Patterico's Pontifications

8/29/2013

National Journal: ObamaCare Will Make Premiums Higher As Employers Drop Coverage

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:34 am

I’ll be over here holding my breath waiting for Big Media to ask Obama about this:

Republicans have long blamed President Obama’s signature health care initiative for increasing insurance costs, dubbing it the “Unaffordable Care Act.”

Turns out, they might be right.

For the vast majority of Americans, premium prices will be higher in the individual exchange than what they’re currently paying for employer-sponsored benefits, according to a National Journal analysis of new coverage and cost data. Adding even more out-of-pocket expenses to consumers’ monthly insurance bills is a swell in deductibles under the Affordable Care Act.

Health law proponents have excused the rate hikes by saying the prices in the exchange won’t apply to the millions receiving coverage from their employers. But that’s only if employers continue to offer that coverage–something that’s looking increasingly uncertain. Already, UPS, for example, cited Obamacare as its reason for nixing spousal coverage. And while a Kaiser Family Foundation report found that 49 percent of the U.S. population now receives employer-sponsored coverage, more companies are debating whether they will continue to be in the business of providing such benefits at all.

If you like your doctor and your health plan, you can keep it.

We just forgot to mention you’ll have to pay a lot more for it.

72 Responses to “National Journal: ObamaCare Will Make Premiums Higher As Employers Drop Coverage”

  1. It’s always those unintended consequences.

    AZ Bob (c99389)

  2. Unexpectedly …..

    AZ Bob (c99389)

  3. If you go to the healthcare.gov website it tells you this:
    “Depending on the plan you choose in the Marketplace, you may be able to keep your current doctor.”
    — “may” + “be”. Maybe.

    Icy (3e251a)

  4. I thought it was going to be cheaper than my cellphone plan. Oh, you mean only for core Democrat voters, i.e. the irresponsible.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  5. I note that gays are upset that employers are limiting spousal benefits to married workers.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  6. more companies are debating whether they will continue to be in the business of providing such benefits at all.

    If I were John Boehner, I would let this happen and then introduce an alt-health plan that allows free market policies available to all.

    It would help individuals and the economy too: when I worked at Ol’ State U, a friend and I remarked on what an exodus from these employers we would see if people like us with certain health problems could buy insurance on the open market. Think of the unleashing of the ambitious and talented! The flight from bureaucracy!

    But I am not John Boehner. And what he is doing, I cannot fathom.

    Patricia (be0117)

  7. Welcome to G.O.P. Care
    The Usurper is laughing.

    mg (31009b)

  8. I think there are probably more people who are going to pay double what they are paying now, than who are going to pay less than their cellphone plan, however expensive a cell phone they have.

    You haver to wonder what was going through Obama’s mind when he said that. Hes treating this (the cost to people of health insurance) like an abstract issue, where perhasps debater’s points ight matter.

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  9. Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 8/29/2013 @ 8:34 am

    But I am not John Boehner. And what he is doing, I cannot fathom.

    Trying to keep his majority together, and not bringing anything to the floor that won’t pass the House AND get more Republicans votes for it than against it.

    Passing the Senate, too, well, that’s too much to hope for.

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  10. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 8/29/2013 @ 8:27 am

    I thought it was going to be cheaper than my cellphone plan. Oh, you mean only for core Democrat voters, i.e. the irresponsible.

    For recent college graduates, who may have a very expensive cell phone plan, but also low income so they can get their premiums for a plan they sign up for using the exchange subsidized, and they don’t pay that much because of their age.

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  11. “The truth is, Obamacare is doing what it was intended to do: make health care affordable for the nation’s lowest earners by spreading out the costs among taxpayers.”

    Pure, unadulterated Used Food. This isn’t even close to what was sold to the gullible. What was claimed was that everybody’s costs would decrease. By 3,000 percent.

    Maybe that was the intent of the administration, but it wasn’t even close to the sales pitch.

    alanstorm (cb237b)

  12. it seems that the only option at this point is to Cloward and Piven the system. overload it.

    these idiots want socialism, and the only way to show them of its inherent failure is to make them live it.

    they’ll wake up eventually. they might be getting on the cattle truck when it happens, but they’ll wake up.

    Ghost (996b5a)

  13. Premiums have gone up every year. Is there something different here?

    true (b17026)

  14. “You haver to wonder what was going through Obama’s mind when he said that.”

    Sammy – Even yesterday you were trying to defend him saying he wasn’t lying by advancing some gobbledegook about subsidies.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  15. “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan, period.”
    — This is perhaps the biggest lie he has ever told.
    From the beginning, the ACA, by means of its limits on deductibles and minimum requirements for what must be covered, made many (most?) current plans obsolete as of Jan. 1, 2014.

    Icy (3e251a)

  16. file this story under “Duh.”

    maybe we should raise the minimum wage so that everyone can afford the more expensive rates?

    😎

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  17. President Obama is many things but you cannot call him a liar. To be a liar, you must have either the knowledge and/or experience to distinguish truth from falsehood. Nothing that I have seen, heard or read about President Obama engenders a belief that he might be considered either knowledgeable or experienced – just indoctrinated!

    Michael M. Keohane (6cf542)

  18. Duh!

    askeptic (2bb434)

  19. 14.“You haver to wonder what was going through Obama’s mind when he said that.”

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/29/2013 @ 9:52 am

    Sammy – Even yesterday you were trying to defend him saying he wasn’t lying by advancing some gobbledegook about subsidies.

    He wasn’t lying. That’s the point. It wasn’t a fair assessment either.

    And he didn’t advance any statement about subsidies.

    No, but that’s the Final Jeopardy answer to how is this possible..

    I wasn’t able to find out what the earlier discussion was and who was in it, but I don’t think Obama made up the discussion (which was probably more like an infomercial)

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  20. And he didn’t advance any statement about subsidies.

    No, but that’s the Final Jeopardy answer to how is this possible..”

    Sammy – You were the person I said was throwing out unsupported arguments about subsidies. Today you’ve switched to recent college graduates, which means I guess over 26 and below something else, because 26 and below can stay on their parents’ coverage. Your talking points on Obamacare are almost as good as yesterday claiming Bush invaded Iraq to avenge Saddam’s attempt on his father’s life.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  21. The problem here is simple. We are being governed from the faculty lunchroom. Trust me, this all sounds familiar. These are the folks who watched “The West Wing” and sighed rapturously.

    It’s not what they know or don’t know. It’s that they don’t know what they don’t know…which is why things like this will happen, again and again.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  22. I’m thinking it’s more like the student counsel, Simon, but same basic issue.

    elissa (fdb36e)

  23. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/29/2013 @ 11:19 am

    Sammy – You were the person I said was throwing out unsupported arguments about subsidies.

    Can you refresh my memory asd to what you are talking about?

    Today you’ve switched to recent college graduates, which means I guess over 26 and below something else, because 26 and below can stay on their parents’ coverage.

    The argument isn’t far different for people aged 26, but the only people who can stay on their parent’s insurance policy are people whose parents have such a policy, and don’t need to buy one.

    I am pretty sure Obama did not refer to an imaginary conversation even though I can’t find it, so somewhere they must have examples of how “a lot” of people could have a bigger monthly cell phone bill than a health insurance bill.

    I am pretty sure the White House must have been prepared for an answer to that question.

    To invent a conversation or to have no examples would be too blatant.

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  24. “The argument isn’t far different for people aged 26, but the only people who can stay on their parent’s insurance policy are people whose parents have such a policy, and don’t need to buy one.”

    That makes no sense, Sammy.

    “I am pretty sure Obama did not refer to an imaginary conversation even though I can’t find it, so somewhere they must have examples of how “a lot” of people could have a bigger monthly cell phone bill than a health insurance bill.

    I am pretty sure the White House must have been prepared for an answer to that question. “

    Why? They’ve gotten away with making up such whoppers often.

    SPQR (768505)

  25. i don’t understand why obama has to ass-rape everything all the time

    it’s not normal

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  26. “I am pretty sure the White House must have been prepared for an answer to that question.

    To invent a conversation or to have no examples would be too blatant.”

    Sammy – Why? Obama gives very few press conferences and nobody asks him tough questions. Carney would just refer reports to HHS. What do they have to lose?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  27. ” We are being governed from the faculty lunchroom.” Perhaps Simon, but it sounds more like the school cafeteria to me. We’re being governed by Ivy League guys, (no offense here) but mostly lawyers who know jack shit about business or economics…and it shows. Now I’m no hot-shot lawyer, my degree is a mere economics degree. And I have to admit I was only self employed in the restaurant business for 37 years, but this whole plan was ridiculous from day one. This plan is one of ideology, not insurance, healthcare or business. It’s job is to ensnare the people through their fear of illness/injury to the government who provides the most for the least to them. And all the government needs to do is make sure that about 45% of us are paying the big premiums so they can provide the other 55% with their benefits. As long as the balance between the payers and the recipients remains in their favor the left will get their votes and the left will prevail.

    Hoagie (9a05a8)

  28. “i don’t understand why obama has to ass-rape everything all the time”

    Mr. Feets – That is liberal math. You have to shove a corn cob up the butt of 85% of the people to “solve” a problem for 15% of the people and have it cost triple what you could have “solved” the problem for otherwise.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  29. Oh come on, you can’t hold the first President orphaned gay prostitute of color responsible for everything he’s given to say by the Borg.

    All of his credentials are either photoshopped or purchased at a five and dime.

    If you’ve never played it straight a day in your life these restrictions of propriety on behavior are totally unnatural.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  30. “I am pretty sure the White House must have been prepared for an answer to that question. “

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 8/29/2013 @ 1:42 pm

    Why? They’ve gotten away with making up such whoppers often.

    He’s not Clinton.

    If he was just going to say something, it was totally unnecessary to mention a previous meeting between somebody or other and other people.

    If there was such a meeting, then it is almost certain that, like he said, a scenario was laid out as to how (for many, except it’s not many) someone’s health care premium bill would be less than his cell phone bill.

    The trouble is tracking down that meeting.

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  31. “To invent a conversation or to have no examples would be too blatant.”

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/29/2013 @ 2:22 pm

    Sammy – Why? Obama gives very few press conferences and nobody asks him tough questions. Carney would just refer reports to HHS. What do they have to lose?

    It is totally unnecessary for Obama to refer to an imaginary meeting. He can just say it. Ergo tghere was a meeting. Some people are in a position to ask.

    It is more logical to assume that such a meeting took place. Only that there’s a big catch in that claim, which is why he refers to it rather than explaining it independently.

    He says he (or somebody) was talking to some “folks” and they discussed how (their?) cell phone bill is more expensive than their health care premium would be. Or rather vice versa.

    And it would be too blatant a lie if it was totally unfounded.

    And I think I can figure out how. Premium
    subsidies.

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  32. 29. Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/29/2013 @ 3:52 pm

    Oh come on, you can’t hold the first President orphaned gay prostitute of color responsible for everything he’s given to say by the Borg.

    Somebody gave him this claim.

    But as I said I wonder what he thought he was doing. Or does he think?

    He treated this like an abstract issue.

    People are going to find out what it costs, and compare it to their cell phone bill.

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  33. The great and good Thomas Sowell has written extensively about the Law of Unintended Consequences, which were referenced by AZ Bob in the first comment.

    Along that same line, I never cease to be amazed at how so many people, when confronted with a real or imaginary problem, scream for the powers-that-be to do something/anything … RIGHT NOW!

    These imbeciles don’t understand that hasty, ill-considered actions usually make any situation even worse.

    Whitey Nisson (aa99c0)

  34. “He says he (or somebody) was talking to some “folks” and they discussed how (their?) cell phone bill is more expensive than their health care premium would be.”

    Sammy – Let’s stick to facts. Nobody here claimed the meeting to which the president referred was fictitious, so stick that one back up your pie hole. Someone claiming in a meeting that his/her insurance bill would be lower than his her cell phone bill does not make it true for a lot of people or worth the president repeating.

    Think about who the president meets with to discuss policy. Are they recent college grads not making a lot of money likely to be receiving large Obamacare subsidies? No. Are they other lower wage people likely to be receiving large Obamacare subsidies? No. They are likey to be people with big cell phone bills, however.

    Your most likely explanation scenarios from both yesterday and today are big fat busts. Next.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  35. Sammy, clearly it’s your call whether or not you think he insulted your intelligence with that ridiculous cell phone plan claim. I’m quite sure, though, that I speak for more than just myself here when I confirm that that statement insulted my intelligence and offended me by its brazen falsehoodness. Remember, this was not uttered by a low level staffer hack, a mewling juiceboxer, or a paid lobbyist shill. That statement came out of the mouth of the President of the United States. You know–the “leader of the free world”.

    elissa (fdb36e)

  36. i don’t understand why obama has to ass-rape everything all the time

    it’s not normal

    it’s called “projection” Mr Feets. our SCOAMF likes having it done to himself, so he just naturally believes everyone else does, or should, too.

    after all, he’s the smartest person in the room: just ask him.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  37. What if you don’t like your President—do you have to keep him ?

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  38. The NFL just settled a 765 million lawsuit on concussions.

    So with that:
    The girl replied in a loud voice:

    “I DON’T WANT TO SPEND THE NIGHT WITH YOU!”

    All the students in the library started staring at the guy; he was truly embarrassed and moved to another table.

    After a couple of minutes, the girl walked quietly to the guy’s table and said with a laugh:

    “I study psychology, and I know what a man is thinking. I guess you felt embarrassed, right?”

    The guy then responded in a loud voice:

    “$500 FOR ONE NIGHT? . . . THAT’S TOO MUCH! YOU’RE NOT WORTH IT!”

    All the people in the library looked at the girl in shock.

    The guy whispered to her: “I study law, and I know how to screw people.”

    I’m sure the NFL is now aware.

    Hoagie (9a05a8)

  39. You are missing the real story here folks. Obamacare is doing exactly what the Dems planned. It will cause small and medium sized employers to cancel insurance coverage for employees and their families. Those businesses are the heart and soul of the Republican Party. After the businesses act Obama will go on TV and decry the evil businessmen who gutted their employees coverage. Big Media has their talking points. About needing single payer. Wait for it.

    glenn (647d76)

  40. Can I drop my President ?

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  41. ObamaCare is making me sick.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  42. 35. Comment by elissa (fdb36e) — 8/29/2013 @ 4:20 pm

    35.Sammy, clearly it’s your call whether or not you think he insulted your intelligence with that ridiculous cell phone plan claim.

    I think he insulted everybody’s intelligence, including the people interviewing him, Tom Joyner and Sybil Wilkes, who let that stand. (although theymay have actually known about that other conversation he was talking about.)

    I am not sure how to describe this. Maybe it’s annnoying. Someone went to a great trouble (if there was a conversation with some “folks” about this, and there probably was) to create sime appearance of reality for a half truth that was not at all a fair picture of the facts.

    I’m quite sure, though, that I speak for more than just myself here when I confirm that that statement insulted my intelligence and offended me by its brazen falsehoodness.

    I suspect that it technically true, or technically a half truth (he said “a lot” and “a lot” can be a small percentage actually.)

    When and if it’s explained, the whole thing would explode.

    Remember, this was not uttered by a low level staffer hack, a mewling juiceboxer, or a paid lobbyist shill. That statement came out of the mouth of the President of the United States. You know–the “leader of the free world

    That is Obama. He lies, or attempts to mislead, about public issues, and he does that with anything controversial where he takes a side, or maybe where he’s wrong. He lies more about issues than he does about people. You’ll find that all the time.

    Some of these things can’t stand up to the slightest bit of knowledgeable challenge. That’s why he lost the first Presidential debate in 2012. A lot of the times it doesn’t really get challenged, because people just aren;t familiar enough with the facts.

    It’ll almost always be something technically true, or close to the truth, except when he takes things one step further. He may even believe half of these things.

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  43. Can I drop my President ?

    apparently someone already did, on his head as a baby, numerous times.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  44. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/29/2013 @ 4:16 pm

    Someone claiming in a meeting that his/her insurance bill would be lower than his her cell phone bill does not make it true for a lot of people or worth the president repeating.

    I am sure someone arranged for such persons to meet the president – precisely actually so that he would repeat it. I think somebody there thought they discovered something clever.

    Think about who the president meets with to discuss policy. Are they recent college grads not making a lot of money likely to be receiving large Obamacare subsidies? No. Are they other lower wage people likely to be receiving large Obamacare subsidies? No. They are likey to be people with big cell phone bills, however.

    Obama said a monthly plan.

    I think somebody went looking for people – among supporters – who fell into the kind of category
    where this thing would be true – and had him meet with five to ten people where this would true for half of them. For one or two years.

    I said college graduates because they might still have large cell phone bills but veyr low incomes.

    I don’t his statement is anything that any reasonable person would think is a fair summary of the facts. But some people might think it might be a defensible debater’s point.

    I wanted to point out there was probably a little subtlkety in what Obama was doing, although the whole exercise is completely ridiculous.

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  45. (he said “a lot” and “a lot” can be a small percentage actually.)

    not to anyone speaking with precision and/or accuracy.

    Very many, a large number; also, very much.

    Barry Insane Obanal is a lying liar who lies as a reflexive action, even when it isn’t necessary or even beneficialto him.

    there isn’t an honest bone in his worthless carcass.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  46. Okay, they did invite W.

    Never mind!

    Patricia (be0117)

  47. SF: he said “a lot” and “a lot” can be a small percentage actually.)

    redc1c4: not to anyone speaking with precision and/or accuracy.

    Who said anything about precision or accuracy?

    redc1c4: Barry Insane Obanal is a lying liar who lies as a reflexive action, even when it isn’t necessary or even beneficial to him.

    Oh, this was probably some big talking point somebody had cooked up, and he repeated it when he had a chance. Of course it would only be cooked up because they know there’s a problem.

    Does it do him any good? It can’t, really.

    redc1c4: there isn’t an honest bone in his worthless carcass.

    He doesn’t really like lying about individuals, although he’s crossed over into that to win an election.

    His lies are mostly confined to the issues, so I would argue that he does have an honest bone in his body. More dishonest bones, however.

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  48. SF: Does it do him any good? It can’t, really

    But it might confuse people for a little while, or slow down critics.

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  49. It is more logical to assume that such a meeting took place. Only that there’s a big catch in that claim, which is why he refers to it rather than explaining it independently.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (6c9102) — 8/29/2013 @ 4:05 pm

    To your delusional fantasies, you must stick to. Logic, one of your strong points, it is not!

    Yoda (ee1de0)

  50. Who said anything about precision or accuracy?

    if you are not speaking with precision and accuracy you are, for all intents and purposes, lying, since the intent of conversations, oral or written, is to communicate ideas, etc., so that they may be understood by the other party or parties participating in the exchange.

    if choose your words poorly, you are either incompetent or dishonest.

    pick one.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  51. Already, UPS, for example, cited Obamacare as its reason for nixing spousal coverage.

    In today’s era, the question should be whether the spouse of an employee should get on the employer’s gravy train unless she (or certainly he) at least truly contributes to the success of the employer’s workplace in some way. (Say, the employee’s spouse coming in on the weekend to help clean the workplace or organize the files.)

    Such spousal coverage made sense decades ago when far more people (generally and mainly women) were the stay-at-home parent, raising the 3.5 kids per household during the era of “Father Knows Best,” maintaining a happy setting for the 9-to-5 husband, and therefore helped ensure the happiness of the 9-to-5 spouse. And a happy employee makes for a happy employer.

    Since that paradigm has faded rapidly through the decades, even more so in this era of gender equality, single parenting, semi-orphaned (if not aborted) offspring and same-sex marriage — not to mention a new world economy — spousal benefits really do seem like a relic of the quaint, distant past. A time well before much of the electorate threw caution to the wind and decided to represent itself with the ethos of “Goddamn America” (or liberalism gone berserk).

    Mark (fd91da)

  52. More and more, I’m reminded of the TV version of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. The planet Golgafrincham … Wikipedia tells the story … more and more I feel like we’re being governed by the bridge crew that Ford Prefect and Arther Dent find.

    htom (412a17)

  53. “I am sure someone arranged for such persons to meet the president”

    Sammy – You have been sure of a number of different theories over the past couple of days. None of them have made any sense upon close scrutiny. Why should this be any different?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  54. Daley,

    Spammy knows things, he does.

    Yoda (ee1de0)

  55. At the risk of conflating several powerful concepts …

    Our Revisionist-In-Chief Obama Administration will continue to adjust history when convenient … doesn’t everyone know that, in a R-I-C O Administration, the future is known, and history keeps changing ?

    Alasdair (2e7f9f)

  56. 53.“I am sure someone arranged for such persons to meet the president”

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/29/2013 @ 8:38 pm

    Sammy – You have been sure of a number of different theories over the past couple of days. None of them have made any sense upon close scrutiny.

    What do you mean? It makes sense, and the opposite does not make sense. Or I should say, it makes the most sense.

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  57. 51. There may be a large number of people now who don’t care about their spouses, but there is aalso alarge number who do. Coveriung teh family of employees makes sense.

    Now in Obamacare they left out the family in their calculations of affordability. (9.5% of income) That’s one of its problems.

    Spousal coverage can give a ffamily multiple options.

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  58. Daleyrocks: I thouht you said nobody is claiming the meeting was fictional. I said it is logical to assume such ametting as Obama referred to took place. i also had some idea of what such ameeting wuld have been (something staged, at least the part about one or more of the “folks” noting that health insurance under Obamacare would cost less than a cell phone plan)

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  59. Subsidies for Older Buyers Give Health Insurers a Headache Subsidies in New Health Law Can Benefit Older Buyers More Than Younger Ones

    Because of his age, 62, and his low family income, he and his wife will be able to buy a midlevel policy for $21 a month, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Ohio’s soon-to-launch insurance marketplace.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  60. Talking about “subsidies” of pretty much any kind gets quite a few of us here kind of riled. Who foots the bill for “subsidies”, Sammy?

    elissa (fdb36e)

  61. Elissa – hush, he is “thinking”. Out loud.

    JD (6852ce)

  62. JD – Just another day of Sammy squeezing out random thought farts.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  63. 60. Comment by elissa (fdb36e) — 8/30/2013 @ 10:43 am

    Talking about “subsidies” of pretty much any kind gets quite a few of us here kind of riled. Who foots the bill for “subsidies”, Sammy?

    The article didn’t make it clear. I’ll havbe to learn that from somewhere else.

    It didn’t even make quite clear who gets them, except it said that in some cases that older and sicker people might actually pay less than a younger and healthier person with the same income! (the article didn’t explain what the way the subsidies are set up would do that)

    I had thought the lowest rates might go to recent college graduates, but here the article tells of a 62-year old man and wife, who will be able to pay only $21 – definitely lower than a cell phone bill. I knew that Obama wasn’t just making this up off the top of his head. Some people will actually pay $0.00.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  64. You can see that some people will be getting an extra 4.5% marginal tax rate as the subsidy is phased out as income rises, although I may be reading that wrong, as apparently a $1 higher income in a year could cause a person to fall off a cliff..

    There is also a sidebar which goes into other problems – or maybe recipes for failure or bankruptcy – related to Obamacare, except they don’t have all the nuances.

    (for instance, many people, if their income is not too high, can alter their adjusted gross income after January 1, at least if you start no later than the end of March, by contributing to an IRA.

    This could avoid $1 pay increase that erases the subsidy or the $500 holiday bonus that costs someone an enormous sum of money. The subsidy abruptly cuts off at 4 times the federeal poverty level)

    Tax preparers should encourage people to set up an IRA even if they contribute nothing at first, because it might save them a great deal of money come April 15, 2015, when the subsidy for 2014 is recalculated. It also may be advisable to use the exchange to buy an insurance policy even if someones income is too high because maybe their income might decrease sudddenly during the year.

    The sidebar article advises that, to be safe, some people should apply during the year 2014 for a lower subsidy than they expect to get.

    I’ll go into more what the articles say later.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  65. Now there can also be cross-subsidies, and a lot of Obamacare is based on that. Any insurance of course is a kind of a subsidy, except you don’t know in advance.

    But it also looks like there is a loss of capital for many would-be insurers being set up. Some of the cost savings of policies on the exchanges the first year or two will ultimately come from the capital of insurers, just like capital of airline companies kept airplane tockets lower for many years.

    Better established insurance companies will stay out of the business for the first year, because the correct price depends on who signs up, and they can only change prices once a year.

    Compete on price and make a wrong guess, and you know, you could be like the airlines in years past.

    There are so many ways Obamacare is going to be a mess.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  66. ==There are so many ways Obamacare is going to be a mess.==

    This we can agree on.

    Sammy,please don’t spend a lot of your time trying to track down teh subsidy thing. My question was mostly rhetorical.

    elissa (fdb36e)

  67. Taking into account the subsidies, a single 25-year old cashier earning $24,000 in 2014 with overtime could expect to pay $124 a month for the lowest cost midlevel plan in Ohio, but a single 62-year with the same income would pay $100.

    Why is not explained in the article.

    Insurers actuially sometimes will be able to adjust their pries more tha once ayear but this is not explained.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  68. Comment by elissa (fdb36e) — 8/30/2013 @ 11:44 am

    Sammy,please don’t spend a lot of your time trying to track down teh subsidy thing. My question was mostly rhetorical.

    Well, we have either cross-subsidies, which is probably another thing anyway, although a big part of Obamacare, new taxes, or the federal deficit. Either of the last two would mean an appropriation by Congress for the subsidies, but I haven’t heard of anything like that..

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  69. If all food at restaurants had to come with free sodas, $5 liquors, and unlimited portions of the main entree, prices would skyrocket. It’s not any different with health care.

    Incidentally, if “free” stuff actually decreased health care costs (e.g. “free PCP visits will save money!”), then every greedy capitalist bastard running an insurance company would have already mandated it. The less dastardly corporate officers would merely offer it as an option.

    How the heck can anyone not understand this?

    bridget (b00d78)

  70. Taking into account the subsidies, a single 25-year old cashier earning $24,000 in 2014 with overtime could expect to pay $124 a month for the lowest cost midlevel plan in Ohio[….]

    As a former twenty-something who bought her own health insurance in a state that allowed blatant price discrimination, I’m here to tell you that a 24-year-old who pays $124 a month is not exactly receiving a “subsidy”; it’s more that she is not being charged extra to cover other people, and the alleged “discount” is being given to her by the wonderful benevolent government.

    There are reasons why I think ObamaCare is pure evil. That they force young people to either accept “subsidies” (and the implicit notion that they are not capable of making their own way in life without Daddy Obama) or to subsidise older, wealthier people. Revolting.

    bridget (b00d78)

  71. Bridget – you’re right. In the final analysis, the rate for younger people is being raised. It’s a still a subsidy of the price charged.

    It might be simpler to charge nobody and just use the tax system.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  72. “Incidentally, if “free” stuff actually decreased health care costs (e.g. “free PCP visits will save money!”), then every greedy capitalist bastard running an insurance company would have already mandated it”

    Depends on whether they would realize the benefits, and on whether they could just pass on the costs.

    sfar (9031e1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.0070 secs.