Today approximately 6 million Americans got health insurance via the ACA
- Thread starter mercury14
- Start date
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,698
its the law that was signed in 96!
look it up
You are referring to the Kennedy-Kassenbaum HIPAA act of 1996. That established a limit on pre-existing conditions for GROUP plans. It did NOT touch INDIVIDUAL plans, you know, the ones you have been whining about constantly for the past six months.
Try and stay focused here.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Well, if you price it HIGH enough
All will be well
The New Spin: No Death Spiral, Just Higher Premiums and Higher Costs to Taxpayers!
So… the folks who have signed up for Obamacare are mostly old and sick. Megan McCardle spotlights a terrific statistic: “62 percent of the people eligible for subsidies selected a plan, but only 8.5 percent of those who weren’t eligible for subsidies actually purchased one.” Man, sure is easier to hit “purchase” when Uncle Sam is covering part of the bill, huh?
But we’re being told it’s NOT a formula for the death spiral. Just higher premiums next year.
But even if the age mix remains tilted toward older adults, “it’s nothing of the sort that would trigger instability in the system,” said Larry Levitt, an insurance expert with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. Premiums would go up next year for the overhaul, along with taxpayer costs per enrollee, but not enough to push the system into a “death spiral” in which rising premiums discourage healthy people from signing up.
Oh, just higher premiums and higher costs to taxpayers, that’s all! Avik Roy, what does that mean?
…the bottom line is that insurers will still lose money on these plans. And there are other aspects of adverse selection. For example: are we seeing sicker participants within a given age group, regardless of age? Are the healthy people in the exchanges skewing towards high-deductible bronze plans, while sicker people buy more generous silver and gold plans?
Taxpayers will be on the hook for any increased costs. Most importantly, many Americans will choose to go without insurance because it’s even less affordable than it was before.
So, this giant legislative monstrosity that was passed to reduce the number of uninsured is steadily increasing the number of uninsured. We would have been better off doing nothing.
All will be well
The New Spin: No Death Spiral, Just Higher Premiums and Higher Costs to Taxpayers!
So… the folks who have signed up for Obamacare are mostly old and sick. Megan McCardle spotlights a terrific statistic: “62 percent of the people eligible for subsidies selected a plan, but only 8.5 percent of those who weren’t eligible for subsidies actually purchased one.” Man, sure is easier to hit “purchase” when Uncle Sam is covering part of the bill, huh?
But we’re being told it’s NOT a formula for the death spiral. Just higher premiums next year.
But even if the age mix remains tilted toward older adults, “it’s nothing of the sort that would trigger instability in the system,” said Larry Levitt, an insurance expert with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. Premiums would go up next year for the overhaul, along with taxpayer costs per enrollee, but not enough to push the system into a “death spiral” in which rising premiums discourage healthy people from signing up.
Oh, just higher premiums and higher costs to taxpayers, that’s all! Avik Roy, what does that mean?
…the bottom line is that insurers will still lose money on these plans. And there are other aspects of adverse selection. For example: are we seeing sicker participants within a given age group, regardless of age? Are the healthy people in the exchanges skewing towards high-deductible bronze plans, while sicker people buy more generous silver and gold plans?
Taxpayers will be on the hook for any increased costs. Most importantly, many Americans will choose to go without insurance because it’s even less affordable than it was before.
So, this giant legislative monstrosity that was passed to reduce the number of uninsured is steadily increasing the number of uninsured. We would have been better off doing nothing.
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,698
Is that the root cause of your bitterness, busybody?
Price might go up?
Price might go up?
contrifan32
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Posts
- 3,647
I won't answer for BB but was that not the main selling point of Obamacare to the US voters?
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,698
No....
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
of course NOT!
the ROOT
is his KNEE GRRR hood
jackass
fuck peeps LOSING INSURANCE....fuck people paying 400% plus more....fuck people paying 400% in deducatibles....fuck people who will have limited choice....WHO CARES?
Its about the KNEE GROW
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Hey yo, Rube*
How cum you posted a "link" to 6 million
When HHS says 2.3 million?
Which is right?
Shouldn't you send "link" to white haired CUNT at HHS?
*http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rube
How cum you posted a "link" to 6 million
When HHS says 2.3 million?
Which is right?
Shouldn't you send "link" to white haired CUNT at HHS?
*http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rube
contrifan32
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Posts
- 3,647
Humor me then... what was it?
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,698
Givin' moar Muricans....mostly the working poor.....access to the same levels of health care that people like you now enjoy.
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
Aca isnt inexpensive.....obana lie
Obama care is welfare!
Obama care is welfare!
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
YES!
Will IRS bully people to sign up for Obamacare?
The threat of coercion lies behind the entire Obamacare scheme. The question for the coming year is, how coercive will the government be?
The Democrats who wrote the Affordable Care Act in 2009 gave the Internal Revenue Service power to collect Obamacare penalties. Many Americans are quite familiar with how coercive the IRS can be. Fearing public opposition to IRS threats, the law's authors forbade the IRS from bringing criminal charges or seizing houses and property from those who don't buy government-defined "minimum essential coverage." But Democrats still gave the IRS significant authority.
"Although the Act provides that the IRS may not use criminal prosecutions, notices of federal tax liens, or levies on property to collect an unpaid penalty, the IRS may employ offsets against federal tax refunds," the Obama administration wrote in its 2012 Supreme Court brief in defense of the mandate. "The IRS also may seek payment through correspondence or phone calls from IRS employees."
The main leverage the IRS will have is the refund "offset." That simply means if a taxpayer is due a refund, but has also incurred an Obamacare penalty, the penalty will be subtracted from the refund. So a taxpayer who has a $500 refund coming but incurs a $695 Obamacare penalty will receive no refund.
In addition, that taxpayer might face a letter and a phone call — or a series of them — from the IRS telling him to pay the rest. Anyone who has received a letter or phone call from the IRS knows the experience can be quite intimidating. Or, in the words of the administration's Supreme Court brief: "Offsets, correspondence, and phone calls are consistently some of the most productive tools in the federal tax collection process."
Will the government really do that? The answer is not clear, or at least not publicly clear. (In response to inquiries, IRS officials sent boilerplate, non-enlightening clips from IRS publications.) But the administration's level of aggressiveness will likely be determined by how many Americans voluntarily comply with the law.
Obamacare needs a lot of them to survive. In the last few months, discussion often focused on the prediction that the system needed to enroll seven million people by the time open enrollment is over at the end of March. But even if Obamacare reaches that goal — and it's doubtful right now — that is just the start. To work, Obamacare must keep growing. A lot.
"I think we're going to ultimately need about 20 million people for a sustainable pool," health care analyst Robert Laszewski told the Washington Post recently. "So when I hear people talk about the goal being seven million, I think, 'time out.' This needs to be 20 million people within three years."
How does it get there? Well, if Obamacare is a great deal that millions of Americans love, it will reach the goal with no problem. If, on the other hand, it presents Americans with policies that don't fit their needs, are too expensive, have cripplingly high deductibles, and narrow choices of doctors — well, many Americans will balk at buying such a product.
It's not that they will reject health coverage; it's that they'll reject health coverage that's a bad deal.
And if that happens, the question of 2015 will be how far the Obama administration will go to force Americans to buy policies they don't want. "The government will be hard-pressed to collect a fine on something lots of people don't believe has value," says Laszewski. "This is when it will become a huge political albatross."
Such a scenario could create enormous political pressure to scrap the individual mandate. And at that point, the future of Obamacare would be very much in doubt.
Will IRS bully people to sign up for Obamacare?
The threat of coercion lies behind the entire Obamacare scheme. The question for the coming year is, how coercive will the government be?
The Democrats who wrote the Affordable Care Act in 2009 gave the Internal Revenue Service power to collect Obamacare penalties. Many Americans are quite familiar with how coercive the IRS can be. Fearing public opposition to IRS threats, the law's authors forbade the IRS from bringing criminal charges or seizing houses and property from those who don't buy government-defined "minimum essential coverage." But Democrats still gave the IRS significant authority.
"Although the Act provides that the IRS may not use criminal prosecutions, notices of federal tax liens, or levies on property to collect an unpaid penalty, the IRS may employ offsets against federal tax refunds," the Obama administration wrote in its 2012 Supreme Court brief in defense of the mandate. "The IRS also may seek payment through correspondence or phone calls from IRS employees."
The main leverage the IRS will have is the refund "offset." That simply means if a taxpayer is due a refund, but has also incurred an Obamacare penalty, the penalty will be subtracted from the refund. So a taxpayer who has a $500 refund coming but incurs a $695 Obamacare penalty will receive no refund.
In addition, that taxpayer might face a letter and a phone call — or a series of them — from the IRS telling him to pay the rest. Anyone who has received a letter or phone call from the IRS knows the experience can be quite intimidating. Or, in the words of the administration's Supreme Court brief: "Offsets, correspondence, and phone calls are consistently some of the most productive tools in the federal tax collection process."
Will the government really do that? The answer is not clear, or at least not publicly clear. (In response to inquiries, IRS officials sent boilerplate, non-enlightening clips from IRS publications.) But the administration's level of aggressiveness will likely be determined by how many Americans voluntarily comply with the law.
Obamacare needs a lot of them to survive. In the last few months, discussion often focused on the prediction that the system needed to enroll seven million people by the time open enrollment is over at the end of March. But even if Obamacare reaches that goal — and it's doubtful right now — that is just the start. To work, Obamacare must keep growing. A lot.
"I think we're going to ultimately need about 20 million people for a sustainable pool," health care analyst Robert Laszewski told the Washington Post recently. "So when I hear people talk about the goal being seven million, I think, 'time out.' This needs to be 20 million people within three years."
How does it get there? Well, if Obamacare is a great deal that millions of Americans love, it will reach the goal with no problem. If, on the other hand, it presents Americans with policies that don't fit their needs, are too expensive, have cripplingly high deductibles, and narrow choices of doctors — well, many Americans will balk at buying such a product.
It's not that they will reject health coverage; it's that they'll reject health coverage that's a bad deal.
And if that happens, the question of 2015 will be how far the Obama administration will go to force Americans to buy policies they don't want. "The government will be hard-pressed to collect a fine on something lots of people don't believe has value," says Laszewski. "This is when it will become a huge political albatross."
Such a scenario could create enormous political pressure to scrap the individual mandate. And at that point, the future of Obamacare would be very much in doubt.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,698
contrifan32
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Posts
- 3,647
Bullshiite! Maybe thats what your bleeding heart believed, but this train wreck was sold to the uninformed electorate as a way to save the US economy from rising health care costs while providing health care to the poor.
The result for me and many other hard working American families is that I no longer enjoy the same level of health care that I did this time last year and my company now pays more for less.
You are at the very least disingenuous to suggest it was only about helping the working poor.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Paying more for less and coverage shrinking?
That means it's just like every other year in the past decade.
contrifan32
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Posts
- 3,647
But you and your ilk said it was going to lower costs... and save the US economy from more financial disaster, all this while taking care of the poor giving them the same health care that us "fat cat" middle class working stiffs get.
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,698
How the right wing now blames every medical cost increase on Obamacare: Take Two Aspirin and Blame Everything on Obamacare
But you and your ilk said it was going to lower costs... and save the US economy from more financial disaster, all this while taking care of the poor giving them the same health care that us "fat cat" middle class working stiffs get.
The vast majority of Americans....up to 97%....have seen little to no change in premiums or a DECREASE in premiums.
There is a small subset...about 3% of Muricans....that have unfairly been subsidized by insurance companies who were able to exclude pre-existing conditions. They now have to pay a true "market rate" and are of course squealing like pigs. So far, that includes VatAss, JulyBabby04 and I guess we'll add you to that small list.
contrifan32
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Posts
- 3,647
The vast majority of Americans....up to 97%....have seen little to no change in premiums or a DECREASE in premiums.
There is a small subset...about 3% of Muricans....that have unfairly been subsidized by insurance companies who were able to exclude pre-existing conditions. They now have to pay a true "market rate" and are of course squealing like pigs. So far, that includes VatAss, JulyBabby04 and I guess we'll add you to that small list.[/QUOTE]
Ah, but this is where you are so wrong yet again. The "market rate" can only be set by the market, not Obamacare or insurance companies that are constrained by it.
There is a small subset...about 3% of Muricans....that have unfairly been subsidized by insurance companies who were able to exclude pre-existing conditions. They now have to pay a true "market rate" and are of course squealing like pigs. So far, that includes VatAss, JulyBabby04 and I guess we'll add you to that small list.[/QUOTE]
Ah, but this is where you are so wrong yet again. The "market rate" can only be set by the market, not Obamacare or insurance companies that are constrained by it.
contrifan32
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Posts
- 3,647
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
As a man, doesnt it bother you that you are unable to suppprt yourself? Or did you lose your balls a long time ago and started to wear skirts with Sean?
about_average
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Posts
- 11,430
The market has been expanded to include people with pre-existing conditions so the market rate is bound to change to some degree.
Like most any business, individual insurance companies didn't want to be the first to include people with pre-existing conditions (without charging a huge surcharge) because then they wouldn't have seemed competitive. But now they all have to so the market rate isn't likely to change significantly.
