Premiums for young healthy people will jump in 45 states under Obamacare

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

    Oct 19, 2013 9:01 PM GMT
    Yeah I know, we have very few "young healthy people" in this forum, but I put this out there in case one of the "young healthy" American RJ members stumbles across this bit of bad news.

    Young people in 45 states will see their health insurance premiums increase under Obamacare because the law relies on the money they pay into the system to offset the cost of caring for older enrollees, according to a new study.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/premiums-for-young-healthy-people-will-jump-in-45-states-under-obamacare/article/2537431
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2013 10:36 PM GMT
    Here are some tables showing per capita medical expenditures per age group.

    http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/2004-age-tables.pdf

    It shows (totals, year 2004):

    0-18....$2,650
    19-44...$3,370
    45-54...$5,210
    55-64...$7,787
    65-74...$10,778
    75-84...$16,389
    85+.....$25,691

    So just going by my personal premiums at age 56 of $650/month before Obamacare (I was paying $300 or 350/month at age 50). By percentage, based on a fair share of per capita expenses, someone 19-44 would be paying $281/month, just to be fair, based upon what I pay.

    Is that what they've been paying?

    Oh, plus I pay into hospital districts through property taxes too. Thought I'd mention that added bonus.

    Total amount of my own personal medical claims over the past 10 years? $0.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2013 10:44 PM GMT
    85+.....$25,691

    this is fucking ridiculous
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2013 10:49 PM GMT
    theantijock said

    A bunch of numbers from 2004



    ^ Old (hopefully healthy though) person.




    somersault said85+.....$25,691

    this is fucking ridiculous


    ^ Young (and also hopefully healthy) person.


    Get ready to pay up, young person.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2013 10:52 PM GMT
    over 85 there's not a lot of people left

    age_fig2.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2013 10:57 PM GMT
    MisterOrally said
    theantijock said

    A bunch of numbers from 2004



    ^ Old (hopefully healthy though) person.




    somersault said85+.....$25,691

    this is fucking ridiculous


    ^ Young (and also hopefully healthy) person.


    Get ready to pay up, young person.


    ^brain dead. (hopefully someone will unplug him)

    (call me old, will ya, bitch!)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2013 11:21 PM GMT
    85+.....$25,691

    is still fucking ridiculous
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Oct 19, 2013 11:44 PM GMT
    theantijock saidHere are some tables showing per capita medical expenditures per age group.

    http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/2004-age-tables.pdf

    It shows (totals, year 2004):

    0-18....$2,650
    19-44...$3,370
    45-54...$5,210
    55-64...$7,787
    65-74...$10,778
    75-84...$16,389
    85+.....$25,691

    So just going by my personal premiums at age 56 of $650/month before Obamacare (I was paying $300 or 350/month at age 50). By percentage, based on a fair share of per capita expenses, someone 19-44 would be paying $281/month, just to be fair, based upon what I pay.

    Is that what they've been paying?

    Oh, plus I pay into hospital districts through property taxes too. Thought I'd mention that added bonus.

    Total amount of my own personal medical claims over the past 10 years? $0.


    When did you first get insurance?

    You were not obligated to pay a "fair share" when you were 18+.

    Are your costs going to go down with ACA or going to go up?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2013 11:49 PM GMT
    somersault said85+.....$25,691

    is still fucking ridiculous


    That's just the figure from 9 years ago. But if you think that's a lot of money, run from there at 3% annual for inflation (supposedly what is the average, however, my health insurance premiums have been going up a steady 15-20%, annual), but just at 3%, that translates to $160,579.07/year for your 80s. Or at the typical 15% health care inflation, you'll require $148,952,264.82/year. Good luck with that.

    I can just hear you now dishing with your fellow elders: "Remember how cheap it was to keep our grandparents alive?"

    I didn't look closely at those costs. I'd presume it includes nursing homes which are super expensive. And that's why if you look at the metta8 thread

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3491446

    you'll see us discussing more reasonable alternatives as, obviously, this is out of control.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 12:04 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    When did you first get insurance?

    You were not obligated to pay a "fair share" when you were 18+.

    Are your costs going to go down with ACA or going to go up?


    Throughout my life I have never not been fully insured. Plus all my years of working and paying into Medicare. Plus all my years of paying into hospital districts through property taxes.

    Anyone with a family is by that sense obligated to pay at all ages because otherwise you jeopardize your family's welfare who would sacrifice everything they have for you.

    As to Obamacare, I'm in an odd situation due to huge carry forward capital losses such that I've assets but wind up showing negative income. So I would need to qualify for insurance through Medicaid which Florida has not extended. Basically, as I described in another thread about this, I'm fucked. No soup for me.

    I do intend to go back into the workforce as this retirement is bullshit since my bud died; I hate this. I need to be productive & getting paid for it and participating in society more to be happy. Even then, for many years to come my income will show zero but at least I'll have the insurance benefits as part of salary, plus of course the salary, so I won't feel like I'm paying more than my fair share. And if I run into too much age discrimination on trying to procure employment, I'll just expat overseas and pay international insurance. The costs here are so stupid, I feel like such a schmuck paying them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 12:10 AM GMT
    theantijock saidI'll just expat overseas and pay international insurance. The costs here are so stupid, I feel like such a schmuck paying them.


    This got me to wondering. If an American works overseas as you suggest, are they still required to purchase insurance from an American company in the USA? (And of course that insurance would just be for seeing doctors in the USA).

    Would be an interesting absurdity - that you would be forced to buy American health insurance for you to see American doctors, but you spend all your time overseas! And if you don't purchase it, you pay the "tax."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 12:22 AM GMT
    MisterOrally said
    theantijock saidI'll just expat overseas and pay international insurance. The costs here are so stupid, I feel like such a schmuck paying them.


    This got me to wondering. If an American works overseas as you suggest, are they still required to purchase insurance from an American company in the USA? (And of course that insurance would just be for seeing doctors in the USA).

    Would be an interesting absurdity - that you would be forced to buy American health insurance for you to see American doctors, but you spend all your time overseas! And if you don't purchase it, you pay the "tax."


    I don't know but I doubt it. Though where it complicates even more so is that because our healthcare costs are so out of whack to the rest of the world, international expat insurance covers just about every country but visits here. You can get travel insurance for visits stateside so perhaps that would now be required while visiting or simply having a ticket out might satisfy that. But again, I haven't studied it that far. Just guessing.

    You raise an interesting question, not from your perspective of paying for what you don't have access to but for visiting where you are not paying.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Oct 20, 2013 12:45 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    musclmed said
    When did you first get insurance?

    You were not obligated to pay a "fair share" when you were 18+.

    Are your costs going to go down with ACA or going to go up?


    Throughout my life I have never not been fully insured. Plus all my years of working and paying into Medicare. Plus all my years of paying into hospital districts through property taxes.

    Anyone with a family is by that sense obligated to pay at all ages because otherwise you jeopardize your family's welfare who would sacrifice everything they have for you.

    As to Obamacare, I'm in an odd situation due to huge carry forward capital losses such that I've assets but wind up showing negative income. So I would need to qualify for insurance through Medicaid which Florida has not extended. Basically, as I described in another thread about this, I'm fucked. No soup for me.

    I do intend to go back into the workforce as this retirement is bullshit since my bud died; I hate this. I need to be productive & getting paid for it and participating in society more to be happy. Even then, for many years to come my income will show zero but at least I'll have the insurance benefits as part of salary, plus of course the salary, so I won't feel like I'm paying more than my fair share. And if I run into too much age discrimination on trying to procure employment, I'll just expat overseas and pay international insurance. The costs here are so stupid, I feel like such a schmuck paying them.


    You know i was at a health forum and one of the speakers talked about your particular situation. It shows a dumb weakness of the law.

    Couldnt you have an accountant structure things so it make it look like you had a salary? So you can get the max subsidy. You sort of fall off into the void.

    Next ? which is an even easier proposition. Is it a criminal offense to say you had income on your taxes when you didnt, in an effort to pay "more" tax? If it isnt wouldn't it make sense to make yourself just at the point of a subsidy?

    Even if Florida was doing the Medicaid expansion you would be better off with the lowest Bronze level over medicaid. Medicaid is a broken system. You wont be able to find any doctors taking it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 1:52 AM GMT
    musclmed saidYou know i was at a health forum and one of the speakers talked about your particular situation. It shows a dumb weakness of the law.

    Couldnt you have an accountant structure things so it make it look like you had a salary? So you can get the max subsidy. You sort of fall off into the void.

    Next ? which is an even easier proposition. Is it a criminal offense to say you had income on your taxes when you didnt, in an effort to pay "more" tax? If it isnt wouldn't it make sense to make yourself just at the point of a subsidy?

    Even if Florida was doing the Medicaid expansion you would be better off with the lowest Bronze level over medicaid. Medicaid is a broken system. You wont be able to find any doctors taking it.


    I could reduce costs just by buying cheaper stuff in the private market and I intend to do that, or I'll look at some of the plans sans subsidy. Has to be better than what I've got. I prefer carrying the best but I'm not of unlimited funds, have sustained huge losses (more than I can make up in what remains of my life) and I simply am disgusted by the prices.

    I'm still 9 years away from Medicare so if it continues from here at 20% per year by the time I'm 65 I'd be paying $40/k year just for a high deduct health insurance? I'd rather burn that money and kill myself than hand it over. This is bullshit.

    If I opted into an international health care provider--which I'd have to do before I get too old, or they lock ya out--at this point, I'd probably be paying about $250/month and out of pocket would be negligible. We Americans really are patsies, paying for this shit.

    As to any ideas you've proposed of fudging numbers. No thank you. Never have, never would. Besides that I'm not like that anyway, I certainly would not fuck with the feds. That's how they got Capone, ya know.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Oct 21, 2013 3:17 AM GMT
    theantijock saidHere are some tables showing per capita medical expenditures per age group.

    http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/2004-age-tables.pdf

    It shows (totals, year 2004):

    0-18....$2,650
    19-44...$3,370
    45-54...$5,210
    55-64...$7,787
    65-74...$10,778
    75-84...$16,389
    85+.....$25,691

    So just going by my personal premiums at age 56 of $650/month before Obamacare (I was paying $300 or 350/month at age 50). By percentage, based on a fair share of per capita expenses, someone 19-44 would be paying $281/month, just to be fair, based upon what I pay.

    Is that what they've been paying?

    Oh, plus I pay into hospital districts through property taxes too. Thought I'd mention that added bonus.

    Total amount of my own personal medical claims over the past 10 years? $0.



    Again the chart you quoted is per capita personal expenditure. It leaves out the full bill. Basically how much a person spend on healthcare.

    It leaves out care of course someone who skipped on a ER bill and of course someone who had the bill paid for by insurance. It does contemplate copays and the premiums.


    in the same PDF page down and you see the total public expenditures.

    The total expenditure from the 19-44 demographic to the 50+ demographic is almost 10 times in total cost.


    The 281 amount you calculated is incorrect because it is using out of pocket expenses. The ratio of out of pocket expenses would lead to a 281 amount. But it doesnt count all the other monies paid by insurance, public and private entities.

    The cost of heath care abruptly rises after 45 then takes off. If you use the 600 dollar amount a 19 year old should be paying about 1/10 the amount.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 4:35 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    Again the chart you quoted is per capita personal expenditure. It leaves out the full bill. Basically how much a person spend on healthcare.

    It leaves out care of course someone who skipped on a ER bill and of course someone who had the bill paid for by insurance. It does contemplate copays and the premiums.


    in the same PDF page down and you see the total public expenditures.

    The total expenditure from the 19-44 demographic to the 50+ demographic is almost 10 times in total cost.


    The 281 amount you calculated is incorrect because it is using out of pocket expenses. The ratio of out of pocket expenses would lead to a 281 amount. But it doesnt count all the other monies paid by insurance, public and private entities.

    The cost of heath care abruptly rises after 45 then takes off. If you use the 600 dollar amount a 19 year old should be paying about 1/10 the amount.


    There's a lot of numbers there. I thought I found the right thing. What I showed says "Personal Health Care Spending by Age Group and Source of Payment, Calendar Year 2004". How is that not, as you say, "how much a person (spent) on healthcare"? That seems to me exactly what it is. Explain.

    How do you know it leaves off the full bill? Where does it specify that please?

    How do you know it leaves off those who skip out on ER bills? Perhaps they had age data and included the costs there? Where does it say what you are saying? Where's your information from please?

    I'm not saying you are not correct, but if you are--and I don't know that--I'd like for you to show me why you are correct, if you do not mind. I was just looking for some stats. If you have better info easily referenced, I'd appreciate seeing that.

    How do you know that the total per capita doesn't include copays and premiums. I myself would have though it didn't include premiums but I'd have though copays were included as that seems a part of the direct healthcare expense. Though I know I don't know that. How do you know what you say you know? Where does it say that?

    Total costs says only one thing, what total costs were. I would think you would want to know at least also what is the population size of each group in order to determine the per capita expenses so that you could judge if individuals were paying for their share of benefits received.

    And, again, what I thought I posted as a list of the per capita expenses by age. How is that then not what was spent? If you've other information, please back up your ascensions. I'm not saying that to be a douche. I would simply like to understand what you are talking about. Thanx.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Oct 21, 2013 2:06 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    musclmed said


    The cost of heath care abruptly rises after 45 then takes off. If you use the 600 dollar amount a 19 year old should be paying about 1/10 the amount.



    I'm not saying you are not correct, but if you are--and I don't know that--I'd like for you to show me why you are correct, if you do not mind. I was just looking for some stats. If you have better info easily referenced, I'd appreciate seeing that.


    And, again, what I thought I posted as a list of the per capita expenses by age. How is that then not what was spent? If you've other information, please back up your ascensions. I'm not saying that to be a douche. I would simply like to understand what you are talking about. Thanx.


    Ok, first what drew me in to take a second look was the calculation of what was "fair" based on what you paid at age 50 and the proportion based on the ration from that data.

    Using that data it would seem that the 19-44 use a fair amount in healthcare dollars. First clue, everyone knows this to be incorrect.

    So i found the exact pdf you got it from . The last time the data was collected was 2004. And it is the PER CAPITA PERSONAL SPENDING. What the report was comparing is how much people are spending out of pocket for healthcare. OOP is exactly what they pay in copays insurance fees and not covered fees. The report also happens to list the other entities paying as well. Even though older people have higher out of pocket spending, it is dwarfed by medicare and other entities, So its not really the total bill.

    It also doesn't contemplate what insurance rates. But you can tease it out from the data in that pdf. Younger people are insured less.

    Example a 25 year old who has a 1000 OOP spending may have just had 1 bill that was 1000 dollars. But a 50 year old 1000 a year in a insurance bills/copays. This 1000 is the same across both groups. It doesn't cost the 50 year old a 1000 dollars to treat him. It may cost 20,000 in actual health care dollars used because this is what the insurance company payed out.

    Still OOP is higher as people get older. As you showed. Last the grouping 19-44 contemplates a grouping of 25 . Comparing to the 10 in 45-54 grouping. A 2.5x difference.

    So even if we wanted to use this data a FAIR number would be to decrease the 280 number by 2.5. 112 or so.

    You can look at the data from http://www.healthcostinstitute.org/2011report
    Comparing the median numbers from the 19-44 it takes about 4-5x amount of money to treat the 45-54 group.



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

    Oct 21, 2013 3:38 PM GMT
    musclmed said...What the report was comparing is how much people are spending out of pocket for healthcare...


    I believe that is incorrect. See my other post in the other thread for an explanation of that, as re-discussing the same shit here is beyond stupid and I'm done with it.

    PS. you did not provide the information I requested. You can either provide the information directly and with the citation or be gone. I'm not thumbing through an entire website on your behalf (the link in your post).
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Oct 21, 2013 7:35 PM GMT
    information is in the link to pdf . Scroll down its 2011 data.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 8:08 PM GMT
    link is 23 pages long. I did find in your link per capita info which seems to reflect closely what I already posted from the link I previously showed.

    http://www.healthcostinstitute.org/files/HCCI_HCCUR2011.pdf

    (showing 2009 dollars)

    Per Capita** by Age
    18 and Under $ 2,063
    19-44 $ 3,368
    45-54 $ 5,518
    55-64 $ 8,139

    I'll be responding similarly but with a slightly different bent to focus on something else you said in the other thread. Then I'm done with this nonsense. Seems that more proves my point then it does yours. And that's from your link not mine.

    **What is Per Capita
    Spending?
    Per capita expenditure is the average dollars
    spent for a category of services per
    beneficiary. This average includes beneficiaries
    who did not use any service.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Oct 22, 2013 2:16 AM GMT
    theantijock saidlink is 23 pages long. I did find in your link per capita info which seems to reflect closely what I already posted from the link I previously showed.

    http://www.healthcostinstitute.org/files/HCCI_HCCUR2011.pdf

    (showing 2009 dollars)

    Per Capita** by Age
    18 and Under $ 2,063
    19-44 $ 3,368
    45-54 $ 5,518
    55-64 $ 8,139

    I'll be responding similarly but with a slightly different bent to focus on something else you said in the other thread. Then I'm done with this nonsense. Seems that more proves my point then it does yours. And that's from your link not mine.

    **What is Per Capita
    Spending?
    Per capita expenditure is the average dollars
    spent for a category of services per
    beneficiary. This average includes beneficiaries
    who did not use any service.


    You seem to fail to understand the group 19-44 is the mean average of a large group. You would find the group 19-29 group utilizes the LOWEST amount of healthcare per capita.

    Your 280 "fair" amount is not only based on old 2004 data. But its charging a 19 year old, a 44 year olds prices.