Keeping your old health insurance policy isn't an option

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

    Oct 20, 2013 3:34 PM GMT
    Here's another report proving that the American people were sold a bunch of lies by the President.

    WASHINGTON — Health insurance companies are sending notices of cancellation to hundreds of thousands of people who buy their own coverage, frustrating some consumers who want to keep what they have and forcing others to buy more expensive policies.

    Insurers say the cancellations are necessary because the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1.




    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 5:01 PM GMT
    a-obama-shh.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 7:45 PM GMT
    The Worst Part for you, SB, is that

    Foreskin-Restoration Surgery is not covered.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 8:46 PM GMT
    Foreskinner saidThe Worst Part for you, SB, is that

    Foreskin-Restoration Surgery is not covered.

    Or brain, heart and soul implant.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 9:18 PM GMT
    MisterOrally saida-obama-shh.jpg


    Oh the same old same old SouthBeach postings...

    ...and of course the pic clinches it. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 9:33 PM GMT
    smartmoney said
    Foreskinner saidThe Worst Part for you, SB, is that

    Foreskin-Restoration Surgery is not covered.

    Or brain, heart and soul implant.


    Those are indeed his other deficiencies but he doesn't care.

    Poor Southbeach is completely obsessed with regrowing his foreskin. It's another form of his magical thinking.

    SB, on the bright side, your foreskin will return before Ted Cruz takes the oath of the presidency.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 9:44 PM GMT
    Seems so far my old health care might be my option. Just started the application process so I don't know yet what else might be available. But so far, based upon my negative adjusted gross income I received the following:

    What are the results of my application?

    Based on the information you provided, the new federal health care law provides that you could be eligible for free or low cost health care through Medicaid. However, the state of FL has chosen not to offer you this new health care coverage at this time.

    You are not required to pay a penalty for not having health insurance because of your income and because the state of FL declined to expand Medicaid to cover individuals in your situation.


    No soup for me.

    Just read this

    You can still choose, but are not required, to buy health coverage through the Health
    Insurance Marketplace, but unfortunately you do not qualify for help in paying for health coverage
    through the Marketplace.


    So I'm going shopping. Will see if costs are reduced or increased in a moment....

    okay, this is what I got on the next page...

    ???ffe.ee.toDoList.notEnrolled???

    huh? what am I supposed to do with that?

    okay, I gotta figure this out. Will report here my potential savings (or increases) later.

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

    Oct 20, 2013 10:42 PM GMT
    theantijock saidSeems so far my old health care might be my option. Just started the application process so I don't know yet what else might be available. But so far, based upon my negative adjusted gross income I received the following:

    What are the results of my application?

    Based on the information you provided, the new federal health care law provides that you could be eligible for free or low cost health care through Medicaid. However, the state of FL has chosen not to offer you this new health care coverage at this time.

    You are not required to pay a penalty for not having health insurance because of your income and because the state of FL declined to expand Medicaid to cover individuals in your situation.


    No soup for me.

    Just read this

    You can still choose, but are not required, to buy health coverage through the Health
    Insurance Marketplace, but unfortunately you do not qualify for help in paying for health coverage
    through the Marketplace.


    So I'm going shopping. Will see if costs are reduced or increased in a moment....

    okay, this is what I got on the next page...

    ???ffe.ee.toDoList.notEnrolled???

    huh? what am I supposed to do with that?

    okay, I gotta figure this out. Will report here my potential savings (or increases) later.



    Thanks for sharing the info. I think that ???ffe.ee.toDoList.notEnrolled??? is one of the many (many) bugs in the Obamacare website.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 10:52 PM GMT
    Their website kind of sucks but with patience it seems to work.

    Their plans seem slightly less expensive than what I'm paying but I just looked quickly so far.

    Also most of what they offer are hmo's which I'm not crazy about.

    Currently looking at a BlueCross at my current premium of about 650. It shows a deduct of $850 and max out of pocket after copay/coins. of $2500. Currently I've a $5k deduct with no other costs.

    The bronze max out of pockets are about 6200-6300 for a premium of 370 to 560 depending on plan

    The silver similar max out of packet plans cost 440-670

    Gold runs 480 to 720 for between 2600 to 6250 out of pocket. At quick glance they've got a one very close to my existing private plan 630 month for 3000 deduct with 5000 max pay.

    The platinum plans look mostly more expensive than what I currently pay, up to nearly $800/month.

    So from my quick look at it today, my feeling is that I can probably get similar savings just by shopping the private market. I don't see the argument made by the OP that costs are being shifted to younger payers. Seems pretty damned expensive still for me.

    The very best plan in Thailand (I just checked) with the most reputable company is just under $300/month for full coverage (minus preexisting).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 11:09 PM GMT
    theantijock saidTheir website kind of sucks but with patience it seems to work.

    Their plans seem slightly less expensive than what I'm paying but I just looked quickly so far.

    Also most of what they offer are hmo's which I'm not crazy about.

    Currently looking at a BlueCross at my current premium of about 650. It shows a deduct of $850 and max out of pocket after copay/coins. of $2500. Currently I've a $5k deduct with no other costs.

    The bronze max out of pockets are about 6200-6300 for a premium of 370 to 560 depending on plan

    The silver similar max out of packet plans cost 440-670

    Gold runs 480 to 720 for between 2600 to 6250 out of pocket. At quick glance they've got a one very close to my existing private plan 630 month for 3000 deduct with 5000 max pay.

    The platinum plans look mostly more expensive than what I currently pay, up to nearly $800/month.

    So from my quick look at it today, my feeling is that I can probably get similar savings just by shopping the private market. I don't see the argument made by the OP that costs are being shifted to younger payers. Seems pretty damned expensive still for me.

    The very best plan in Thailand (I just checked) with the most reputable company is just under $300/month for full coverage (minus preexisting).


    Yes, it does seem expensive.

    The argument is that in the past younger people had the right to choose whether or not they would purchase health insurance. Most did not (for reasons like they aren't earning so much at that point in their lives, they are relatively healthy and not users of health insurance).

    Now, young people are going from potentially paying nothing to having to pay something, and the something is a pretty big bite out of their already low paychecks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 11:30 PM GMT
    MisterOrally saidYes, it does seem expensive.

    The argument is that in the past younger people had the right to choose whether or not they would purchase health insurance. Most did not (for reasons like they aren't earning so much at that point in their lives, they are relatively healthy and not users of health insurance).

    Now, young people are going from potentially paying nothing to having to pay something, and the something is a pretty big bite out of their already low paychecks.


    That bullshit don't stick. It is not that younger people didn't have to pay before as older people didn't have to pay before either. Yet by the chart you saw when I posted elsewhere, by ratio of per capita costs of health care dollars spent on each cohort, where someone my age might be paying 650/month, someone younger should have been paying at least 300/month when they were paying nothing.

    Them having been paying nothing did not alter the per capita costs spent on them during that time. So your argument is bullshit. Not only that, but the per capita costs might even have been skewed lower by prior lack of access. I would not be surprised to see those differences tighten a bit now that they're required to pay their way too.

    Much of the money spent on the younger, as the per capita expenses show was spent, likely was them getting emergency treatment, et al, picked up by the public tax and older premium payers. Now I don't believe for one second that this will reduce any of those costs to we who have been paying our way all along. I think that's all bullshit too. This is gonna be pure fucking profit for the healthcare industry. So there's a perfectly legitimate bitch in this. You don't have to make stuff up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 11:34 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    MisterOrally saidYes, it does seem expensive.

    The argument is that in the past younger people had the right to choose whether or not they would purchase health insurance. Most did not (for reasons like they aren't earning so much at that point in their lives, they are relatively healthy and not users of health insurance).

    Now, young people are going from potentially paying nothing to having to pay something, and the something is a pretty big bite out of their already low paychecks.


    That bullshit don't stick. It is not that younger people didn't have to pay before as older people didn't have to pay before either. Yet by the chart you saw when I posted elsewhere, by ratio of per capita costs of health care dollars spent on each cohort, where someone my age might be paying 650/month, someone younger should have been paying at least 300/month when they were paying nothing.

    Them having been paying nothing did not alter the per capita costs spent on them during that time. So your argument is bullshit. Not only that, but the per capita costs might even have been skewed lower by prior lack of access. I would not be surprised to see those differences tighten a bit now that they're required to pay their way too.

    Much of the money spent on the younger, as the per capita expenses show was spent, likely was them getting emergency treatment, et al, picked up by the public tax and older premium payers. Now I don't believe for one second that this will reduce any of those costs to we who have been paying our way all along. I think that's all bullshit too. This is gonna be pure fucking profit for the healthcare industry. So there's a perfectly legitimate bitch in this. You don't have to make stuff up.


    It's just common sense. You're looking at the per capita costs that were spent on them. I'm looking at it from the point of view of a young person who used to have the option not to purchase health insurance (and many many did not purchase health insurance) now being forced to purchase health insurance. That's a big new budget item for their limited financial resources.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2013 11:48 PM GMT
    MisterOrally saidIt's just common sense. You're looking at the per capita costs that were spent on them. I'm looking at it from the point of view of a young person who used to have the option not to purchase health insurance (and many many did not purchase health insurance) now being forced to purchase health insurance. That's a big new budget item for their limited financial resources.



    "You're looking at the per capita costs that were spent on them."

    So you are arguing that we shouldn't look at the expenses?

    Your bullshit is saying that younger people didn't have to pay but are now forced to pay when the very same is true for older people but you don't say that second part. Here, I'll say it for you: Older people didn't have to pay before but are now forced to pay too.

    So what you are saying by not saying is that you think younger people should not have to pay, only older people should have to pay, but younger people should be able to access and benefit from a system without paying for it.

    So in actuality, you are telling everyone that you are a socialist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 12:03 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    MisterOrally saidIt's just common sense. You're looking at the per capita costs that were spent on them. I'm looking at it from the point of view of a young person who used to have the option not to purchase health insurance (and many many did not purchase health insurance) now being forced to purchase health insurance. That's a big new budget item for their limited financial resources.



    "You're looking at the per capita costs that were spent on them."

    So you are arguing that we shouldn't look at the expenses?

    Your bullshit is saying that younger people didn't have to pay but are now forced to pay when the very same is true for older people but you don't say that second part. Here, I'll say it for you: Older people didn't have to pay before but are now forced to pay too.

    So what you are saying by not saying is that you think younger people should not have to pay, only older people should have to pay, but younger people should be able to access and benefit from a system without paying for it.

    So in actuality, you are telling everyone that you are a socialist.


    I think you're trying to pick a fight with me for no reason. We can discuss this civilly.

    Yes, you are correct, "old" people are now forced to purchase health insurance also. In fact, "all" adults are now forced to purchase health insurance.

    Please only take what I am writing at face value and don't try to glean any additional meaning from it.

    You are incorrect when you stated that I am "telling everyone that you are a socialist."

    You are incorrect when you stated "what you are saying by not saying is that you think younger people should not have to pay, only older people should have to pay, but younger people should be able to access and benefit from a system without paying for it. "

    You are incorrect when you stated "you are arguing that we shouldn't look at the expenses?"

    Please keep this civil. You've now called my posts "bullshit" several times. I have not used any such language towards you. Thank you.

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

    Oct 21, 2013 12:28 AM GMT
    MisterOrally said
    I think you're trying to pick a fight with me for no reason. We can discuss this civilly.

    Yes, you are correct, "old" people are now forced to purchase health insurance also. In fact, "all" adults are now forced to purchase health insurance.

    Please only take what I am writing at face value and don't try to glean any additional meaning from it.

    You are incorrect when you stated that I am "telling everyone that you are a socialist."

    You are incorrect when you stated "what you are saying by not saying is that you think younger people should not have to pay, only older people should have to pay, but younger people should be able to access and benefit from a system without paying for it. "

    You are incorrect when you stated "you are arguing that we shouldn't look at the expenses?"

    Please keep this civil. You've now called my posts "bullshit" several times. I have not used any such language towards you. Thank you.



    There is neither picking a fight nor is there being uncivil about anything I've said. It would be uncivilized to let bullshit fly. My calling bullshit (and I give reasons when I do) when someone tries to introduce bullshit is not uncivil and your being petty about someone calling you on your bullshit neither distracts from others seeing your bullshit nor the calling out of it, rather your being petty about it only highlights your passive aggressiveness. Nice try though. Probably 1 out of 1000 were fooled.

    When you indicate that young people shouldn't have to pay but don't say that they also shouldn't then be allowed to access the system, you yourself declare southbeach a socialist.

    When you complain that I've brought up the costs spent on the younger who did not pay their premiums, you are arguing that we conveniently shouldn't look at those expenses.

    When you attempt to dismiss those realities, that is just more of your bullshit. If you don't like that language? Tough shit. You're welcome.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 12:29 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    MisterOrally said
    I think you're trying to pick a fight with me for no reason. We can discuss this civilly.

    Yes, you are correct, "old" people are now forced to purchase health insurance also. In fact, "all" adults are now forced to purchase health insurance.

    Please only take what I am writing at face value and don't try to glean any additional meaning from it.

    You are incorrect when you stated that I am "telling everyone that you are a socialist."

    You are incorrect when you stated "what you are saying by not saying is that you think younger people should not have to pay, only older people should have to pay, but younger people should be able to access and benefit from a system without paying for it. "

    You are incorrect when you stated "you are arguing that we shouldn't look at the expenses?"

    Please keep this civil. You've now called my posts "bullshit" several times. I have not used any such language towards you. Thank you.



    There is neither picking a fight nor is there being uncivil about anything I've said. It would be uncivilized to let bullshit fly. My calling bullshit (and I give reasons when I do) when someone tries to introduce bullshit is not uncivil and your being petty about someone calling you on your bullshit neither distracts from others seeing your bullshit nor the calling out of it, rather your being petty about it only highlights your passive aggressiveness. Nice try though. Probably 1 out of 1000 were fooled.

    When you indicate that young people shouldn't have to pay but don't say that they also shouldn't then be allowed to access the system, you yourself declare southbeach a socialist.

    When you complain that I've brought up the costs spent on the younger who did not pay their premiums, you are arguing that we conveniently shouldn't look at those expenses.

    When you attempt to dismiss those realities, that is just more of your bullshit. If you don't like that language? Tough shit. You're welcome.


    Sorry to have aggravated you to such an extent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 12:37 AM GMT
    MisterOrally said
    Sorry to have aggravated you to such an extent.


    Aggravated? Hardly. I find your shtick somewhat amusing.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 21, 2013 2:57 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    MisterOrally said
    I think you're trying to pick a fight with me for no reason. We can discuss this civilly.

    Yes, you are correct, "old" people are now forced to purchase health insurance also. In fact, "all" adults are now forced to purchase health insurance.

    Please only take what I am writing at face value and don't try to glean any additional meaning from it.

    You are incorrect when you stated that I am "telling everyone that you are a socialist."

    You are incorrect when you stated "what you are saying by not saying is that you think younger people should not have to pay, only older people should have to pay, but younger people should be able to access and benefit from a system without paying for it. "

    You are incorrect when you stated "you are arguing that we shouldn't look at the expenses?"

    Please keep this civil. You've now called my posts "bullshit" several times. I have not used any such language towards you. Thank you.



    There is neither picking a fight nor is there being uncivil about anything I've said. It would be uncivilized to let bullshit fly. My calling bullshit (and I give reasons when I do) when someone tries to introduce bullshit is not uncivil and your being petty about someone calling you on your bullshit neither distracts from others seeing your bullshit nor the calling out of it, rather your being petty about it only highlights your passive aggressiveness. Nice try though. Probably 1 out of 1000 were fooled.

    When you indicate that young people shouldn't have to pay but don't say that they also shouldn't then be allowed to access the system, you yourself declare southbeach a socialist.

    When you complain that I've brought up the costs spent on the younger who did not pay their premiums, you are arguing that we conveniently shouldn't look at those expenses.

    When you attempt to dismiss those realities, that is just more of your bullshit. If you don't like that language? Tough shit. You're welcome.


    The data you posted is about PERSONAL spending per capita. Not total spending per capita.

    That is why it appears to be higher for younger people. The older groups are covered as they get older.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 4:52 AM GMT
    musclmed saidThe data you posted is about PERSONAL spending per capita. Not total spending per capita.

    That is why it appears to be higher for younger people. The older groups are covered as they get older.


    How is what you are bitching about in this thread any different from what I just addressed that you brought up in the other thread?

    The source of the info I posted states:

    "Personal Health Care Spending by Age Group and Source of Payment, Calendar Year 2004"

    The info I listed was from the subsection showing:

    Per Capita (in dollars)
    Age Group

    Here's another section. It shows

    Personal Health Care Spending by Age Group and Source of Payment, Calendar Year 2004
    Total Payer (in millions)

    Age Group.............Total
    19-44...............368,734
    55-64...............227,792
    85+.................125,443

    There, feel better about it now?

    See, now I don't know how many people are in each group with the totals, so I looked for per capita expenses.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 4:56 AM GMT
    musclmed said...it appears to be higher for younger people. The older groups are covered as they get older.


    You mean, of course, the older people who paid into the Medicare system for their entire working lives.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 21, 2013 2:11 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    musclmed said...it appears to be higher for younger people. The older groups are covered as they get older.


    You mean, of course, the older people who paid into the Medicare system for their entire working lives.


    See the other thread. Hands down it cost more to treat older people. You can argue about the fact people paid into medicare. But medicare for most kicks in at 65. Still it cost alot more to treat 45+ group.

    The ACA is setup to subsidize the 45+ group. If we were to charge people by the average OOP spending in that group Young people would be running to sign up and the older people would be in the same situation they are now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 2:48 PM GMT
    musclmed saidSee the other thread. Hands down it cost more to treat older people. You can argue about the fact people paid into medicare. But medicare for most kicks in at 65. Still it cost alot more to treat 45+ group.

    The ACA is setup to subsidize the 45+ group. If we were to charge people by the average OOP spending in that group Young people would be running to sign up and the older people would be in the same situation they are now.


    Oh look, you tap danced that down to under 65.

    Well duh that it costs more. But there's less aged people since people have a tendency to die and so you can't just look at the totals but must look at per capita to get an idea of who should pay what into the system. That's why I provided the per capita spending. And by the time we age, we've been paying into the system our whole lives. Not just paying into Medicare, but also paying into private pools of insurance that we likely didn't utilize during our time paying our premiums either privately or through our employment.

    Also, over 65 aren't being subsidized like someone under 65 sans employment insurance might, because by then, if they've paid into Medicare, they receive the benefits they previously paid for (plus many have supplemental--paid out of their SS, which they also paid into all their working lives).

    I reread your previous post here and your latest posts on the other insurance thread and I think I see where your thinking might have fucked up.

    Here:

    musclmed said...The data you posted is about PERSONAL spending per capita. Not total spending per capita...


    Which I suspect you erroneously decried--and from there extrapolated from your imagination, not from data, all the other crap spewed in the other thread--simply because the heading of the data I provided said: "Personal Health Care Spending by Age Group".

    Fucking hysterical (though you might not find this as funny).

    Nooooooooo. Personal Health Care Spending is not the money they personally took out of their pockets just because the data used the word "personal"; rather, if I'm reading this right, it is the health care dollars spent on their personal persons. Do you seriously think that on average, each 85 year old had a spare $25,600 for their medical? I doubt that. I'd be surprised if they had that much just to live on. Well let's just look that up...

    http://www.aoa.gov/Aging_Statistics/Profile/2011/docs/2011profile.pdf
    "The median income of older persons in 2010 was $25,704 for males and $15,072 for females."

    Since there are more females remaining in older ages, the following number is an over estimate, but just taking the average of those two numbers. So their avg income is $20k yet you state they take $25k out of their PERSONAL pockets just for medical, never mind housing and food. Bullshit.

    And as to the bump shown in the per capita "personal" (haha) spending I previously provided, I'd suspect much of that was due to nursing home care so let's just see if the data indicates that correct (from the same source as above):

    "A relatively small number (1.5 million) and percentage (4.1%) of the 65+ population in 2009 lived in institutional settings such as nursing homes (1.3 million). However, the percentage increases dramatically with age, ranging (in 2009) from 1.1% for persons 65-74 years to 3.5% for persons 75-84 years and 13.2% for persons 85+. In addition, approximately 2.4% of the elderly lived in senior housing with at least one supportive service available to their residents."

    Well surprise, surprise, it coincidentally corresponds pretty much precisely.

    This is why I don't even care much for chatting in the News forum. You guys just make shit up out of the thin air in there and then run with it.

    And here's why you fuck up, because you're not honest about your thinking as exhibited in your suggesting to me that I should fudge my income numbers just to get a stupid fucking subsidy as if I didn't have more integrity than that. And I'll go even further to suggest you attacked me here with bullshit because I called you out on your suggestion that you thought I shouldn't play this game with honor.

    All very revealing of your own character. So typical of the thinking of the right. You might wanna work on that.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 21, 2013 7:31 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    musclmed saidSee the other thread. Hands down it cost more to treat older people. You can argue about the fact people paid into medicare. But medicare for most kicks in at 65. Still it cost alot more to treat 45+ group.


    All very revealing of your own character. So typical of the thinking of the right. You might wanna work on that.



    Listen you do not have to get hostile or nasty. I was just pointing out you are looking at the wrong information to get prove your point. Which as I gathered was that young people if they paid there fair share would need to pay 280 or something like that.

    The categories use the average per age. The category of 19-44 is one group and the category is another group. The first group has 25 member, the older group 10.

    Even though the younger group is less it is comprised of almost 2 1/2 groups of older patients. So a 19 year old's average is being brought up by the 40 year olds in the grouping. Broken down data , available in the link i gave you from 2011 has smaller groups. There you can see the wide differences in amount of healthcare dollars used.

    My point was not to prove you wrong. It was to show that to say it is FAIR for a young person to pay more because they are using alot of dollars is just flat wrong. They use very little in healthcare dollars up until say age 43 ish , where it starts to take off.

    Try to find 1 person that believes that younger people use more in health dollars, the whole point of the individual mandate was to make the younger patients bankroll the older patients.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 8:22 PM GMT
    musclmed saidSo a 19 year old's average is being brought up by the 40 year olds in the grouping. Broken down data , available in the link i gave you from 2011 has smaller groups. There you can see the wide differences in amount of healthcare dollars used.


    Here's the info on that from the link provided by you:

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

    Table 1: Annual Expenditure (2009—2011)

    (showing 2009 dollars)

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


    Here you can see that the 18 year old is at 2,063 which is about 37.4% of a 54 year old at 5,518.

    Two years ago at 54 I was paying about 450-500. That would make an 18 year old's premium $168-187/month

    Not as much as shown in my first example but significant none the less. By that my point may be tweaked but it still stands.

    I don't see offhand what an 18 year old (not on a family plan) might pay but googling quickly I found this on whatever website this is:

    http://heritageaction.com/2013/10/nancy-pelosi-doesnt-seem-to-care-your-premiums-are-on-the-rise/

    "According to Heritage research, Californians are already seeing their premiums go up. For 27-year-olds, premiums will increase 23.6 percent under Obamacare. Their average one-month health insurance premium in the non-group market would have been $174.00 before Obamacare. Through the Obamacare exchange, it will be an average $215.00 per month"

    Which does not seem out of line, relative to what I'd been paying before Obamacare with respect to the difference in ages.

    **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.


    (read that again so you get it right this time: per capita spending is the services provided--per your link)
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 22, 2013 2:01 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    musclmed saidSo a 19 year old's average is being brought up by the 40 year olds in the grouping. Broken down data , available in the link i gave you from 2011 has smaller groups. There you can see the wide differences in amount of healthcare dollars used.


    Here's the info on that from the link provided by you:

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

    Table 1: Annual Expenditure (2009—2011)

    (showing 2009 dollars)

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


    Here you can see that the 18 year old is at 2,063 which is about 37.4% of a 54 year old at 5,518.

    Two years ago at 54 I was paying about 450-500. That would make an 18 year old's premium $168-187/month

    Not as much as shown in my first example but significant none the less. By that my point may be tweaked but it still stands.

    I don't see offhand what an 18 year old (not on a family plan) might pay but googling quickly I found this on whatever website this is:

    http://heritageaction.com/2013/10/nancy-pelosi-doesnt-seem-to-care-your-premiums-are-on-the-rise/

    "According to Heritage research, Californians are already seeing their premiums go up. For 27-year-olds, premiums will increase 23.6 percent under Obamacare. Their average one-month health insurance premium in the non-group market would have been $174.00 before Obamacare. Through the Obamacare exchange, it will be an average $215.00 per month"

    Which does not seem out of line, relative to what I'd been paying before Obamacare with respect to the difference in ages.

    **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.


    (read that again so you get it right this time: per capita spending is the services provided--per your link)



    I am not sure why you are getting nasty, maybe it is in your nature . Not sure..


    Does a 19 year old spend the same as a 44 year old.... No its the mean average of the group. As i said before its a steep curve up.

    Point is , its lower and your math about what is Fair is way off *your 280 number.

    Second your next reference admits that rates will go up but thats rates.

    A 27 year old's expenditure on health maybe 0 in a year. Many do not carry insurance. That set of numbers assumes they are insured.

    Even the administration acknowledges that the younger will be paying the bills of the older. To say the problem is because the young are not paying their fair share is just wrong.