Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare)

[lukethedrifter]

Government tells me I need auto insurance. Fine

They don't tell me my policy sucks, you néed ours..

There are no minimum standards for auto insurance?

[Socnorb11]

Government tells me I need auto insurance. Fine

They don't tell me my policy sucks, you néed ours..

There are minimum requirements for auto insurance policies, also.



Look, our government decided in 2001 that they wanted me to pay for a war in Iraq. They didn't ask me if I wanted to pay for it. They simply took my money and went to war. I had no input in that decision. I didn't whine about it for months on end, though. It's all part of being a society, rather than a group of individuals who each get to make their own decisions on every matter.

[Jocephus]

is it wrong to have standards?

[Leroy]

OK I'll be a good Americanand stfu.

[wart57]

It sure would be nice if things actually worked how they were promised, and this goes for a lot of things in life.

[Arthur Dent]

Obamacare didn't fundamentally change the cost of healthcare. The cost of health care has been constantly increasing completely unrelated to that bill. For the sake of discussion, assume the cost is constant within a year. Under ACA, you pay more in monthly premiums up front, and less out of pocket later. Old plans you had a small monthly premium and much more out of pocket later. Both plans end up costing roughly the same unless you have a lot of claims (in which the ACA helps you more) or no claims in which your old plan saves you some money overall. Insurance companies could either expand their coverage and compete on a level playing field, or choose to cancel the coverage because they didn't want to do that.

Yes. This is the key point.

I understand the change aversion, which is inevitably going to be particularly bad given the partisan split, and acknowledge that there are some people who, at least temporarily, are worse off under this scheme, but there seems to be a lack of recognition or perhaps just acknowledgement of what is driving changes in premiums. The three things you hear most are that it's just some kind of boondoggle where insurance companies now get to require you to give them premium dollars in return for nothing, that the money will go to some kind of government bureaucracy, or that you are being forced to buy coverage "you don't need". But the dominant factor is actually a leveling. There is no evidence of any substantial jump in average prices. Instead, people will now pay a lot closer to the same prices meaning that some people pay more, others pay less, and a large number of people who were completely excluded now have access. Instead of paying very little when you have low health risks but then paying a fortune or being locked out when things go bad, you can pay the same (high) prices at a more constant rate. And that's basically the same thing that's going on with the "forced to buy coverage I don't need" story. Most of the things you don't need are only things you don't need right now or things you don't need because of some form of luck. The complaining about men's premiums financing women's health needs has been revealing. It's also noteworthy that there is little complaint about the fact that employer based health insurance already works this way. As a young, healthy guy, I could complain about how I'm being ripped off because I have to pay the same premiums as the rest of the workforce that has a much higher median age than me and much higher median health costs, but we seem to accept it as right and reasonable to share costs and risk with each other contributing only in proportion to the number of covered people we want to add to the pool. I could demand the right to stiff the group, but this would be both immoral and a way to screw myself once positions reverse.

If it weren't for the power of the insurance lobby, I suspect a more straightforward tax financed universal health insurance program might actually have been more politically palatable. This complex scheme of channeling money to (but actually through) a bunch of insurance companies just has the feeling of being a rip off.

[lukethedrifter]

OK I'll be a good Americanand stfu.

You do the same thing whenever you get called on something. How about just participating in the discussion?

[planet planet]

Obamacare didn't fundamentally change the cost of healthcare. The cost of health care has been constantly increasing completely unrelated to that bill. For the sake of discussion, assume the cost is constant within a year. Under ACA, you pay more in monthly premiums up front, and less out of pocket later. Old plans you had a small monthly premium and much more out of pocket later. Both plans end up costing roughly the same unless you have a lot of claims (in which the ACA helps you more) or no claims in which your old plan saves you some money overall. Insurance companies could either expand their coverage and compete on a level playing field, or choose to cancel the coverage because they didn't want to do that.

Yes. This is the key point.

I understand the change aversion, which is inevitably going to be particularly bad given the partisan split, and acknowledge that there are some people who, at least temporarily, are worse off under this scheme, but there seems to be a lack of recognition or perhaps just acknowledgement of what is driving changes in premiums. The three things you hear most are that it's just some kind of boondoggle where insurance companies now get to require you to give them premium dollars in return for nothing, that the money will go to some kind of government bureaucracy, or that you are being forced to by coverage "you don't need". But the dominant factor is actually a leveling. There is no evidence of any substantial jump in average prices. Instead, people will now pay a lot closer to the same prices meaning that some people pay more, others pay less, and a large number of people who were completely excluded now have access. Instead of paying very little when you have low health risks but then paying a fortune or being locked out when things go bad, you can pay the same (high) prices at a more constant rate. And that's basically the same thing that's going on with the "forced to buy coverage I don't need story". Most of the things you don't need are only things you don't need right now or things you don't need because of some form of luck. The complaining about men's premium's financing women's health needs has been revealing. It's also noteworthy that there is little complaint about the fact that employer based health insurance already works this way. As a young, healthy guy, I could complain about how I'm being ripped off because I have to pay the same premiums as the rest of the workforce that has a much higher median age than me and much higher median health costs, but we seem to accept it as right and reasonable to share costs and risk with each other contributing only in proportion to the number of covered people we want to add to the pool. I could demand the right to stiff the group, but this would be both immoral and a way to screw myself once positions reverse.

If it weren't for power of the insurance lobby, I suspect a more straightforward tax financed universal health insurance program might actually have been more politically palatable. This complex scheme of channeling money to (but actually through) a bunch of insurance companies just has the feeling of being a rip off.

I think it's partly because of change aversion, partly because people were just happy about having their employer pay a good % of their premium regardless that they've paid more to cover older/less healthy people at their company, and partly because it's not exactly a transparent system like ACA is. I will say after talking with the president of my company, I'm surprised more companies seemingly haven't discriminated against hiring older people for insurance purposes alone. Every year a company is evaluated by how many major claims were made, etc. This year we only had 2 or 3 major claims, the lowest total in years, and our premium is still increasing 12%.

All good points, AD.

[cardsfantx]

Government tells me I need auto insurance. Fine

They don't tell me my policy sucks, you néed ours..

There are no minimum standards for auto insurance?

Sure there are, just like there were min standards before ACA came along for health insurance.

ACA though gets to raise/decide what the new min coverage is.

The diff is, you can still get catastrophic auto collision. You can get it set so low/cheap, that if you get in an accident that is your fault, and the other person has to go to the hospital, that your policy pays hardly anything...and you have to pay the rest out of your pocket.

ACA took away that option for health insurance.

[Socnorb11]

Government tells me I need auto insurance. Fine

They don't tell me my policy sucks, you néed ours..

There are no minimum standards for auto insurance?

Sure there are, just like there were min standards before ACA came along for health insurance.

ACA though gets to raise/decide what the new min coverage is.

The diff is, you can still get catastrophic auto collision. You can get it set so low/cheap, that if you get in an accident that is your fault, and the other person has to go to the hospital, that your policy pays hardly anything...and you have to pay the rest out of your pocket.

ACA took away that option for health insurance.

And that's a BAD thing??

What if you decide not to pay for the "other person's" medical bills after you hit them with your car? How is that fair?