Why the young will pay disproportionately for ObamaCare

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2013 1:56 PM GMT
    It's math.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/obama-healthcare-young-people

    The passionate supporters are the youth, who voted for him by a margin of 60% to 36%, according to exit poll samples of people 29 and under. His enemies are the elderly: Mitt Romney won 56% of the votes from people 65 and over. And while one of ObamaCare's earliest provisions was a boon to the young, allowing them to stay on their parents' insurance through the age of 26, what follows may come as an unpleasant surprise to many of the president's supporters. The provisions required to make any sort of health insurance plan work — not just ObamaCare, but really any plan of its sort — require healthy young people to pay more in health insurance than they consume in services, while the elderly (saved by Sarah "Death Panels" Palin from any serious attempt to ration expensive and often futile end-of-life care) consume far more than they pay in. There is always a push and pull, however, and this year will be spent laying plans to shift the burden further toward the young.

    State and federal officials and the health care industry are currently preparing to implement two specific ObamaCare provisions taking effect on January 1, 2014, acting on this politically perverse principle of shifting resources from your supporters to your opponents. The first is the individual mandate, which aims to force the young, childless, and healthy — "Young Invincibles," as they are said to think of themselves — to buy heath insurance, even if they think (and even perhaps make a rational, if risky, bet) that they don't need it.

    The second is a lesser-known policy to limit the practices of charging different premiums to different ages, known as age-rating. Many states currently set a limit on this difference, often mandating that an old person shouldn't pay a premium more than five times a younger person's, even if she's expected to use more than five times as much health care. The ObamaCare provision kicking in next January 1 would reduce that ratio to three-to-one, essentially limiting what the elderly pay in part by forcing young people to carry a larger share of the total cost of national health care.
  • Jerebear

    Posts: 329

    Feb 11, 2013 6:20 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidIt's math.


    Its also how all insurance of any kind works. People who dont use the service pay for people who do.

    Does the article talk about the fact that younger people are more likely to qualify for the medicaid subsidy because on average they have a lower income and are more likely to have no-benefit mcjobs?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2013 9:14 PM GMT
    Jerebear said
    riddler78 saidIt's math.


    Its also how all insurance of any kind works. People who dont use the service pay for people who do.

    Does the article talk about the fact that younger people are more likely to qualify for the medicaid subsidy because on average they have a lower income and are more likely to have no-benefit mcjobs?


    Except Obamacare isn't so much insurance as it becomes simply a tax. I'd expect that ultimately you'll find that it will operate something like social security where the young pay more for benefits they themselves will never see.

    The article also doesn't talk about how there will likely be more mcjobs given the penalties under Obamacare for employers with more than 50 employees. There will as a result, be far more part time employees and contractors. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - but it something that should be acknowledged.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Feb 11, 2013 9:21 PM GMT
    In the long run Obamacare will fail. I for one am thankful I do not have to deal with it.

    Good luck!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2013 9:29 PM GMT
    conservativejock saidIn the long run Obamacare will fail. I for one am thankful I do not have to deal with it.

    Good luck!!


    Fail to do what? Reduce the cost inflation that is about to bankrupt all of us?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2013 9:37 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    conservativejock saidIn the long run Obamacare will fail. I for one am thankful I do not have to deal with it.

    Good luck!!


    Fail to do what? Reduce the cost inflation that is about to bankrupt all of us?


    What mechanism do in Obamacare do you think will somehow stop this from happening?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2013 10:47 PM GMT
    Jerebear said
    riddler78 saidIt's math.


    Its also how all insurance of any kind works. People who dont use the service pay for people who do.

    Does the article talk about the fact that younger people are more likely to qualify for the medicaid subsidy because on average they have a lower income and are more likely to have no-benefit mcjobs?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2013 10:52 PM GMT
    Jerebear said
    riddler78 saidIt's math.


    Its also how all insurance of any kind works. People who dont use the service pay for people who do.



    When insurance does it, it's gooooood.

    When gov't copies it and does the same it's commie pinko socialism. icon_lol.gif

    In a moment of exquisite irony, the very people that Riddie wants you to think are paying disproportionately are the same people who can't find jobs, so won't be paying disproportionately, as companies like Riddler's continue to offshore US jobs that would have provided them with an income and an entrance into the workforce. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2013 9:52 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    Jerebear said
    riddler78 saidIt's math.


    Its also how all insurance of any kind works. People who dont use the service pay for people who do.



    When insurance does it, it's gooooood.

    When gov't copies it and does the same it's commie pinko socialism. icon_lol.gif

    In a moment of exquisite irony, the very people that Riddie wants you to think are paying disproportionately are the same people who can't find jobs, so won't be paying disproportionately, as companies like Riddler's continue to offshore US jobs that would have provided them with an income and an entrance into the workforce. icon_lol.gif


    Again, the only thing that's funny is how ignorant you are - both about how insurance and finance work but also about what I do. Nevertheless, you can't seem to get around the fact that this bill is not only unsustainable but it socializes risks - such that it's the young who will pay for the old.

    Let's not forget that you're the one who thought that social security is sustainable. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2013 10:04 PM GMT
    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif

    When a stupid person tells me I'm dumb or stupid, well, I laugh.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2013 11:38 PM GMT
    meninlove said icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif

    When a stupid person tells me I'm dumb or stupid, well, I laugh.


    Heh - oh Doug. Better luck next time icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2013 3:35 AM GMT
    "Will young adults face ‘rate shock’ because of the health-care law?"

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/will-young-adults-face-rate-shock-because-of-the-health-care-law/2013/02/15/1a12bbae-70a6-11e2-a050-b83a7b35c4b5_story.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzheads

    Many young, healthy Americans could soon see a jump in their health insurance costs, and insurance companies are saying: It’s not our fault.

    The nation’s insurers are engaged in an all-out, last-ditch effort to shield themselves from blame for what they predict will be rate increases on policies they must unveil this spring to comply with President Obama’s health-care law.

    Insurers point to several reasons that premiums will rise. They will soon be required to offer more-comprehensive coverage than many currently provide. Also, their costs will increase because they will be barred from rejecting the sick, and they will no longer be allowed to charge older customers sharply higher premiums than younger ones.

    Supporters of the law counter that concerns about price hikes are overstated, partly because federal subsidies will cushion the blow.

    The insurers’ public relations blitz is being propelled by a growing cast of executives, lobbyists, conservative activists and state health officials. They increasingly use the same catchphrase — “rate shock” — to warn about the potential for price surges.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2013 4:56 AM GMT
    Ah you funny Americans and your strange ideas. lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2013 9:44 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif

    When a stupid person tells me I'm dumb or stupid, well, I laugh.


    Heh - oh Doug. Better luck next time icon_wink.gif


    *reads sentence that makes no sense*

    Ohhkayyyy.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2013 7:15 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Jerebear said
    riddler78 saidIt's math.


    Its also how all insurance of any kind works. People who dont use the service pay for people who do.

    Does the article talk about the fact that younger people are more likely to qualify for the medicaid subsidy because on average they have a lower income and are more likely to have no-benefit mcjobs?


    The article also doesn't talk about how there will likely be more mcjobs given the penalties under Obamacare for employers with more than 50 employees. There will as a result, be far more part time employees and contractors. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - but it something that should be acknowledged.


    Obamacare requires employers with 50 or more employees to offer health insurance for the employees to pay for. It does not require employers to pay for the employees' health insurance premiums.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2013 1:30 AM GMT
    sfbayguy said
    riddler78 said
    Jerebear said
    riddler78 saidIt's math.


    Its also how all insurance of any kind works. People who dont use the service pay for people who do.

    Does the article talk about the fact that younger people are more likely to qualify for the medicaid subsidy because on average they have a lower income and are more likely to have no-benefit mcjobs?


    The article also doesn't talk about how there will likely be more mcjobs given the penalties under Obamacare for employers with more than 50 employees. There will as a result, be far more part time employees and contractors. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - but it something that should be acknowledged.


    Obamacare requires employers with 50 or more employees to offer health insurance for the employees to pay for. It does not require employers to pay for the employees' health insurance premiums.


    Except that the employee's share of the employee only portion of premium can't exceed 9.5% of the employee's income (I know I'm oversimplifying a bit and there are some safe harbors) or the employer will still face a tax penalty. Therefore, many employers will likely have to subsidize a substantial portion of the premiums or face paying the tax penalty for the insurance offered not being affordable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2013 8:32 AM GMT
    Sashaman said
    sfbayguy said
    riddler78 said
    Jerebear said
    riddler78 saidIt's math.


    Its also how all insurance of any kind works. People who dont use the service pay for people who do.

    Does the article talk about the fact that younger people are more likely to qualify for the medicaid subsidy because on average they have a lower income and are more likely to have no-benefit mcjobs?


    The article also doesn't talk about how there will likely be more mcjobs given the penalties under Obamacare for employers with more than 50 employees. There will as a result, be far more part time employees and contractors. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - but it something that should be acknowledged.


    Obamacare requires employers with 50 or more employees to offer health insurance for the employees to pay for. It does not require employers to pay for the employees' health insurance premiums.


    Except that the employee's share of the employee only portion of premium can't exceed 9.5% of the employee's income (I know I'm oversimplifying a bit and there are some safe harbors) or the employer will still face a tax penalty. Therefore, many employers will likely have to subsidize a substantial portion of the premiums or face paying the tax penalty for the insurance offered not being affordable.


    If someone is paid the federal minimum wage and works a 2,000 hour year, that's $1,208.33 per month. 9.5% of that is $114.79. I just checked ehealthinsurance.com and there are plans available that cost less than that. And that's for an individual looking on the open market. It would be less on an employer plan due to the group rates.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2013 10:24 AM GMT
    sfbayguy said
    Sashaman said
    sfbayguy said
    riddler78 said
    Jerebear said
    riddler78 saidIt's math.


    Its also how all insurance of any kind works. People who dont use the service pay for people who do.

    Does the article talk about the fact that younger people are more likely to qualify for the medicaid subsidy because on average they have a lower income and are more likely to have no-benefit mcjobs?


    The article also doesn't talk about how there will likely be more mcjobs given the penalties under Obamacare for employers with more than 50 employees. There will as a result, be far more part time employees and contractors. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - but it something that should be acknowledged.


    Obamacare requires employers with 50 or more employees to offer health insurance for the employees to pay for. It does not require employers to pay for the employees' health insurance premiums.


    Except that the employee's share of the employee only portion of premium can't exceed 9.5% of the employee's income (I know I'm oversimplifying a bit and there are some safe harbors) or the employer will still face a tax penalty. Therefore, many employers will likely have to subsidize a substantial portion of the premiums or face paying the tax penalty for the insurance offered not being affordable.


    If someone is paid the federal minimum wage and works a 2,000 hour year, that's $1,208.33 per month. 9.5% of that is $114.79. I just checked ehealthinsurance.com and there are plans available that cost less than that. And that's for an individual looking on the open market. It would be less on an employer plan due to the group rates.


    But full time under healthcare reform is defined at 30 hours of service a week (130 hours per month in terms of how it will likely be regulated). Therefore, the 9.5% threshold could be $89.54 per month. Also, it can't be just any old health insurance that is being offered but, rather, insurance that meets certain levels of coverage. The $114.79 a month plan may or may not. Many group health plans have monthly premiums of a few to several hundred dollars a month for employee only coverage. My point is that, as a practical matter, employers will likely be subsidizing a great deal of the coverage. While, in theory, "it does not require employers to pay for the employees' health insurance premiums," that probably won't be the way it actually works.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2013 2:55 AM GMT
    http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamacare-nothing-brag-about

    Insurance premiums are set to explode. Already health insurers, citing the increased cost of various Obamacare provisions, are seeking and winning double-digit premium hikes. For example, California health insurers are proposing increases for some customers of 20 percent or more: 26 percent by Blue Cross, 22 percent by Aetna, and 20 percent by Blue Shield.

    Young people are especially likely to face higher premiums. Obamacare’s “community rating” provisions prohibit changing premiums based on health status and limit the degree to which insurers can charge based on age. Thus, premiums will rise more slowly for older and sicker individuals, but will shoot up for young people. According to a survey by the American Action Forum, healthy young people in the individual or small-group insurance markets can look forward to rate increases averaging 169 percent.


    The president’s health-care law increasingly does less and costs more.”
    Further, a study in the American Academy of Actuaries’ magazine found that 80 percent of young adults aged 18–29 not eligible for Medicaid will face higher costs, and that 20- to 29-year-olds on the individual market not eligible for subsidies will see their premiums increase 42 percent.

    New federal subsidies will offset rising premiums to some degree. But that will only further drive up the law’s already rising price tag. The cost of the average exchange subsidy per person is now projected to be $5,510 in 2014, $700 more than it was projected to be last year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2013 12:55 AM GMT
    There are many cheap insurance plans you can purchase yourself, but what are your MD and specialist co-pays, how much are prescriptions, what is the yearly deductible? Some plans have low monthly premiums but you pay for it on the other end. There are companies that are already downgrading full timers to part timers to avoid having to provide insurance, and some smaller companies who've wanted to add employees and enlarge have decided not to.

    Working people want insurance and other benefits, but not all companies can provide all the perks they did before; some are cutting back on vacation and sick time, lowering company contributions to 401K plans or not contributing to any retirement plans at all.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Feb 22, 2013 1:17 AM GMT
    Social Security is basically the same. You don't pay into an account that is set aside just for you. You're paying for people using it now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2013 6:09 AM GMT
    Sashaman said
    sfbayguy said
    Sashaman said
    sfbayguy said
    riddler78 said
    Jerebear said
    riddler78 saidIt's math.


    Its also how all insurance of any kind works. People who dont use the service pay for people who do.

    Does the article talk about the fact that younger people are more likely to qualify for the medicaid subsidy because on average they have a lower income and are more likely to have no-benefit mcjobs?


    The article also doesn't talk about how there will likely be more mcjobs given the penalties under Obamacare for employers with more than 50 employees. There will as a result, be far more part time employees and contractors. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - but it something that should be acknowledged.


    Obamacare requires employers with 50 or more employees to offer health insurance for the employees to pay for. It does not require employers to pay for the employees' health insurance premiums.


    Except that the employee's share of the employee only portion of premium can't exceed 9.5% of the employee's income (I know I'm oversimplifying a bit and there are some safe harbors) or the employer will still face a tax penalty. Therefore, many employers will likely have to subsidize a substantial portion of the premiums or face paying the tax penalty for the insurance offered not being affordable.


    If someone is paid the federal minimum wage and works a 2,000 hour year, that's $1,208.33 per month. 9.5% of that is $114.79. I just checked ehealthinsurance.com and there are plans available that cost less than that. And that's for an individual looking on the open market. It would be less on an employer plan due to the group rates.


    But full time under healthcare reform is defined at 30 hours of service a week (130 hours per month in terms of how it will likely be regulated). Therefore, the 9.5% threshold could be $89.54 per month. Also, it can't be just any old health insurance that is being offered but, rather, insurance that meets certain levels of coverage. The $114.79 a month plan may or may not. Many group health plans have monthly premiums of a few to several hundred dollars a month for employee only coverage. My point is that, as a practical matter, employers will likely be subsidizing a great deal of the coverage. While, in theory, "it does not require employers to pay for the employees' health insurance premiums," that probably won't be the way it actually works.


    So you've demonstrated that in addition to the lower-cost plans I've mentioned, there are more expensive plans. Yes, there are Volkswagen Jettas and there are Audi S8s. There's the Toyota Yaris and the Lexus Lexus LFA Nürburgring. So? BTW, there are plans even lower in cost than $89.54 per month, particularly in states with lower cost of living. The search I did was for San Francisco, in a state with more heavily regulated and higher cost health insurance premiums than other states. And incidentally, the minimum wage in San Francisco is higher than the national minimum wage.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Mar 04, 2013 6:24 AM GMT
    sfbayguy said
    Sashaman said
    sfbayguy said
    Sashaman said
    sfbayguy said
    riddler78 said
    Jerebear said
    riddler78 saidIt's math.


    Its also how all insurance of any kind works. People who dont use the service pay for people who do.

    Does the article talk about the fact that younger people are more likely to qualify for the medicaid subsidy because on average they have a lower income and are more likely to have no-benefit mcjobs?


    The article also doesn't talk about how there will likely be more mcjobs given the penalties under Obamacare for employers with more than 50 employees. There will as a result, be far more part time employees and contractors. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - but it something that should be acknowledged.


    Obamacare requires employers with 50 or more employees to offer health insurance for the employees to pay for. It does not require employers to pay for the employees' health insurance premiums.


    Except that the employee's share of the employee only portion of premium can't exceed 9.5% of the employee's income (I know I'm oversimplifying a bit and there are some safe harbors) or the employer will still face a tax penalty. Therefore, many employers will likely have to subsidize a substantial portion of the premiums or face paying the tax penalty for the insurance offered not being affordable.


    If someone is paid the federal minimum wage and works a 2,000 hour year, that's $1,208.33 per month. 9.5% of that is $114.79. I just checked ehealthinsurance.com and there are plans available that cost less than that. And that's for an individual looking on the open market. It would be less on an employer plan due to the group rates.


    But full time under healthcare reform is defined at 30 hours of service a week (130 hours per month in terms of how it will likely be regulated). Therefore, the 9.5% threshold could be $89.54 per month. Also, it can't be just any old health insurance that is being offered but, rather, insurance that meets certain levels of coverage. The $114.79 a month plan may or may not. Many group health plans have monthly premiums of a few to several hundred dollars a month for employee only coverage. My point is that, as a practical matter, employers will likely be subsidizing a great deal of the coverage. While, in theory, "it does not require employers to pay for the employees' health insurance premiums," that probably won't be the way it actually works.


    So you've demonstrated that in addition to the lower-cost plans I've mentioned, there are more expensive plans. Yes, there are Volkswagen Jettas and there are Audi S8s. There's the Toyota Yaris and the Lexus Lexus LFA Nürburgring. So? BTW, there are plans even lower in cost than $89.54 per month, particularly in states with lower cost of living. The search I did was for San Francisco, in a state with more heavily regulated and higher cost health insurance premiums than other states. And incidentally, the minimum wage in San Francisco is higher than the national minimum wage.


    I get your point but in California the biggest provider would be blue cross, 90 bucks a month is likely a 7500-10,000 deductible plan. Its better than nothing but unless you are severely ill, it wont be any use.

    If it would have been Constitutional to demand every citizen to carry insurance why not just have people buy plans on Ehealthinsurance.com?

    Why do we need the Trillion dollar government infrastructure to do just that?
    All of the exchanges , regulations and rules yet to be written.

    Is it because of t government's track record of efficiency icon_smile.gif