Obama Admin: Half Of Young Americans Could Buy Insurance For $50 Or Less
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hhs-half-of-young-americans-could-buy-insurance-for-50-or-lessNearly half of young Americans eligible to buy insurance on HealthCare.gov could pay $50 or less a month for coverage, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a report released Monday. HHS is touting the affordability of insurance on the exchanges in part because young adults are crucial to making the health care reform law's finances work.
The conclusion was based on data from the 30-plus states where insurance is being sold through HealthCare.gov, for adults ages 18 to 34, who qualify for tax credits through the law. The analysis found that 46 percent could pay $50 or less for a bronze plan (which covers 60 percent of costs), and 66 percent could pay $100 or less.
“The health care law is making health insurance more affordable for young adults,” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement.
The administration has said it hopes to enroll 2.7 million age 18 to 34 (out of 7 million total) in the first year.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)I really want this ACA thing to work out, but the inconsistencies bother me.
The policies bought by "young healthy Americans" (who don't need health insurance) will offset the losses caused by policies bought by people with, say, bone cancer who could not get cancer before. So, how many policies at $50/mth are going to be needed to offset one cancer policy that costs $50,000/mth? Right, are they going to sign up 1000 times as many "young healthy Americans" who won't go to the doctor as they do people with hundreds of dread diseases that cost hundreds of thousands to treat?
I know, the government pays the rest of the premium, but it does so by "savings in Medicare," which means less medical care for old people, and by a tax on medical devices, which means higher prices for those devices and higher costs for medical care.
Oh, wait, I know you're going to tell me that providers being paid by Medicare will provide the same or more care for the elderly while charging billions of dollars less. And pigs will fly, but not on this planet.
And you're going to tell me that a tax on medical devices will not raise the cost of medical care. It may mean that we spend less on medical care, because we will use fewer devices. But the cost of those devices will increase as a result of imposing a tax on them.
At every turn it looks like we are providing more care one place by providing less care somewhere else, and lowering costs here by raising costs somewhere else. And given that there was no willingness to increase the budget in either the public or private sector, given that no one was willing to sacrifice anything to achieve reform, how could it be anything other than that sort of trade off?
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)high. I checked some figures for estimates of cost of cancer care and came up with $726 per mo. Using incident rate they showed here
Projections of the Cost of Cancer Care in the United States: 2010 – 2020
http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jnci/press_releases/mariotto.pdf
It seems the big unknown in your consideration is how much will the Government subsidies to insurance companies be for the young 'immortals'. That's how they get down to the $50 per month, or less, figure. NOte that is about half the young 'immortals'. So there is another half that is going to pay more than $50 a month.
I offer you my good wishes on trying to figure this out. From what little I looked at, the way medical cost data is presented seems to make nuclear physics, Quantum Mechanics and String Theory laughingly simple by comparison. Good luck!
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)The point is how do we know that the premiums from healthy people not using iunsurance will offset the cost of sick people using it who were not previously covered? According to Paul Krugman, if it doesn't the government will pay money directly to the insurance companys to make up the difference. Giving tax money to corporations is hardly a populist concept; it makes the program more of a corporate support program.
$50/month is not "low cost insurance" if the government is paying another $300/month.
I know, you'll come back and tell me they're not paying $300/month. Whatever. It's called a metaphor. My point is the insurance does not cost $50/month. It costs more than that.
How do we lower the cost of health care when we are raising the cost of medical devices by imposing a tax on them? How are we increasing access to healthcare when we are cutting the amount spent for Medicare, as the aging population which needs Medicare increases?
I'm not trying to figure out the actual math, I'm just trying to see some way in which this thing actually makes sense, some way in which it actually does what we all say it does. It lowers the cost of health care? How, by raising the cost of the devices that are used in the process? It increases access to health care? Not by cutting funding for seniors on Medicare, it doesn't.
I'd like to see people get insurance who don't have it. But to do it by making people with pacemakers pay more for their pacemakers, by decreasing Medicare, and by making people buy a product that they don't need, don't want, and in many cases can't afford just seems like an idiotic way to go about it. And to say that it's wonderful and makes sense just because it has happened and a president I like was behind it is the worst kind of hypocrisy.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 30, 2013, 06:16 PM - Edit history (1)
"I really want this ACA thing to work out, but the inconsistencies bother me."
The policies bought by "young healthy Americans" (who don't need health insurance) will offset the losses caused by policies bought by people with, say, bone cancer who could not get cancer before. So, how many policies at $50/mth are going to be needed to offset one cancer policy that costs $50,000/mth? Right, are they going to sign up 1000 times as many "young healthy Americans" who won't go to the doctor as they do people with hundreds of dread diseases that cost hundreds of thousands to treat? "
since you asked how does the math work on this, and asked are they going to sign up 'x' times as many "young healthy Americans..."?
I attempted to shed some light on your considerations first by
.... pointing out that your idea of the cost of treating cancer was far too high ....This is pertinent since it would not take as many "young healthies" to cover these costs since they are (especially since the figure I found by doing a little research is about 1/70th of the $50,000 a month figure you threw out) a small fraction of what you stated. That is the reason I pointed out the researched cost of treating cancer. You know, at some point if your question is about "how the math work out on this" you have to get down to some details .. and that means looking at some reliable numbers for cost of treatments.
the other thing is that Pres Obama said about half of the young people will be paying $50 a month or less.... that still leaves about half of those young and healthies paying presumably MORE THAN $50 per month. This would, I think, change any calculation considerably.
>>
Now, in comnt 3, you said you would: "like to see people get insurance who don't have it."
...Where do you think those people are obtaining their healthcare (without the ACA)? They get it at the nearest hospital emergency room. And what do you think it costs to treat people in the emergency room relative to going and seeing a doctor in his office? Getting medical treatment in an Hospital emergency room is by far the MOST EXPENSIVE way you can obtain it. Seeing a doctor in his office is FAR LESS expensive than getting treatment at an hospital emergency room. Also, people who don't see a doctor regularly will let their health go until they have a problem they can no longer ignore... like a heart attack or stage 4 cancer. This is not the most efficient (cost wise or medical effectiveness-wise) way to go with medical matters.
So, why is that important? Because many of the people who go to hospital emergency rooms for health care don't have medical insurance and can't pay their bills for medical treatment. And guess who pays a good part of their bill ??- TAXPAYERS - through the government program called Hospital Disproportionate Share Payments - through which the Government - you and I - compensate hospitals for care given that they are not compensated for. In 2011, the Medicaid DSH allotment came to $11.3 billion.
"Medicare DSH payments are slightly lower than Medicaid DSH outlays but are still substantial, totaling $10.8 billion in fiscal year 2010." That comes to a total of about $22 billion per year. THe ACA causes these allotments/payments to go down significantly....
http://www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/328D24F3-9C75-4CC5-9494-7F1532EE828A/0/NHELP_DSH_QA_final.pdf
A. The broad outlines of the programs will remain the same. However, beginning
in FY 2014, the ACA dramatically decreases the amount of funding that will be
provided under both DSH programs, based on the premise that the ACA reforms
will result in fewer individuals receiving uncompensated care.
(more)
NOTE that since the Hospitals also raise rates charged for all patients due to uncompensated care for the uninsured everybody who does have medical insurance is paying higher premiums because of this. Families USA has estimated in 2010 the increased cost of private group insurance for a family policies is $1,500 or almost 9%. http://research.policyarchive.org/6261.pdf
>>
Re your statement "to do it by making people with pacemakers pay more for their pacemakers, by decreasing Medicare, and by making people buy a product that they don't need, don't want, and in many cases can't afford just seems like an idiotic way to go about it."
This part "by making people with pacemakers pay more for their pacemakers".. are you referring to the Medical devices tax? There is no reason to conclude the medical device makers will pass all the tax along to customers. With greater competition being forced upon the insurance carriers by the ACA, it is more likely that the device makers will absorb some of the tax and pass along a portion of it. NOW, [font color="red"]the patient "pays for it" not directly but through his insurance premiums (which for some are subsidized.... you remember that don't you?).[/font] The premiums are set by the insurance providers who, thanks to the ACA, are facing more competition (standardized plans enables cost comparison and therefor more competition is created between insurance carriers). So, you are faced with estimating how much of the medical device tax will then be absorbed by the insurance carrier (facing more competition thanks to ACA) - thus you have the medical device maker absorbing part of the Medical Device tax and the insurance carrier absorbing part of the medical device tax - so how much of the medical device tax is passed along to the consumer in the insurance premium? I don't know but it's possible due to multiple levels of competition (which was not there before the ACA) a portion, possibly a small portion, or maybe NONE of it will be passed along to the insured.
>>
Okay now, let's see you continued with: "...and by making people buy a product that they don't need, don't want, and in many cases can't afford"
...... I don't have a clue as to What the Fuck you are talking about here. Could you be talking about insurance that does NOT PERMIT DENYING COVERAGE FOR PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS???? (which seems to crop up JUST WHEN YOU NEED THE COVERAGE THE MOST LIKE WHEN YOU GET A DIRE DIAGNOSIS) .... OR that does NOT allow "lifetime limits" on treatments of various medical conditions???? .............. If you are saying people don't want this I would say you have a medical condition yourself it's called Tea Bagg Suckers Syndrome - where you believe horseshit fed to you by the GOP Big Lie promulgators.
The Kaiser Family Foundation poll shows that overwhelmingly people support health care reform, want pre-existing conditions eliminated from health insurance coverage, understand insurance companies NEED THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IF THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DROP THE PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS DENIAL OF COVERAGE LOOP-HOLE
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101674614
Here are a few of the questions and the answer percentages. the whole poll results can be found here.
[div class="excerpt" style="border: 2px solid #000000;"]
>>> Which comes closer to describing your own views? Given the serious economic problems
facing the country?…
...57% It is more important than ever to take on health care reform now
...39% We cannot afford to take on health care reform right now
>>> Do you think you and your family would be better off or worse off if the president and
Congress passed health care reform, or don’t you think it would make much difference?
...42% Better off
...28% Wouldn't make much difference
...23% Worse off
>>> Do you think the country as a whole would be better off or worse off if the president and
Congress passed health care reform, or don’t you think it would make much difference?
...53% Better off
...26% Worse off
.... INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.......
>>> Would you favor requiring all Americans to have health insurance, either from their
employer or from another source, with financial help for those who can’t afford it?
....68% Favor
....29% Oppose
____ Opponents were asked: What if you heard that without such a requirement, insurance companies would still be allowed to deny
coverage to people who are sick?
...76% Favor (Individual Mandate)
...17% Still oppose (Individual Mandate)
..... Covering Those With Prior Illnesses .....
>>> Do you favor or oppose the federal government requiring health insurance companies to
cover anyone who applies, even if they have a prior illness?
...80% Favor
...17% Oppose
____ Supporters were asked: What if you heard this requirement might mean that healthier people would end up paying somewhat more for their health insurance than they do now, while sicker people would pay somewhat less?
...56% Still favor
...36% Oppose
____ Opponents were asked: What if you heard that some people with very expensive illnesses like cancer would have no way of getting insurance otherwise?
...86% Favor
... . 9% Still Oppose
>>
and you closed with (this one's great): "And to say that it's wonderful and makes sense just because it has happened and a president I like was behind it is the worst kind of hypocrisy."
This is a wonderful bit of Tea Bag Sucker horseshit. Any rational person would not utter all the unsupported bullshit you have been repeating from the GOP Bullshit mill. But if that's your diet, don't let me stop you from gulping that shit down. Just don't expect somebody who isn't begging to be taken advantage of to find it to my taste or believable.
You aren't interested in facts just the fantasies fed to you by the GOP.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)wide support of healthcare reform (and an understanding that if you want to prohibit denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions - insurance companies need the individual mandate - a feature taken from a plan first offered by Republicans).
or the analysis of your statement: "...and by making people buy a product that they don't need, don't want, and in many cases can't afford"
...... showing it to be a distortion of a number of truths which can only be considered a willful lie..
.. your assertion: that people:."don't need" insurance policies that don't carry the threat of denial of coverage due to "pre-existing" conditions ... is ludicrous and clearly people need it. Insurance coverage that has a disturbing tendency to be cancelled .. justt when you need -- when you get sick... to say people don't want this loop-hole removed or don't need it eliminated ... is, there is no other word for it, it is such an outright lie as to be rightly referred to as bullshit.
the contention that: "don't want"... insurance coverage withOUT The denial of coverage for "pre-existing conditions" I showed the results of a poll taken by the very much respected Kaiser Family Foundation that showed people of course, want coverage WITHOUT the denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions - (IOW real insurance that does not disappear just when you need it) -- saying people do not want this is a lie and such an outrageous lie as to be properly identfiied as bullshit.
....as far as not being able to afford it.... millions of people who can't afford any insurance before the ACA, after ACA WILL BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT ... and that is the very reason for passing the ACA. THe ACA is making it possible for millions of people to have insurance who could not afford it .. Your statement that the passage of the ACA causes more people to not be able to afford insurance ... is a distortion of the truth so egregious as to be properly identified as a lie and as yes, bullshit.
the statement about people not being able to afford their pacemakers is obvious demagogic con-man talk. The medical devices tax is hardly a burdensome tax, being a rather small percentage, and as I pointed out, because of the competition induced by the ACA it is expected that the makers of products and the insurance providers will absorb much if not all of those medical device taxes due to competitive pressures. But if they don't absorb all of the costs they will certainly absorb a good portion of the - as already stated - rather small Med devices tax.
But I can see how you would rather ignore the realities I pointed out in my comment because these observations and facts show the distortions and lies in your statement were mere repetition of disinformation and 'Big Lies' spread by the GOP and their very vocal suckers for their propaganda.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)[div class="excerpt" style="background:#DDDDFF;"]
The Affordable Care Act is already working: Intense price competition among health plans in the marketplaces for individuals has lowered premiums below projected levels. As a result of these lower premiums, the federal government will save about $190 billion over the next 10 years, according to our estimates. These savings will boost the health law’s amount of deficit reduction by 174 percent and represent about 40 percent of the health care savings proposed by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform—commonly known as the Simpson-Bowles commission—in 2010.
.... more at link, if you can stand it.
