The insurance industry has increasing cause for concern as early enrollment reports suggest a trend that could cause insurance premiums and deductibles to rise sharply. Along with the paltry enrollment numbers released this week, officials in a handful of states said those who had managed to sign up were generally older people with medical problems.
[...]
In California, the state with the largest uninsured population, most of those who applied were older people with health problems, according to a state health care official. In Kentucky, nearly 3 of 4 enrollees were over 35. In Ohio, groups helping with enrollment described many of those coming to them as older residents who lost their jobs and health coverage during the recession.
[...]
If such efforts fail and insurance companies end up with too many sick or expensive customers, they might need to increase premiums or eventually leave markets to avoid taking heavy financial losses.
"It's going to be very messy for the next couple of years, until we figure out who is buying insurance," said Glenn Melnick, director of the Center for Health Financing, Policy and Management at the University of Southern California. "There are a lot of pieces of this that are just black boxes right now."
Aetna Chairman and chief executive Mark Bertolini said last month that it was "incredibly important" to get the exchange websites running properly because "the younger, healthier people aren't going to give them more than one shot."
What a surprise.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
It's funny that everyone is trying to place the blame on the website and not the rotten concept. The website is a disaster and it's probably the best part of the whole thing.
Was that a positive revision? I would have figured more than 2 million. How many has it cost so far? I am hearing this term....49er...and it's not a reference to the football team.
Predictibly a lot of companies have fired staff or refused to expand past 49 employees so they could stay exempt. Many others have reduced the hours of staff below 30. Wow who couldn't have predicted this?
The point of Obamacare is to wreck the economy, destroy private insurance and completely take over healthcare. Will it work? I think 70-30 it will.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
I saw a similar article in the NY Times. The presentation is a bit peculiar, but near as I can gather the CBO attributes the bulk of the reduction in jobs to people quitting jobs or cutting back hours because they no longer need to work in order to get health insurance. If true, that could be really good news in the long run: a lot of these people may be planning to go into business on their own, or simply retire early and enjoy life likely without changing their spending habits much. Think about all the people with pre-existing conditions or who simply don't want to risk going without health coverage.
There is also mention of employers reducing full time positions in favor of part-time in order to escape the employer part of the mandate, but the CBO also said that 1) part time hours are not expected to increase, and 2) the employer mandate doesn't kick in until 2015, so the effect will not have shown up yet.
WiseOne wrote:
I saw a similar article in the NY Times. The presentation is a bit peculiar, but near as I can gather the CBO attributes the bulk of the reduction in jobs to people quitting jobs or cutting back hours because they no longer need to work in order to get health insurance. If true, that could be really good news in the long run: a lot of these people may be planning to go into business on their own, or simply retire early and enjoy life likely without changing their spending habits much. Think about all the people with pre-existing conditions or who simply don't want to risk going without health coverage.
There is also mention of employers reducing full time positions in favor of part-time in order to escape the employer part of the mandate, but the CBO also said that 1) part time hours are not expected to increase, and 2) the employer mandate doesn't kick in until 2015, so the effect will not have shown up yet.
If the employer mandate kicks in in 2015, intelligent businessmen will already start planning for it and they have been.
This analysis is kind of funny with the assumptions. They think lots of people will retire early because of the healthcare law. They aren't taking into account what a huge disaster it will be, the losses to the insurance companies that will have to be made up for with taxes or money printing and the decrease in living standards, particularly for those on fixed incomes.
Rather than retire early my guess would be millions of Americans will decide they can't retire at all because they can't afford it and the ACA won't help that one penny.
This will keep older workers in the workforce and shut out younger folks....worsening their already bleak employment prospects. No worries...they can magically just stay in college for 10 years on student loans then get the loan debt forgiven by some future congress!
Creating a nation of poor people 101 is the name of this class.
This is why controlling health care is always one of the number one goals of the communists.
Kshartle wrote:
This analysis is kind of funny with the assumptions. They think lots of people will retire early because of the healthcare law. They aren't taking into account what a huge disaster it will be, the losses to the insurance companies that will have to be made up for with taxes or money printing and the decrease in living standards, particularly for those on fixed incomes.
How will this be a disaster? What do you think of the early retirement movement & blogs? It sounds to me like Obamacare might actually be enabling more people to take part.
And, where are the losses to insurance companies? They're the one entity that really got a good deal out of Obamacare, IMHO. They'll get their premium whether it's paid by the federal government or by the insured individual. Where the government subsidies are coming from is another question of course :-) I guess that's what you're referring to?
The point of the article though was the number of people that pre-Obamacare were (are) shackled to their jobs unwillingly, and will now be free to move on. I find that to be very interesting indeed.
WiseOne wrote:
I saw a similar article in the NY Times. The presentation is a bit peculiar, but near as I can gather the CBO attributes the bulk of the reduction in jobs to people quitting jobs or cutting back hours because they no longer need to work in order to get health insurance. If true, that could be really good news in the long run: a lot of these people may be planning to go into business on their own, or simply retire early and enjoy life likely without changing their spending habits much. Think about all the people with pre-existing conditions or who simply don't want to risk going without health coverage.
There is also mention of employers reducing full time positions in favor of part-time in order to escape the employer part of the mandate, but the CBO also said that 1) part time hours are not expected to increase, and 2) the employer mandate doesn't kick in until 2015, so the effect will not have shown up yet.
As a prospective early retiree, I can say the ACA (right or wrong) definitely works in my favor.
I find the hand-wringing about people leaving the workforce because they aren't required to stay just for medical coverage off-putting. One should not cheer for a system of indentured servitude for the right to see a doctor. ACA or not, I'd like to see that system (and the individual insurance rules around preexisting conditions and state portability that enforced it) done away with.
That said, I can understand how the way the ACA is doing it could rub many people the wrong way. Subsidy cliffs are fantastic incentives to work and earn less. However, focusing on retirement is missing the much bigger point. The same cliffs will affect non-retirees at certain income levels far more, and tons of people will avoid producing more out of fear that any raises will be far overpowered by subsidy losses.
Last edited by Tyler on Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
WiseOne wrote:
Where the government subsidies are coming from is another question of course :-)
First we hear that the only people who are signing up are those who are going to get more out of the system than they put in and now we hear that 2.5 million people who would rather not work full-time are going to get subsidies.
So I think your question is quite valid. Just where is the money going to come from?
(Oh, and I forgot - we also hear that the insurance companies are going to get bailed out if they don't make a profit so again I ask, where is the money for this train wreck supposed to come from?)
Last edited by ns3 on Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kshartle wrote:
This analysis is kind of funny with the assumptions. They think lots of people will retire early because of the healthcare law. They aren't taking into account what a huge disaster it will be, the losses to the insurance companies that will have to be made up for with taxes or money printing and the decrease in living standards, particularly for those on fixed incomes.
How will this be a disaster? What do you think of the early retirement movement & blogs? It sounds to me like Obamacare might actually be enabling more people to take part.
And, where are the losses to insurance companies? They're the one entity that really got a good deal out of Obamacare, IMHO. They'll get their premium whether it's paid by the federal government or by the insured individual. Where the government subsidies are coming from is another question of course :-) I guess that's what you're referring to?
The point of the article though was the number of people that pre-Obamacare were (are) shackled to their jobs unwillingly, and will now be free to move on. I find that to be very interesting indeed.
Enabling people to retire but at other people's expense. It's all paid for by someone. In this instance the younger generations will pay subsidies for Boomers to retire a little earlier than they previously would have.
IMO it's perfecto fine for someone to retire at whatever age they can afford to. However that cchoice shouldn't be made at someone else's expense. Workers will foot the bill either through higher taxes or higher premiums for those that are subsidized. That is a fact.
Tyler wrote:
One should not cheer for a system of indentured servitude for the right to see a doctor.
If you have a right to see a doctor then does this not require indentured servitude of the medical profession? Sounds like quite a sense of entitlement to me. All rights, but no responsibilities.
Tyler wrote:
One should not cheer for a system of indentured servitude for the right to see a doctor.
If you have a right to see a doctor then does this not require indentured servitude of the medical profession? Sounds like quite a sense of entitlement to me. All rights, but no responsibilities.
We're talking about different "rights".
I don't believe a doctor should be forced to treat someone for no (or below market) compensation. But I do believe that that someone with a preexisting condition should be able to quit their job and/or move if they can afford to without being denied the same coverage they already had.
If I walked away from my job today, I could support myself just fine and continue to pay the premiums on my company-provided insurance. But that's not allowed under the old system, and I would be essentially kicked off of my insurance after COBRA expires. With a pre-exsting condition, in many states I would have had no real option other than getting another job I didn't need just to be allowed the right to purchase insurance again. And I think that is a particularly strange incentive I am glad to see changed.
Whether all the other mess of the ACA was necessary to fix this narrow problem is an entirely different issue.
Last edited by Tyler on Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
clacy wrote:
IMO it's perfecto fine for someone to retire at whatever age they can afford to. However that cchoice shouldn't be made at someone else's expense. Workers will foot the bill either through higher taxes or higher premiums for those that are subsidized. That is a fact.
I completely agree clacy except I don't think the premiums will do it. Why would young and healthy people sign up rather than wait until they get sick. They can't be excluded due to pre-existing conditions. the penalty only works if you have a refund due. People can get around this law.
It will be direct taxes or more likely indirect taxes through inflation.
Tyler wrote:
I do believe that that someone with a preexisting condition should be able to quit their job and/or move if they can afford to without being denied the same coverage they already had.
The free market would not tie your health care to your job. The theft-based government system creates these problems and begets even more trampling of human rights like the ACA.
clacy wrote:
IMO it's perfecto fine for someone to retire at whatever age they can afford to. However that cchoice shouldn't be made at someone else's expense. Workers will foot the bill either through higher taxes or higher premiums for those that are subsidized. That is a fact.
Do you feel the same about guaranteed-issue laws and negotiated group rates on company insurance policies? Your coworkers receive benefits at your expense every day (or perhaps the other way around). And how would you feel if the company policy could drop an unprofitable paying employee (cancer patient, pregnant woman) or simply a potentially unprofitable paying employee (guy with high blood pressure that is easily treated but counts as a pre-existing condition) for spurious reasons like switching jobs within the company?
Very often, the benefits people take for granted in the corporate insurance market are the exact same ones they dislike in the individual market.
Now I don't pretend to know the best way to fix it, although I'm confident the ACA as a whole is not it. Something as simple as guaranteed-issue at normal market rates for people who have carried continuous coverage would be a great start. In any case, I do believe there's a side to "fairness" overlooked by some rightfully against other aspects of Obamacare, and we should still fix those systemic problems no matter what path we take forward.
Kshartle wrote:
The free market would not tie your health care to your job.
Completely agreed. It also would not depend on such heavy wealth transfer to make it work. I just want to have the same reasonable options as a self-employed individual that the average company employee enjoys. Not a free ride.
Last edited by Tyler on Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
America's health care industry was over-insured well before ACA. The ACA, by mandating private insurance enrollment, will only make the corruption worse.
There is a reason one can buy a new face from a plastic surgeon for a couple thousand dollars and yet pay tens of thousands of dollars for a routine steroid drip from a hospital; the former is cash-only whereas the latter is "covered" by insurance. If a plastic surgeon did not set their prices so that cash-only patients could afford it, they would have no paying customers, and would thus lose their business to plastic surgeons charging sane fees. This process does not occur when an insurance cartel inflates prices to levels where cash-only is no longer feasible.
Try to buy a bumper from a body shop with cash and one will see the same process at work; a simple piece of metal (or plastic) will run one thousands out of hand, as sloppy arbitration inflates body work to unreasonable prices. Cash-only body work is now prohibitively expensive as service providers compete to bill just-under the maximum that an insurance company will pay (the sweet spot), while the insurers attempt to extract as much money from drivers as possible while performing as little service as possible.
The only way health care prices will come down is if patients pay cash *directly* to caregivers, bypassing the thousands of insurance industry middle men and shareholders who see illness as a business opportunity. People would suffer in the short term, but prices would plummet and people could actually save for medical emergencies rather than pay into a system that makes health care ever more unaffordable.
clacy wrote:
IMO it's perfecto fine for someone to retire at whatever age they can afford to. However that cchoice shouldn't be made at someone else's expense. Workers will foot the bill either through higher taxes or higher premiums for those that are subsidized. That is a fact.
I completely agree clacy except I don't think the premiums will do it. Why would young and healthy people sign up rather than wait until they get sick. They can't be excluded due to pre-existing conditions. the penalty only works if you have a refund due. People can get around this law.
It will be direct taxes or more likely indirect taxes through inflation.
Because they are. Our small group rate has been seeing 20-35% increases for each of the last 3 years and our brokers said to expect it to be even bigger next year.
clacy wrote:
IMO it's perfecto fine for someone to retire at whatever age they can afford to. However that cchoice shouldn't be made at someone else's expense. Workers will foot the bill either through higher taxes or higher premiums for those that are subsidized. That is a fact.
Do you feel the same about guaranteed-issue laws and negotiated group rates on company insurance policies? Your coworkers receive benefits at your expense every day (or perhaps the other way around). And how would you feel if the company policy could drop an unprofitable paying employee (cancer patient, pregnant woman) or simply a potentially unprofitable paying employee (guy with high blood pressure that is easily treated but counts as a pre-existing condition) for spurious reasons like switching jobs within the company?
Very often, the benefits people take for granted in the corporate insurance market are the exact same ones they dislike in the individual market.
Now I don't pretend to know the best way to fix it, although I'm confident the ACA as a whole is not it. Something as simple as guaranteed-issue at normal market rates for people who have carried continuous coverage would be a great start. In any case, I do believe there's a side to "fairness" overlooked by some rightfully against other aspects of Obamacare, and we should still fix those systemic problems no matter what path we take forward.
I do feel differently about ELECTING to participate in a private sector insurance plan, where I choose to go to work, or to elect to be covered.
Under the ACA, the IRS forces us with tax laws to subsidize others who chose not to work and we have no recourse other than electing officials.
clacy wrote:
IMO it's perfecto fine for someone to retire at whatever age they can afford to. However that cchoice shouldn't be made at someone else's expense. Workers will foot the bill either through higher taxes or higher premiums for those that are subsidized. That is a fact.
I completely agree clacy except I don't think the premiums will do it. Why would young and healthy people sign up rather than wait until they get sick. They can't be excluded due to pre-existing conditions. the penalty only works if you have a refund due. People can get around this law.
It will be direct taxes or more likely indirect taxes through inflation.
Because they are. Our small group rate has been seeing 20-35% increases for each of the last 3 years and our brokers said to expect it to be even bigger next year.
Ohhh yes I'm sorry that's true. I was thinking about the mandate for the uninsured young people to sign up. I don't expect many to do that after they see the prices.
Kshartle wrote:
I completely agree clacy except I don't think the premiums will do it. Why would young and healthy people sign up rather than wait until they get sick. They can't be excluded due to pre-existing conditions. the penalty only works if you have a refund due. People can get around this law.
It will be direct taxes or more likely indirect taxes through inflation.
Because they are. Our small group rate has been seeing 20-35% increases for each of the last 3 years and our brokers said to expect it to be even bigger next year.
Ohhh yes I'm sorry that's true. I was thinking about the mandate for the uninsured young people to sign up. I don't expect many to do that after they see the prices.
MWKXJ wrote:
America's health care industry was over-insured well before ACA. The ACA, by mandating private insurance enrollment, will only make the corruption worse.
There is a reason one can buy a new face from a plastic surgeon for a couple thousand dollars and yet pay tens of thousands of dollars for a routine steroid drip from a hospital; the former is cash-only whereas the latter is "covered" by insurance. If a plastic surgeon did not set their prices so that cash-only patients could afford it, they would have no paying customers, and would thus lose their business to plastic surgeons charging sane fees. This process does not occur when an insurance cartel inflates prices to levels where cash-only is no longer feasible.
Try to buy a bumper from a body shop with cash and one will see the same process at work; a simple piece of metal (or plastic) will run one thousands out of hand, as sloppy arbitration inflates body work to unreasonable prices. Cash-only body work is now prohibitively expensive as service providers compete to bill just-under the maximum that an insurance company will pay (the sweet spot), while the insurers attempt to extract as much money from drivers as possible while performing as little service as possible.
The only way health care prices will come down is if patients pay cash *directly* to caregivers, bypassing the thousands of insurance industry middle men and shareholders who see illness as a business opportunity. People would suffer in the short term, but prices would plummet and people could actually save for medical emergencies rather than pay into a system that makes health care ever more unaffordable.
Have I ever noticed this to be true. The only thing more ridiculous than body shop prices, is a hospital bill. Or rather the five bills you'll get, after you were foolish enough to be sick.
It makes you wonder: who's actually getting rich off this? Is it the doctors and hospitals, who are able to bill insurance companies outrageous amounts of money? Or are they just squeaking by because their high bills offset the costs of treating people who never pay? Is it the insurance companies, who are able to charge ludicrously high prices to consumers? Or are they too just squeaking by due to the high bills they have to pay? It sure isn't consumers who are saddled with high insurance bills and even higher bills for things not covered by their insurance.
I mean, if vast sums of money are changing hands, someone has to be getting rich, right? It can't all just be going in circles or else none of the players would be getting poorer.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Pointedstick wrote:
It makes you wonder: who's actually getting rich off this? Is it the doctors and hospitals, who are able to bill insurance companies outrageous amounts of money? Or are they just squeaking by because their high bills offset the costs of treating people who never pay? Is it the insurance companies, who are able to charge ludicrously high prices to consumers? Or are they too just squeaking by due to the high bills they have to pay? It sure isn't consumers who are saddled with high insurance bills and even higher bills for things not covered by their insurance.
I mean, if vast sums of money are changing hands, someone has to be getting rich, right? It can't all just be going in circles or else none of the players would be getting poorer.
Well I imagine a few end winners are medical device and pharmaceutical companies who can charge huge prices for new technology as long as they can lobby for it to be covered by insurance. And the schools who jack up the costs of medical degrees far beyond the rate of inflation because the feds subsidize the loans and the doctors will make high enough salaries to maybe pay them off eventually. And the feds who collect taxes and campaign contributions off of everyone in the system looking for an edge or break.
