some - very likely at the detriment of others.

 

[tommyGunZ]

But Obamacare is way, WAY better than what we had before, particularly if your goal is to get everyone covered. I don't even understand how you can argue otherwise.

I actually would like to "argue otherwise", expounding a bit on what I wrote earlier, and I'll use the very example you started a thread about here - New York.

There are currently about 2.6M uninsured people in New York, with only about 17,000 having individual coverage. But how can this be? They have guaranteed issue (aka no pre-existing conditions) which Obamacare will also have, and they have no "age-bands", something else that the ACA will place heavy limits on or the state can eliminate all together (having a 25 year old pay the same rate as a 60 year old).

Before those individual insurance rules were put in place, though, New York had over a million people covered on individual policies - young, old, sick, and healthy. At that time it's not like the other 1M uninsured were all uninsurable, but likely there were many who were. Because there were so many uninsured, though, the state said "everybody gets coverage, no more pre-ex" - exactly what Obamacare is doing now. After a few years, though, enrollment in individual coverage went from over 1,000,000 to only 17,000 - over a 98% reduction, not at all accomplishing the goal of "getting everyone covered".

So now I ask, how is Obamacare going to have a different outcome? What's going to happen is that all of the current uninsurable from that 30M number you bring up will jump in as soon as they can - and will have much higher than average claims. I doubt many currently insurable, but uninsured Americans will participate as it will be more costly to do so next year than this year (in most places, New York may be the lone exception). Many of the current young and healthy insured who are all getting a huge increase in premiums will choose to not participate and will pay the "relatively small" penalty/tax to do so, and these are precisely the folks that the ACA needs to participate in order to get this thing to work. The remaining pool will be older and sicker than current ones, and therefor annual increases will be more than what we see today - further hindering more people from participating.

I can honestly see the number of insured people in many places actually DROPPING because of this - mainly from the young and healthy market which again is exactly who's needed to keep this thing afloat.

Your "analysis", as usual, ignores lots of factors and your conclusions are essentially the opposite of those who have actually studied the legislation. But after reading you the past month or so, and seeing how your views are largely shaped by anecdotal evidence while ignoring larger data sets, I just don't have the motivation to counter your Fox News talking points. The idea that the number of people insured is going to decrease under Obamacare is just absurd.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think Obamacare is the best way to get EVERYONE covered - single payer is. But Obamacare is way, WAY better than what we had before, particularly if your goal is to get everyone covered. I don't even understand how you can argue otherwise.

Here's the thing: getting everyone covered is a worthwhile goal, but it's not the only goal we should be pursuing. Single payer is clearly the simplest way to achieve the goal of getting everyone covered. I don't think anyone would dispute that, if getting everyone covered was the only goal. It's also pretty clear that Obamacare is a step towards this goal (from what preceded it). I don't think anyone would dispute that either, if getting everyone covered was the only goal.Other goals we should pursue include improving overall care (i.e. "better" health care) and more efficient overall care (i.e. "cheaper" and "faster" health care). My problem with Obamacare is that I don't believe it does either of those things. Worse, not only does it not help us move toward either of these goals, it effectively precludes us from moving towards those goals at any time in the near future, because politicians won't want to take up the health care issue again any time in the near future.

You are focused very specifically on the goal of getting everyone covered, while others are focused on the other goals I noted, which is why you often talk past each other in evaluating Obamacare.

Obamacare does improve overall care and has several cost containment measures. They've been pointed out over and over and over again.

And the official, non-partisan scorekeeper on budget related matters studied the ACA and the analysis indicates that Obamacare will actually reduce the deficit over the next 10 years. So while uninformed Tea Party folks continue pushing the Obamacare will bankrupt us meme, the folks who are actually experts at interpreting legislation and accurately determining effects on our budget suggest our budget will be better off WITH Obamacare.

It's not just Tea Partiers that believe that Obamacare will cost WAY more than the GAO predicted. Do you remember when it was predicted that the Iraq War would end up costing only a few billion dollars?

 

[RCon]

I don't think Obamacare is the best way to get EVERYONE covered - single payer is. But Obamacare is way, WAY better than what we had before, particularly if your goal is to get everyone covered. I don't even understand how you can argue otherwise.

Here's the thing: getting everyone covered is a worthwhile goal, but it's not the only goal we should be pursuing. Single payer is clearly the simplest way to achieve the goal of getting everyone covered. I don't think anyone would dispute that, if getting everyone covered was the only goal. It's also pretty clear that Obamacare is a step towards this goal (from what preceded it). I don't think anyone would dispute that either, if getting everyone covered was the only goal.

Other goals we should pursue include improving overall care (i.e. "better" health care) and more efficient overall care (i.e. "cheaper" and "faster" health care). My problem with Obamacare is that I don't believe it does either of those things. Worse, not only does it not help us move toward either of these goals, it effectively precludes us from moving towards those goals at any time in the near future, because politicians won't want to take up the health care issue again any time in the near future.

You are focused very specifically on the goal of getting everyone covered, while others are focused on the other goals I noted, which is why you often talk past each other in evaluating Obamacare.

Obamacare does improve overall care and has several cost containment measures. They've been pointed out over and over and over again.

And the official, non-partisan scorekeeper on budget related matters studied the ACA and the analysis indicates that Obamacare will actually reduce the deficit over the next 10 years. So while uninformed Tea Party folks continue pushing the Obamacare will bankrupt us meme, the folks who are actually experts at interpreting legislation and accurately determining effects on our budget suggest our budget will be better off WITH Obamacare.

Humor me, and review the ways Obamacare improves overall care and lowers the overall cost of care. Note that I'm interested in health care, not health insurance. Also note that for these purposes, I'm completely ignoring "access to care", as I consider that falling under "getting everyone covered".

 

[matttyl]

The idea that the number of people insured is going to decrease under Obamacare is just absurd.

Why? It's already happened in New York. That state went from over 1M to only 17,000. Why?

While true that the overall number of insured may not go down, the number of young and healthy (which are needed to make this thing work) very likely could as they are the ones getting the worst end of this deal.

Also, what evidence have I presented that is anecdotal? I'm trying to make a valid argument about why this isn't in the best interest of most, and think I'm doing a pretty good job of it.

Oh, and Aetna dropped out of the Ohio market yesterday. Less choice for the consumers, and less competition remaining.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/blog/morning_call/2013/08/aetna-pulls-out-of-ohio-insurance.html

 

[Joe T]

I don't think Obamacare is the best way to get EVERYONE covered - single payer is. But Obamacare is way, WAY better than what we had before, particularly if your goal is to get everyone covered. I don't even understand how you can argue otherwise.

Here's the thing: getting everyone covered is a worthwhile goal, but it's not the only goal we should be pursuing. Single payer is clearly the simplest way to achieve the goal of getting everyone covered. I don't think anyone would dispute that, if getting everyone covered was the only goal. It's also pretty clear that Obamacare is a step towards this goal (from what preceded it). I don't think anyone would dispute that either, if getting everyone covered was the only goal.Other goals we should pursue include improving overall care (i.e. "better" health care) and more efficient overall care (i.e. "cheaper" and "faster" health care). My problem with Obamacare is that I don't believe it does either of those things. Worse, not only does it not help us move toward either of these goals, it effectively precludes us from moving towards those goals at any time in the near future, because politicians won't want to take up the health care issue again any time in the near future.

You are focused very specifically on the goal of getting everyone covered, while others are focused on the other goals I noted, which is why you often talk past each other in evaluating Obamacare.

Obamacare does improve overall care and has several cost containment measures. They've been pointed out over and over and over again.

And the official, non-partisan scorekeeper on budget related matters studied the ACA and the analysis indicates that Obamacare will actually reduce the deficit over the next 10 years. So while uninformed Tea Party folks continue pushing the Obamacare will bankrupt us meme, the folks who are actually experts at interpreting legislation and accurately determining effects on our budget suggest our budget will be better off WITH Obamacare.

It's not just Tea Partiers that believe that Obamacare will cost WAY more than the GAO predicted.Do you remember when it was predicted that the Iraq War would end up costing only a few billion dollars?

Historically, adding huge government bureaucracies to very complex processes often leads to lower costs, increased efficiencies, and better services.

ETA: Governments are notorious for predicting future costs very accurately and conservatively.

 

[timschochet]

Anyhow, the GAO's prediction of overall costs was based on the assumption that the individual mandate would be effectively enforced. Now we know that it won't be, and that the penalties imposed wont make up the difference, or come close.

If I am a young person of good health without insurance, it makes financial sense for me to simply pay the fine every year (provided the govt. wants to spend the time and money to catch me) and wait till I catch some disease or become seriously injured. Then I'll get insurance, since I no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions. My motivation to get insurance BEFORE I get sick has now vanished, thanks to Obamacare.

 

[Slapdash]

If I am a young person of good health without insurance, it makes financial sense for me to simply pay the fine every year (provided the govt. wants to spend the time and money to catch me) and wait till I catch some disease or become seriously injured. Then I'll get insurance, since I no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions. My motivation to get insurance BEFORE I get sick has now vanished, thanks to Obamacare.

 

[Joe T]

Anyhow, the GAO's prediction of overall costs was based on the assumption that the individual mandate would be effectively enforced. Now we know that it won't be, and that the penalties imposed wont make up the difference, or come close.

If I am a young person of good health without insurance, it makes financial sense for me to simply pay the fine every year (provided the govt. wants to spend the time and money to catch me) and wait till I catch some disease or become seriously injured. Then I'll get insurance, since I no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions. My motivation to get insurance BEFORE I get sick has now vanished, thanks to Obamacare.

In other words, there is a chance we have less people insured than we did before the Obamacare Health Insurance deal. We almost certainly will have less 'healthy' people insured than before.

Note: Timscochit is growing on me in this thread.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I don't think Obamacare is the best way to get EVERYONE covered - single payer is. But Obamacare is way, WAY better than what we had before, particularly if your goal is to get everyone covered. I don't even understand how you can argue otherwise.

Here's the thing: getting everyone covered is a worthwhile goal, but it's not the only goal we should be pursuing. Single payer is clearly the simplest way to achieve the goal of getting everyone covered. I don't think anyone would dispute that, if getting everyone covered was the only goal. It's also pretty clear that Obamacare is a step towards this goal (from what preceded it). I don't think anyone would dispute that either, if getting everyone covered was the only goal.Other goals we should pursue include improving overall care (i.e. "better" health care) and more efficient overall care (i.e. "cheaper" and "faster" health care). My problem with Obamacare is that I don't believe it does either of those things. Worse, not only does it not help us move toward either of these goals, it effectively precludes us from moving towards those goals at any time in the near future, because politicians won't want to take up the health care issue again any time in the near future.

You are focused very specifically on the goal of getting everyone covered, while others are focused on the other goals I noted, which is why you often talk past each other in evaluating Obamacare.

Obamacare does improve overall care and has several cost containment measures. They've been pointed out over and over and over again.

And the official, non-partisan scorekeeper on budget related matters studied the ACA and the analysis indicates that Obamacare will actually reduce the deficit over the next 10 years. So while uninformed Tea Party folks continue pushing the Obamacare will bankrupt us meme, the folks who are actually experts at interpreting legislation and accurately determining effects on our budget suggest our budget will be better off WITH Obamacare.

It's not just Tea Partiers that believe that Obamacare will cost WAY more than the GAO predicted.Do you remember when it was predicted that the Iraq War would end up costing only a few billion dollars?

No, I don't. I remember the Bush Administration touting how cheap the war was going to be, but I remember the CBO saying it was going to cost $10B+ per month for an indefinite period of time after the initial invasion. In retrospect, that number from CBO looks pretty accurate.

tim, you're using nonsense from **** Cheney & Co. to marginalize actual analysis from the non-partisan folks who are experts in this area.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think Obamacare is the best way to get EVERYONE covered - single payer is. But Obamacare is way, WAY better than what we had before, particularly if your goal is to get everyone covered. I don't even understand how you can argue otherwise.

Here's the thing: getting everyone covered is a worthwhile goal, but it's not the only goal we should be pursuing. Single payer is clearly the simplest way to achieve the goal of getting everyone covered. I don't think anyone would dispute that, if getting everyone covered was the only goal. It's also pretty clear that Obamacare is a step towards this goal (from what preceded it). I don't think anyone would dispute that either, if getting everyone covered was the only goal.Other goals we should pursue include improving overall care (i.e. "better" health care) and more efficient overall care (i.e. "cheaper" and "faster" health care). My problem with Obamacare is that I don't believe it does either of those things. Worse, not only does it not help us move toward either of these goals, it effectively precludes us from moving towards those goals at any time in the near future, because politicians won't want to take up the health care issue again any time in the near future.

You are focused very specifically on the goal of getting everyone covered, while others are focused on the other goals I noted, which is why you often talk past each other in evaluating Obamacare.

Obamacare does improve overall care and has several cost containment measures. They've been pointed out over and over and over again.

And the official, non-partisan scorekeeper on budget related matters studied the ACA and the analysis indicates that Obamacare will actually reduce the deficit over the next 10 years. So while uninformed Tea Party folks continue pushing the Obamacare will bankrupt us meme, the folks who are actually experts at interpreting legislation and accurately determining effects on our budget suggest our budget will be better off WITH Obamacare.

It's not just Tea Partiers that believe that Obamacare will cost WAY more than the GAO predicted.Do you remember when it was predicted that the Iraq War would end up costing only a few billion dollars?

No, I don't. I remember the Bush Administration touting how cheap the war was going to be, but I remember the CBO saying it was going to cost $10B+ per month for an indefinite period of time after the initial invasion. In retrospect, that number from CBO looks pretty accurate.

tim, you're using nonsense from **** Cheney & Co. to marginalize actual analysis from the non-partisan folks who are experts in this area.

I already gave you my specific reason why the GAO numbers would be wrong- because they assume automatic compliance with the individual mandate- and that compliance is not coming. I honestly don't remember who made the official prediction about the cost of Iraq, but it wasn't Cheney. I used it as an example to demonstrate that these predictions are never accurate.

If you and I are still doing this 10 years from now, let's revisit this conversation.

 

[humpback]

Sorry about your g-mom tim. That's horrible. Reagan's a #####.

I don't think Obamacare is the best way to get EVERYONE covered - single payer is. But Obamacare is way, WAY better than what we had before, particularly if your goal is to get everyone covered. I don't even understand how you can argue otherwise.

You're such a bitter hack.

 

[snogger]

Anyhow, the GAO's prediction of overall costs was based on the assumption that the individual mandate would be effectively enforced. Now we know that it won't be, and that the penalties imposed wont make up the difference, or come close.

If I am a young person of good health without insurance, it makes financial sense for me to simply pay the fine every year (provided the govt. wants to spend the time and money to catch me) and wait till I catch some disease or become seriously injured. Then I'll get insurance, since I no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions. My motivation to get insurance BEFORE I get sick has now vanished, thanks to Obamacare.

My Brother in-law is a prime example of this. No matter how many times we tried to talk him into getting Health Insurance he always said "Why? It cost too much and I won't use it and if an emergency comes up I'll worry about it then"

Now, along comes this, which actually will cost him MORE.. So he'll take the measly $1500 fine..IF they actually find a way to enforce it ( He is self employed )and continue on the way he has.. Nothing with this bill makes him want to jump in.. And he is precisely the type of person we need to jump in if this was to work as they predict.

Not saying it is right, as we've tried to explain to him that if he has a Large Health issue come up he could lose everything.. Too which he says " I have a crappy 30+ year old house, a car that is 10 years old.. Let them"

 

[matttyl]

If I am a young person of good health without insurance, it makes financial sense for me to simply pay the fine every year (provided the govt. wants to spend the time and money to catch me) and wait till I catch some disease or become seriously injured. Then I'll get insurance, since I no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions. My motivation to get insurance BEFORE I get sick has now vanished, thanks to Obamacare.

That isn't funny at all. It's exactly how this will turn out.

 

[Slapdash]

If I am a young person of good health without insurance, it makes financial sense for me to simply pay the fine every year (provided the govt. wants to spend the time and money to catch me) and wait till I catch some disease or become seriously injured. Then I'll get insurance, since I no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions. My motivation to get insurance BEFORE I get sick has now vanished, thanks to Obamacare.

That isn't funny at all. It's exactly how this will turn out.

No, it isn't

 

[jonessed]

Without young people signing up the whole thing will implode due to skyrocketing rates.

It needs to be seriously tweaked to succeed, but it won't be. It's going to be a rough ride for a lot of people.

 

[matttyl]

If I am a young person of good health without insurance, it makes financial sense for me to simply pay the fine every year (provided the govt. wants to spend the time and money to catch me) and wait till I catch some disease or become seriously injured. Then I'll get insurance, since I no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions. My motivation to get insurance BEFORE I get sick has now vanished, thanks to Obamacare.

That isn't funny at all. It's exactly how this will turn out.

No, it isn't

You know, that's a hell of a point you have there.

Why not?! Currently you need coverage BEFORE something happens - so it makes sense to buy health insurance if you're young and healthy. With this legislation, that won't matter. You can just buy the coverage after and it wouldn't restrict coverage from anything you already have.

This will happen over and over, I hear it every day. People will not pay these huge increases in premiums and will rather pay the "fee", if it can be collected.

 

[jonessed]

Anyhow, the GAO's prediction of overall costs was based on the assumption that the individual mandate would be effectively enforced. Now we know that it won't be, and that the penalties imposed wont make up the difference, or come close.

If I am a young person of good health without insurance, it makes financial sense for me to simply pay the fine every year (provided the govt. wants to spend the time and money to catch me) and wait till I catch some disease or become seriously injured. Then I'll get insurance, since I no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions. My motivation to get insurance BEFORE I get sick has now vanished, thanks to Obamacare.

My Brother in-law is a prime example of this. No matter how many times we tried to talk him into getting Health Insurance he always said "Why? It cost too much and I won't use it and if an emergency comes up I'll worry about it then"

Now, along comes this, which actually will cost him MORE.. So he'll take the measly $1500 fine..IF they actually find a way to enforce it ( He is self employed )and continue on the way he has.. Nothing with this bill makes him want to jump in.. And he is precisely the type of person we need to jump in if this was to work as they predict.

Not saying it is right, as we've tried to explain to him that if he has a Large Health issue come up he could lose everything.. Too which he says " I have a crappy 30+ year old house, a car that is 10 years old.. Let them"

If something happened he could sign up that day and be covered. He won't lose anything.

 

[matttyl]

If something happened he could sign up that day and be covered. He won't lose anything.

Not necessarily. From what I've seen, which obviously could change any day and/or hour at this point, is that "open enrollment" will only last till the end of March, 2014. So if whatever happened from the start of the year till then, well then yes you'd be right. If it happened April or after, he'd have to wait till the next "open enrollment" which will be at the end of 2014/start of 2015, when the rates will likely be much higher.

Point being, the current system has adverse selection against the older and sicker. I'm not saying that's fair or right. The new system will have adverse selection against the young and healthy, and that's far more devastating to the plan itself.

 

[Slapdash]

If I am a young person of good health without insurance, it makes financial sense for me to simply pay the fine every year (provided the govt. wants to spend the time and money to catch me) and wait till I catch some disease or become seriously injured. Then I'll get insurance, since I no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions. My motivation to get insurance BEFORE I get sick has now vanished, thanks to Obamacare.

That isn't funny at all. It's exactly how this will turn out.

No, it isn't

You know, that's a hell of a point you have there.

Why not?! Currently you need coverage BEFORE something happens - so it makes sense to buy health insurance if you're young and healthy. With this legislation, that won't matter. You can just buy the coverage after and it wouldn't restrict coverage from anything you already have.

This will happen over and over, I hear it every day. People will not pay these huge increases in premiums and will rather pay the "fee", if it can be collected.

Pre-existing conditions aren't the only reason people have insurance. Tim's claims that there is no motivation, financial or otherwise, for young healthy people to get insurance anymore is just bull####.

 

[snogger]

If I am a young person of good health without insurance, it makes financial sense for me to simply pay the fine every year (provided the govt. wants to spend the time and money to catch me) and wait till I catch some disease or become seriously injured. Then I'll get insurance, since I no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions. My motivation to get insurance BEFORE I get sick has now vanished, thanks to Obamacare.

That isn't funny at all. It's exactly how this will turn out.

No, it isn't

You know, that's a hell of a point you have there.

Why not?! Currently you need coverage BEFORE something happens - so it makes sense to buy health insurance if you're young and healthy. With this legislation, that won't matter. You can just buy the coverage after and it wouldn't restrict coverage from anything you already have.

This will happen over and over, I hear it every day. People will not pay these huge increases in premiums and will rather pay the "fee", if it can be collected.

Pre-existing conditions aren't the only reason people have insurance. Tim's claims that there is no motivation, financial or otherwise, for young healthy people to get insurance anymore is just bull####.

OK.. Give me "motivation" that I can give to my Brother in-law...

Again he has ZERO motivation right now to pay for insurance..

Tell me what in this plan will make him Motivated to pay more for something he won't pay for now??

 

[Slapdash]

If I am a young person of good health without insurance, it makes financial sense for me to simply pay the fine every year (provided the govt. wants to spend the time and money to catch me) and wait till I catch some disease or become seriously injured. Then I'll get insurance, since I no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions. My motivation to get insurance BEFORE I get sick has now vanished, thanks to Obamacare.

That isn't funny at all. It's exactly how this will turn out.

No, it isn't

You know, that's a hell of a point you have there.

Why not?! Currently you need coverage BEFORE something happens - so it makes sense to buy health insurance if you're young and healthy. With this legislation, that won't matter. You can just buy the coverage after and it wouldn't restrict coverage from anything you already have.

This will happen over and over, I hear it every day. People will not pay these huge increases in premiums and will rather pay the "fee", if it can be collected.

Pre-existing conditions aren't the only reason people have insurance. Tim's claims that there is no motivation, financial or otherwise, for young healthy people to get insurance anymore is just bull####.

OK.. Give me "motivation" that I can give to my Brother in-law...

Again he has ZERO motivation right now to pay for insurance..

Tell me what in this plan will make him Motivated to pay more for something he won't pay for now??

He seems like an idiot for not paying for some now, the way you described things. The subsidies should make it more affordable for him. Getting nothing in return for paying a penalty isn't very smart.

 

[Foosball God]

If I am a young person of good health without insurance, it makes financial sense for me to simply pay the fine every year (provided the govt. wants to spend the time and money to catch me) and wait till I catch some disease or become seriously injured. Then I'll get insurance, since I no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions. My motivation to get insurance BEFORE I get sick has now vanished, thanks to Obamacare.

That isn't funny at all. It's exactly how this will turn out.

No, it isn't

You know, that's a hell of a point you have there.

Why not?! Currently you need coverage BEFORE something happens - so it makes sense to buy health insurance if you're young and healthy. With this legislation, that won't matter. You can just buy the coverage after and it wouldn't restrict coverage from anything you already have.

This will happen over and over, I hear it every day. People will not pay these huge increases in premiums and will rather pay the "fee", if it can be collected.

Pre-existing conditions aren't the only reason people have insurance. Tim's claims that there is no motivation, financial or otherwise, for young healthy people to get insurance anymore is just bull####.

OK.. Give me "motivation" that I can give to my Brother in-law...

Again he has ZERO motivation right now to pay for insurance..

Tell me what in this plan will make him Motivated to pay more for something he won't pay for now??

How old is your brother in law? It would be absolutely stupid of him not to look into a catastrophic plan.

 

[matttyl]

Pre-existing conditions aren't the only reason people have insurance. Tim's claims that there is no motivation, financial or otherwise, for young healthy people to get insurance anymore is just bull####.

The motivation is still there, people should have insurance for the unknown. We here can all agree on that, but that's not what's happening in the actual market place today. Here are some facts (cut and paste)-

Based on self-reported census data, in 2010, more than 49 million people in the US (more than 16% of the population) were without health insurance as defined in the questions asked. The percentage of the non-elderly population who are uninsured has been generally increasing since the year 2000.[6] Among the uninsured population, some 40 million were employment-age adults (ages 18 to 64), and more than 28 million worked at least part-time. About 37% of the uninsured live in households with incomes over $50,000.[3]

It has been estimated that nearly one fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, almost one quarter is eligible for public coverage, and the remaining 56% need financial assistance (8.9% of all Americans).[11]An estimated 5 million of those without health insurance are considered "uninsurable" because of pre-existing conditions.[12]63% of all uninsured Americans are under age 34.

So when 44% of the uninsured population can either currently afford it, or get assistance to afford it - only 10% are "uninsurable" - and nearly 2/3rds are fairly young today - why don't more people have insurance?! Why don't we have lower uninsured rates?! The motivation is there now, right?

Most importantly, how are those trends going to reverse with HIGHER premiums? How are those trends going to continue when people know they can just buy coverage WHEN they need it, no longer needing to have it BEFORE they need it?

 

[matttyl]

He seems like an idiot for not paying for some now, the way you described things. The subsidies should make it more affordable for him. Getting nothing in return for paying a penalty isn't very smart.

And getting nothing (if he's healthy) for paying 10X more for coverage wasn't very smart either. Try getting people to understand that difference.

EDIT - And they may not have the ability (mechanism) to collect the penalty anyway.

 

[Slapdash]

Pre-existing conditions aren't the only reason people have insurance. Tim's claims that there is no motivation, financial or otherwise, for young healthy people to get insurance anymore is just bull####.

The motivation is still there, people should have insurance for the unknown. We here can all agree on that, but that's not what's happening in the actual market place today.

Tim wasn't agreeing with that, which is why I was laughing.

Not interested in playing the guessing game again here. We will find out soon enough what happens when the subsidies, exchanges, and Medicaid expansion come on line.

 

[snogger]

If I am a young person of good health without insurance, it makes financial sense for me to simply pay the fine every year (provided the govt. wants to spend the time and money to catch me) and wait till I catch some disease or become seriously injured. Then I'll get insurance, since I no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions. My motivation to get insurance BEFORE I get sick has now vanished, thanks to Obamacare.

That isn't funny at all. It's exactly how this will turn out.

No, it isn't

You know, that's a hell of a point you have there.

Why not?! Currently you need coverage BEFORE something happens - so it makes sense to buy health insurance if you're young and healthy. With this legislation, that won't matter. You can just buy the coverage after and it wouldn't restrict coverage from anything you already have.

This will happen over and over, I hear it every day. People will not pay these huge increases in premiums and will rather pay the "fee", if it can be collected.

Pre-existing conditions aren't the only reason people have insurance. Tim's claims that there is no motivation, financial or otherwise, for young healthy people to get insurance anymore is just bull####.

OK.. Give me "motivation" that I can give to my Brother in-law...

Again he has ZERO motivation right now to pay for insurance..

Tell me what in this plan will make him Motivated to pay more for something he won't pay for now??

How old is your brother in law? It would be absolutely stupid of him not to look into a catastrophic plan.

Same age as me 45.. Again we've( Myself, Wife, father in-law, Mother In-law) talked to him until we are blue in the face..

He states he would never use it so why pay for it.. Again..

We asked him, well you pay for Car insurance for the off chance you might need it, too which he replies.. Because I HAVE to buy it .. it is the law and I could lose my license if I don't buy it..

The consequences for not buying Car insurance currently is MORE than the consequences for not buying Health Insurance.. and nothing in this bill will change that. Sure there is the off chance of a Fine.. But again, the enforcement of that "fine" is going to be interesting..

The whole reason behind this was to make it Affordable..

In order to do so you need everyone to buy into it.. But as more and more details come out it shows that cost is actually going to go up for the younger generation, making it least likely they will pay for it, meaning less people paying in, causing cost to go up.. Which means they have to make up the shortfall somewhere, which means higher taxes for all.

and before the "So what if taxes go up, it gets health coverage for more" people jump in..

I agree that it is better to get people the coverage they need, and am willing to pay..

But this is NOT what we are told by "those in know": .. they continue to say it is paid for and the sheep keep believing them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.. I hope in 5 years I have to come in here wearing a and say I WAS WRONG!!

But I currently see no way our taxes don't go up to pay for this..

 

[Ghost Rider]

All I keep hearing is that big corporations all over the country are cutting hours and/or eliminating jobs, because they don't want to have to pay the big Obamacare costs, so tell me again how this is a good thing?

 

[Foosball God]

If I am a young person of good health without insurance, it makes financial sense for me to simply pay the fine every year (provided the govt. wants to spend the time and money to catch me) and wait till I catch some disease or become seriously injured. Then I'll get insurance, since I no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions. My motivation to get insurance BEFORE I get sick has now vanished, thanks to Obamacare.

That isn't funny at all. It's exactly how this will turn out.

No, it isn't

You know, that's a hell of a point you have there.

Why not?! Currently you need coverage BEFORE something happens - so it makes sense to buy health insurance if you're young and healthy. With this legislation, that won't matter. You can just buy the coverage after and it wouldn't restrict coverage from anything you already have.

This will happen over and over, I hear it every day. People will not pay these huge increases in premiums and will rather pay the "fee", if it can be collected.

Pre-existing conditions aren't the only reason people have insurance. Tim's claims that there is no motivation, financial or otherwise, for young healthy people to get insurance anymore is just bull####.

OK.. Give me "motivation" that I can give to my Brother in-law...

Again he has ZERO motivation right now to pay for insurance..

Tell me what in this plan will make him Motivated to pay more for something he won't pay for now??

How old is your brother in law? It would be absolutely stupid of him not to look into a catastrophic plan.

Same age as me 45.. Again we've( Myself, Wife, father in-law, Mother In-law) talked to him until we are blue in the face..

He states he would never use it so why pay for it.. Again..

We asked him, well you pay for Car insurance for the off chance you might need it, too which he replies.. Because I HAVE to buy it .. it is the law and I could lose my license if I don't buy it..

The consequences for not buying Car insurance currently is MORE than the consequences for not buying Health Insurance.. and nothing in this bill will change that. Sure there is the off chance of a Fine.. But again, the enforcement of that "fine" is going to be interesting..

The whole reason behind this was to make it Affordable..

In order to do so you need everyone to buy into it.. But as more and more details come out it shows that cost is actually going to go up for the younger generation, making it least likely they will pay for it, meaning less people paying in, causing cost to go up.. Which means they have to make up the shortfall somewhere, which means higher taxes for all.

and before the "So what if taxes go up, it gets health coverage for more" people jump in..

I agree that it is better to get people the coverage they need, and am willing to pay..

But this is NOT what we are told by "those in know": .. they continue to say it is paid for and the sheep keep believing them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.. I hope in 5 years I have to come in here wearing a and say I WAS WRONG!!

But I currently see no way our taxes don't go up to pay for this..

If he's 45 and doesn't get health insurance he's a moron and he's doing a huge disservice to his family.

 

[Slapdash]

All I keep hearing is that big corporations all over the country are cutting hours and/or eliminating jobs, because they don't want to have to pay the big Obamacare costs, so tell me again how this is a good thing?

Interestingly, the most widely expected adverse effects of the Affordable Care Act have yet to materialize, despite the fact that it has been in place for nearly three years. As a recent chart released by the President’s Council of Economic Advisers shows, hours of work are up in the restaurant industry since March 2010. The same is true in the vast bulk of retail businesses where the option to move workers from full to part time is a real one. It may be that companies are waiting until the employer mandate kicks in – or it could be that the fears of significant adverse effects were overblown.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/07/the-economics-of-the-affordable-care-act/?_r=0

 

[matttyl]

Pre-existing conditions aren't the only reason people have insurance. Tim's claims that there is no motivation, financial or otherwise, for young healthy people to get insurance anymore is just bull####.

The motivation is still there, people should have insurance for the unknown. We here can all agree on that, but that's not what's happening in the actual market place today.

Tim wasn't agreeing with that, which is why I was laughing.

Not interested in playing the guessing game again here. We will find out soon enough what happens when the subsidies, exchanges, and Medicaid expansion come on line.

Here's an example of what Tim may have been trying to say, maybe a poor one and if so I'm sorry (I don't want to put words in Tim's mouth).

Do you have the motivation to buy at Shelby Cobra? Like a really, really nice one - a '66 AC 427. Sure you do, most of us do. They are sexy as hell. But lets say it cost $10k a year to own one today and you're not sure if there will even be one available to you next year - and you decide that's a bit too much - or maybe you decide it's worth it and you actually do buy it and pay $10k a year to own it.

Next year it no longer costs $10k a year to own - it costs $15k a year or more. The motivation might still be there, but you're not as motivated to pay $15k a year as you were to pay $10k. So you either decide you no longer want it at all - or if you didn't choose to pay $10k you sure aren't choosing to pay $15k.....unless you really, really need a '66 AC 427 because you're planning on driving the #### out of it. And now you know you can go get an AC 427 anytime you want and/or need one.

It's all supply and demand in a way. If it wasn't being demanded at $10k with a potentially limited future inventory, why will it suddenly be demanded at $15k with an unlimited inventory? Motivation (aka demand) has gone down.

 

[tommyGunZ]

If I am a young person of good health without insurance, it makes financial sense for me to simply pay the fine every year (provided the govt. wants to spend the time and money to catch me) and wait till I catch some disease or become seriously injured. Then I'll get insurance, since I no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions. My motivation to get insurance BEFORE I get sick has now vanished, thanks to Obamacare.

That isn't funny at all. It's exactly how this will turn out.

No, it isn't

You know, that's a hell of a point you have there.

Why not?! Currently you need coverage BEFORE something happens - so it makes sense to buy health insurance if you're young and healthy. With this legislation, that won't matter. You can just buy the coverage after and it wouldn't restrict coverage from anything you already have.

This will happen over and over, I hear it every day. People will not pay these huge increases in premiums and will rather pay the "fee", if it can be collected.

Pre-existing conditions aren't the only reason people have insurance. Tim's claims that there is no motivation, financial or otherwise, for young healthy people to get insurance anymore is just bull####.

OK.. Give me "motivation" that I can give to my Brother in-law...

Again he has ZERO motivation right now to pay for insurance..

Tell me what in this plan will make him Motivated to pay more for something he won't pay for now??

How old is your brother in law? It would be absolutely stupid of him not to look into a catastrophic plan.

Same age as me 45.. Again we've( Myself, Wife, father in-law, Mother In-law) talked to him until we are blue in the face..

He states he would never use it so why pay for it.. Again..

We asked him, well you pay for Car insurance for the off chance you might need it, too which he replies.. Because I HAVE to buy it .. it is the law and I could lose my license if I don't buy it..

The consequences for not buying Car insurance currently is MORE than the consequences for not buying Health Insurance.. and nothing in this bill will change that. Sure there is the off chance of a Fine.. But again, the enforcement of that "fine" is going to be interesting..

The whole reason behind this was to make it Affordable..

In order to do so you need everyone to buy into it.. But as more and more details come out it shows that cost is actually going to go up for the younger generation, making it least likely they will pay for it, meaning less people paying in, causing cost to go up.. Which means they have to make up the shortfall somewhere, which means higher taxes for all.

and before the "So what if taxes go up, it gets health coverage for more" people jump in..

I agree that it is better to get people the coverage they need, and am willing to pay..

But this is NOT what we are told by "those in know": .. they continue to say it is paid for and the sheep keep believing them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.. I hope in 5 years I have to come in here wearing a and say I WAS WRONG!!

But I currently see no way our taxes don't go up to pay for this..

You're ignoring the other cost containment mechanisms in the ACA.

I understand your frustration with folks like your BIL. I think we are all frustrated by free-riders and the costs they impose on the system. The mandate is one way to impose some personal responsibility on those folks.

 

[snogger]

If I am a young person of good health without insurance, it makes financial sense for me to simply pay the fine every year (provided the govt. wants to spend the time and money to catch me) and wait till I catch some disease or become seriously injured. Then I'll get insurance, since I no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions. My motivation to get insurance BEFORE I get sick has now vanished, thanks to Obamacare.

That isn't funny at all. It's exactly how this will turn out.

No, it isn't

You know, that's a hell of a point you have there.

Why not?! Currently you need coverage BEFORE something happens - so it makes sense to buy health insurance if you're young and healthy. With this legislation, that won't matter. You can just buy the coverage after and it wouldn't restrict coverage from anything you already have.

This will happen over and over, I hear it every day. People will not pay these huge increases in premiums and will rather pay the "fee", if it can be collected.

Pre-existing conditions aren't the only reason people have insurance. Tim's claims that there is no motivation, financial or otherwise, for young healthy people to get insurance anymore is just bull####.

OK.. Give me "motivation" that I can give to my Brother in-law...

Again he has ZERO motivation right now to pay for insurance..

Tell me what in this plan will make him Motivated to pay more for something he won't pay for now??

How old is your brother in law? It would be absolutely stupid of him not to look into a catastrophic plan.

Same age as me 45.. Again we've( Myself, Wife, father in-law, Mother In-law) talked to him until we are blue in the face..

He states he would never use it so why pay for it.. Again..

We asked him, well you pay for Car insurance for the off chance you might need it, too which he replies.. Because I HAVE to buy it .. it is the law and I could lose my license if I don't buy it..

The consequences for not buying Car insurance currently is MORE than the consequences for not buying Health Insurance.. and nothing in this bill will change that. Sure there is the off chance of a Fine.. But again, the enforcement of that "fine" is going to be interesting..

The whole reason behind this was to make it Affordable..

In order to do so you need everyone to buy into it.. But as more and more details come out it shows that cost is actually going to go up for the younger generation, making it least likely they will pay for it, meaning less people paying in, causing cost to go up.. Which means they have to make up the shortfall somewhere, which means higher taxes for all.

and before the "So what if taxes go up, it gets health coverage for more" people jump in..

I agree that it is better to get people the coverage they need, and am willing to pay..

But this is NOT what we are told by "those in know": .. they continue to say it is paid for and the sheep keep believing them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.. I hope in 5 years I have to come in here wearing a and say I WAS WRONG!!

But I currently see no way our taxes don't go up to pay for this..

If he's 45 and doesn't get health insurance he's a moron and he's doing a huge disservice to his family.

He has no "family" to speak of.. he is single.. He does have a son who is 21, in college and gets insurance through his mother.

Again, IMO, in order for this bill to be paid for, People like him are essential for paying for it, but this bill will not make someone like him more likely to buy in, thus less coming in then predicted.

 

[matttyl]

All I keep hearing is that big corporations all over the country are cutting hours and/or eliminating jobs, because they don't want to have to pay the big Obamacare costs, so tell me again how this is a good thing?

Interestingly, the most widely expected adverse effects of the Affordable Care Act have yet to materialize, despite the fact that it has been in place for nearly three years. As a recent chart released by the President’s Council of Economic Advisers shows, hours of work are up in the restaurant industry since March 2010. The same is true in the vast bulk of retail businesses where the option to move workers from full to part time is a real one. It may be that companies are waiting until the employer mandate kicks in – or it could be that the fears of significant adverse effects were overblown.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/07/the-economics-of-the-affordable-care-act/?_r=0

They have no incentive to do it now, but they sure will in 2015. That's when we'll see this.

 

[matttyl]

You're ignoring the other cost containment mechanisms in the ACA.

I understand your frustration with folks like your BIL. I think we are all frustrated by free-riders and the costs they impose on the system. The mandate is one way to impose some personal responsibility on those folks.

But there may be no way to enforce imposing the mandate.

 

[timschochet]

Pre-existing conditions aren't the only reason people have insurance. Tim's claims that there is no motivation, financial or otherwise, for young healthy people to get insurance anymore is just bull####.

The motivation is still there, people should have insurance for the unknown. We here can all agree on that, but that's not what's happening in the actual market place today.

Tim wasn't agreeing with that, which is why I was laughing.

.

Actually you're wrong. I find his argument very plausible. I was speaking financially only, and then only for the immediate future. I was using the logic of a young person who unwisely does not look at things long term. I think it's reasonable to assume that's exactly how many if not most young people will perceive this.

 

[Joe T]

Good news. My home owners insurance just called. I don't have to pay anymore until something goes wrong. I can wait for my house to burn down before signing up.

 

[timschochet]

You're ignoring the other cost containment mechanisms in the ACA.

I understand your frustration with folks like your BIL. I think we are all frustrated by free-riders and the costs they impose on the system. The mandate is one way to impose some personal responsibility on those folks.

But there may be no way to enforce imposing the mandate.

There is no way to enforce the mandate. (At least no way that the politicians would dare actually to consider.)

 

[matttyl]

Actually you're wrong. I find his argument very plausible. I was speaking financially only, and then only for the immediate future. I was using the logic of a young person who unwisely does not look at things long term. I think it's reasonable to assume that's exactly how many if not most young people will perceive this.

And we have a lot of them now who are totally insurable and who are uninsured. Why are increasing prices for them going to result in higher participation? That doesn't make sense at all.

Sure, maybe the mandate will push more into coverage - but likely toward the catastrophic plan (if under 30) which won't have enough $ going back into the pie.

 

[snogger]

Actually you're wrong. I find his argument very plausible. I was speaking financially only, and then only for the immediate future. I was using the logic of a young person who unwisely does not look at things long term. I think it's reasonable to assume that's exactly how many if not most young people will perceive this.

And we have a lot of them now who are totally insurable and who are uninsured. Why are increasing prices for them going to result in higher participation? That doesn't make sense at all.

Sure, maybe the mandate will push more into coverage - but likely toward the catastrophic plan (if under 30) which won't have enough $ going back into the pie.

Some have argued that the subsidies will bring the costs down to the purchaser..

But in the case of my BIL that wouldn't matter.. He is single and makes above $80k a year so no subsidies for him thus no reason, other then the mandate, which is still cheaper in his mind then paying for insurance..

BTW what exactly are we calling the mandate now

Obama says it isn't a tax, the SC says it is..