Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Number of young people signing up for Obamacare isn't meeting administration's expectations. Except in Washington, D.C., where that gunshot provision is really paying off   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 231
    More: Interesting, District of Columbia, obamacare, youths, expectations  
•       •       •

572 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jan 2014 at 9:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-14 10:04:01 AM  
Well, when you are having trouble even finding a job it's hard to have insurance (8.4% unemployment for 18-34). Not to mention a good chunk of those people (18-26) are likely on their parents plans, not on the exchange.
 
2014-01-14 10:14:37 AM  
Gunshot provision?
 
2014-01-14 10:14:46 AM  
If the number of enrollee doesn't match the projections, Obama has no choice but to admit Obamacare is a total failure and should make an executive order to eliminate the legislation.
 
2014-01-14 10:15:14 AM  
no problem.  unleash the insurance industry bailout.
 
2014-01-14 10:15:54 AM  
"All evidence suggests the pace will increase," says Aaron Smith, executive director of pro-health law group Young Invincibles. "Young people want to explore their options before they make their decisions. "I think the 24 percent number suggests we're on the right track."

A pro-health law group called "Young Invincibles?" The name itself would seem to discourage young people from signing up.
 
2014-01-14 10:17:24 AM  

kidgenius: Well, when you are having trouble even finding a job it's hard to have insurance (8.4% unemployment for 18-34). Not to mention a good chunk of those people (18-26) are likely on their parents plans, not on the exchange.


Considering the law made it ok for people up to 26 to be on their parents' insurance, that takes a big chunk of that population out of the customer pool.
 
2014-01-14 10:19:03 AM  

Cletus C.: A pro-health law group called "Young Invincibles?" The name itself would seem to discourage young people from signing up.


I thought they were called the Young Investibules.
 
2014-01-14 10:20:09 AM  

kidgenius: Well, when you are having trouble even finding a job it's hard to have insurance (8.4% unemployment for 18-34). Not to mention a good chunk of those people (18-26) are likely on their parents plans, not on the exchange.


I'd put more weight on the second category than the first, but yeah, between unemployment, parents' plans, college plans (a lot of unis require some form of insurance, but offer a student plan if the students don't have one), and simple delusions of immortality, this isn't surprising.  If the numbers are below projection, that's more a flaw in the predictions than a flaw in the plan itself.
 
2014-01-14 10:20:41 AM  

Cletus C.: "All evidence suggests the pace will increase," says Aaron Smith, executive director of pro-health law group Young Invincibles. "Young people want to explore their options before they make their decisions. "I think the 24 percent number suggests we're on the right track."

A pro-health law group called "Young Invincibles?" The name itself would seem to discourage young people from signing up.


The fact that they announced their report in front of Invincible Tower whilst their capes fluttered majestically in the wind did lend gravitas to their claims.
 
2014-01-14 10:24:14 AM  
Don't you have to be a full-time student to be on your parents plan to age 26?  Or do you just have to be living under their roof?
 
2014-01-14 10:29:27 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: kidgenius: Well, when you are having trouble even finding a job it's hard to have insurance (8.4% unemployment for 18-34). Not to mention a good chunk of those people (18-26) are likely on their parents plans, not on the exchange.

Considering the law made it ok for people up to 26 to be on their parents' insurance, that takes a big chunk of that population out of the customer pool.


Only if they are full or part time students. Your average 22 year old isn't allowed to stay on his parents insurance.
 
2014-01-14 10:32:51 AM  

ktheknuckler_33: Don't you have to be a full-time student to be on your parents plan to age 26?  Or do you just have to be living under their roof?


They don't have to be in school.They don't even have to be living with them.

Facts:
Your children can join or remain on your plan even if they are:
married
not living with you
attending school
not financially dependent on you
eligible to enroll in their employer's plan
 
2014-01-14 10:33:07 AM  

Cletus C.: "All evidence suggests the pace will increase," says Aaron Smith, executive director of pro-health law group Young Invincibles. "Young people want to explore their options before they make their decisions. "I think the 24 percent number suggests we're on the right track."

A pro-health law group called "Young Invincibles?" The name itself would seem to discourage young people from signing up.


Looking at the charts it seems the young waited until December, but they are signing up well above the 25% now.
 
2014-01-14 10:33:32 AM  
I thought it was the generally accepted wisdom that many young folks wouldn't sign up until the deadline for avoiding the fine/tax which is March 31. Am I wrong about that?
 
2014-01-14 10:34:34 AM  

jjorsett: ktheknuckler_33: Don't you have to be a full-time student to be on your parents plan to age 26?  Or do you just have to be living under their roof?

They don't have to be in school.They don't even have to be living with them.

Facts:
Your children can join or remain on your plan even if they are:
married
not living with you
attending school
not financially dependent on you
eligible to enroll in their employer's plan


Huh.

themoreyouknow.jpg
 
2014-01-14 10:37:04 AM  
The reason this matters is that the extra premium money from the younger people is what was going to subsidize the older ones. If the actuarial assumptions are thrown out of whack because younger people don't sign up, taxpayers are going to have to fork over money to the insurance companies to make up for losses.
 
2014-01-14 10:38:52 AM  

kidgenius: Well, when you are having trouble even finding a job it's hard to have insurance (8.4% unemployment for 18-34). Not to mention a good chunk of those people (18-26) are likely on their parents plans, not on the exchange.


I am wondering how this will be affected by people choosing to stay on their parents' plans or people signing up for expanded Medicaid. Many of the people in the targeted age group have incomes lower than 133% of the poverty line, so a lot of them are going to fall under the Medicaid umbrella (if their state allows it). For others, the cheapest option will be as an add-on to their parents' policies. Do the administration's numbers include expanding insurance under all means available or only using the exchange? If it's the latter, that wouldn't be very well thought out given the two other more attractive options provided by the law.
 
2014-01-14 10:39:30 AM  

Cletus C.: "All evidence suggests the pace will increase," says Aaron Smith, executive director of pro-health law group Young Invincibles. "Young people want to explore their options before they make their decisions. "I think the 24 percent number suggests we're on the right track."

A pro-health law group called "Young Invincibles?" The name itself would seem to discourage young people from signing up.


What if it's a do or die situation?
 
2014-01-14 10:43:27 AM  

colon_pow: no problem.  unleash the insurance industry bailout.


I thought this was the insurance industry bailout.
 
2014-01-14 10:44:22 AM  

theknuckler_33: I thought it was the generally accepted wisdom that many young folks wouldn't sign up until the deadline for avoiding the fine/tax which is March 31. Am I wrong about that?


The pen ... un, taxis so small for the first year (the greater of $95 or 1% of income) that there isn't much sting to it. Years 2 and 3 are 2% and 2.5% and (I'm going from memory) $600 and $1200. Even then, it's probably lots cheaper to just pay it. Plus, the only way the government can collect the tax is to take it from a tax refund due, so if you structured your affairs such that you don't get a refund you could conceivably avoid it forever. And get this, there's no accruing interest, late fines, or anything like that on it.
 
2014-01-14 10:46:19 AM  
The fundamental problem with the ACA is that it is focused on lowering the wrong costs.  Health care is expensive, and subsequently, health insurance is expensive.  The ACA is designed to make to health insurance more affordable - but since it isn't targeting health care costs, one would expect health care spending to remain relatively stable.  If you make health insurance more affordable for some - someone out there has to foot the bill.  It looks like the government is trying to get (surprise) young and healthy people to foot the bill.  Just what the young, healthy, and gainfully employed need.
 
2014-01-14 10:47:02 AM  
I'd be curious to see these number broken down by sex. My guess would be young enrollees are mostly women, with bros waiting to the very last second to enroll. Stupid jerks.
 
2014-01-14 10:51:59 AM  

MattStafford: The fundamental problem with the ACA is that it is focused on lowering the wrong costs.  Health care is expensive, and subsequently, health insurance is expensive.  The ACA is designed to make to health insurance more affordable - but since it isn't targeting health care costs, one would expect health care spending to remain relatively stable.  If you make health insurance more affordable for some - someone out there has to foot the bill.  It looks like the government is trying to get (surprise) young and healthy people to foot the bill.  Just what the young, healthy, and gainfully employed need.


That formula has driven health care insurance forever. The younger, healthier population must subsidize the older, sicker population for it to work. See also, auto insurance, life insurance and such, where certain segments who rarely have immediate need of the benefits subsidize those who do.
 
2014-01-14 10:52:33 AM  

macadamnut: colon_pow: no problem.  unleash the insurance industry bailout.

I thought this was the insurance industry bailout.


They didn't need bailing out at the time. From the insurance industry's perspective, it was the Health Insurance Industry Guaranteed Profit Act of 2010.
 
2014-01-14 10:53:39 AM  

Cletus C.: That formula has driven health care insurance forever. The younger, healthier population must subsidize the older, sicker population for it to work. See also, auto insurance, life insurance and such, where certain segments who rarely have immediate need of the benefits subsidize those who do.


Sure, but I don't think it's ever been legally mandated for the younger, healthier population to subsidize the older sicker population.  It was voluntary before.
 
2014-01-14 10:57:26 AM  

MattStafford: The fundamental problem with the ACA is that it is focused on lowering the wrong costs.  Health care is expensive, and subsequently, health insurance is expensive.  The ACA is designed to make to health insurance more affordable - but since it isn't targeting health care costs, one would expect health care spending to remain relatively stable.  If you make health insurance more affordable for some - someone out there has to foot the bill.  It looks like the government is trying to get (surprise) young and healthy people to foot the bill.  Just what the young, healthy, and gainfully employed need.


Wow... you, like, just described how the entire concept of insurance works!
 
2014-01-14 11:03:29 AM  

theknuckler_33: Wow... you, like, just described how the entire concept of insurance works!


Well, except for the fact it's never been legally mandated like this before.  It's one think to allow people to voluntarily enter into a contract where they subsidize another person, it's an entirely other thing to legally force someone into that contract.
 
2014-01-14 11:05:50 AM  

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: Wow... you, like, just described how the entire concept of insurance works!

Well, except for the fact it's never been legally mandated like this before.  It's one think to allow people to voluntarily enter into a contract where they subsidize another person, it's an entirely other thing to legally force someone into that contract.


You're uncomfortable with society?
 
2014-01-14 11:06:06 AM  

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: Wow... you, like, just described how the entire concept of insurance works!

Well, except for the fact it's never been legally mandated like this before.  It's one think to allow people to voluntarily enter into a contract where they subsidize another person, it's an entirely other thing to legally force someone into that contract.


Other than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP/TANF, any number of similar state-level programs, and every tax ever (though with some of those, you get benefits back).

We get it, you hate the social compact/contract.
 
2014-01-14 11:06:14 AM  

MattStafford: The fundamental problem...


Honestly the best thing we could do (in my mind) is open up clinics everywhere that provide free care, staff them by offering a decent wage and aggressive loan-forgiveness for young doctors and nurses, and create something akin to qualified immunity for providers operating under these auspices, providing they only directly perform such-and-such low risk high success rate treatments and have rigorous oversight from review boards composed of independent private practice doctors.

Going into the doctor's office to get a cast or whatever is just NOT a 500 dollar procedure.  We should be able to do that for like... the cost of your average copay.
 
2014-01-14 11:08:51 AM  

MattStafford: but since it isn't targeting health care costs,


That's not entirely true. The ACA is doing things to help manage costs as well.

For instance, if you get a heart surgery and had complications, each time you came back to the doctor/hospital, they got reimbursed. Now, the hospitals and doctors will get one flat value. If you have a complication or something, they have to eat that cost. It's helping to provide better care, which should end up lowering costs in some ways.
 
2014-01-14 11:09:28 AM  

Cletus C.: "All evidence suggests the pace will increase," says Aaron Smith, executive director of pro-health law group Young Invincibles. "Young people want to explore their options before they make their decisions. "I think the 24 percent number suggests we're on the right track."

A pro-health law group called "Young Invincibles?" The name itself would seem to discourage young people from signing up.


You may not be aware of this fact, but it seems that the kids today are extraordinarily fond of irony.
 
2014-01-14 11:12:03 AM  

jjorsett: The reason this matters is that the extra premium money from the younger people is what was going to subsidize the older ones. If the actuarial assumptions are thrown out of whack because younger people don't sign up, taxpayers are going to have to fork over money to the insurance companies to make up for losses.


Well it means the Government won't save as much money as projected in CBO estimates.  Hospitals/doctors and insurance will still save a shiat ton because less uninsured people will be showing up at the emergency room for free care.
 
2014-01-14 11:12:43 AM  

MattStafford: The fundamental problem with the ACA is that it is focused on lowering the wrong costs.  Health care is expensive, and subsequently, health insurance is expensive.  The ACA is designed to make to health insurance more affordable - but since it isn't targeting health care costs, one would expect health care spending to remain relatively stable.  If you make health insurance more affordable for some - someone out there has to foot the bill.  It looks like the government is trying to get (surprise) young and healthy people to foot the bill.  Just what the young, healthy, and gainfully employed need.


Not disagreeing with your assessment of who subsidies who, but the ACA does also target health care costs:

- digital records requirements to reduce overhead
- boards to determine what measures are most cost effective and promote coverage of those methods, and discourage measures that are more costly and less effective.
- forcing insurers to provide full coverage for preventative measures that will reduce the overall cost because things are caught earlier.

In addition, there were things insurers did that drove up costs overall, that have now been addressed:

- requirements that insurers spend at least 80% of premiums collected on paying for healthcare (reducing the amount of overhead and profit that an insurance company can take
- preventing denials based on pre-existing conditions, which means that people don't get treatment until they are in the emergency room (more costly)
- preventing insurance companies from dumping people who get sick, which again means that people don't get treatment until they are in the emergency room.
 
2014-01-14 11:12:44 AM  

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: Wow... you, like, just described how the entire concept of insurance works!

Well, except for the fact it's never been legally mandated like this before.  It's one think to allow people to voluntarily enter into a contract where they subsidize another person, it's an entirely other thing to legally force someone into that contract.


Car insurance isn't legally mandated?

"You don't have to have a car"

You don't have to live either. If you don't want health insurance, farking kill yourself and save everyone else the trouble that will be you without health insurance.
 
2014-01-14 11:18:16 AM  
Further, once we shift the focus to relatively cheap preventative care and regular non-emergency care and clear out the ungodly backlog of sick people, prices will drop dramatically.
 
2014-01-14 11:22:02 AM  

jjorsett: theknuckler_33: I thought it was the generally accepted wisdom that many young folks wouldn't sign up until the deadline for avoiding the fine/tax which is March 31. Am I wrong about that?

The pen ... un, taxis so small for the first year (the greater of $95 or 1% of income) that there isn't much sting to it. Years 2 and 3 are 2% and 2.5% and (I'm going from memory) $600 and $1200. Even then, it's probably lots cheaper to just pay it. Plus, the only way the government can collect the tax is to take it from a tax refund due, so if you structured your affairs such that you don't get a refund you could conceivably avoid it forever. And get this, there's no accruing interest, late fines, or anything like that on it.


BUT YOU STILL HAVE THE PROBLEM OF NO INSURANCE ! If they get sick under your suggested approach they are bankrupt.
 
2014-01-14 11:23:31 AM  

MattStafford: The fundamental problem with the ACA is that it is focused on lowering the wrong costs.


MattStafford: Well, except for the fact it's never been legally mandated like this before. It's one think to allow people to voluntarily enter into a contract where they subsidize another person, it's an entirely other thing to legally force someone into that contract.


MattStafford: Sure, but I don't think it's ever been legally mandated for the younger, healthier population to subsidize the older sicker population. It was voluntary before.


Here, I'll let you take your pick:

www.visi.com

It's purported failure to address healthcare costs, which was your initial argument, has nothing to do with it being mandated by the government, and is therefore a non-sequitur response.

and/or

www.visi.com

You have changed the crux of your argument to government involvement, which is a different premise than your initial argument, which is moving the goalposts so it seems like people aren't meeting your argument criteria, when in fact, you just changed your argument.
 
2014-01-14 11:30:16 AM  
So now we need to bail out the insurance companies to keep theOnebamacare sustainable because they are going to suffer huge losses.  Funny how big government begets big government.  And the bailout will be at the taxpayer's additional expense.  Where will it end?
 
2014-01-14 11:34:52 AM  

nmrsnr: You have changed the crux of your argument to government involvement, which is a different premise than your initial argument, which is moving the goalposts so it seems like people aren't meeting your argument criteria, when in fact, you just changed your argument.


"it will be as easy to sign up for as kayak.com"

i mean

"It will lower health care costs"

i mean

"It will insure more people"

i mean

"it will get you quality insurance instead of the crappy insurance you have"

i mean

"It will reduce ER visits"

i mean

...

speaking of moving the goalposts, what are the benefits of Obamacare?  Each benefit that it was sold on has since been debunked.
 
2014-01-14 11:37:30 AM  

SlothB77: So now we need to bail out the insurance companies to keep theOnebamacare sustainable because they are going to suffer huge losses.  Funny how big government begets big government.  And the bailout will be at the taxpayer's additional expense.  Where will it end?


What on earth are you talking about?  The insurance companies are reporting record profits.
 
2014-01-14 11:37:49 AM  

LasersHurt: You're uncomfortable with society?


Dr Dreidel: We get it, you hate the social compact/contract.


No, I have no problem with the social contract and raising taxes, etc.  I'm in favor of a basic income program.

The two major issues I have with the implementation are as follows:

1 - It was never marketed or sold as wealth redistribution plan.  Sure, if you looked closely, you could tell what it was - but it was marketed as making health care more affordable, not making health care more affordable for the sick by making it more expensive for the healthy.
2 - And the larger issue - it is primarily the young subsidizing the old.  The young who are already up to their ears in college debt.  The young who are facing one of the toughest job markets in memory.  The young who are already most likely getting screwed on Medicare and Social Security.  Is that really how we want to go about doing this?  Aren't the young in a tough enough position already, where forcing them to subsidize the established sick isn't a good idea?

When I look at the ACA, all I see is another instance where the boomers are screwing the young over and disguising it as being "for the better of society".  It's bullshiat.
 
2014-01-14 11:38:20 AM  

sdd2000: jjorsett: theknuckler_33: I thought it was the generally accepted wisdom that many young folks wouldn't sign up until the deadline for avoiding the fine/tax which is March 31. Am I wrong about that?

The pen ... un, taxis so small for the first year (the greater of $95 or 1% of income) that there isn't much sting to it. Years 2 and 3 are 2% and 2.5% and (I'm going from memory) $600 and $1200. Even then, it's probably lots cheaper to just pay it. Plus, the only way the government can collect the tax is to take it from a tax refund due, so if you structured your affairs such that you don't get a refund you could conceivably avoid it forever. And get this, there's no accruing interest, late fines, or anything like that on it.

BUT YOU STILL HAVE THE PROBLEM OF NO INSURANCE ! If they get sick under your suggested approach they are bankrupt.


The risk is minimal because they'll sign up on the spot. There were some stories recently about hospitals who were signing people up as they were admitted -- and the hospital was footing the bill for the first premium -- because then the hospitals would then get paid and didn't have to eat the costs.
 
2014-01-14 11:40:13 AM  

Zasteva: Not disagreeing with your assessment of who subsidies who, but the ACA does also target health care costs:


Zasteva: In addition, there were things insurers did that drove up costs overall, that have now been addressed:


Which is fair - I was certainly wrong about there being nothing in the law to make health care cheaper, but it certainly seems  like the meat of the bill was focused on making health insurance cheaper.  All of the things you listed could have been done independently, unless I'm missing something.
 
2014-01-14 11:40:28 AM  

mrshowrules: jjorsett: The reason this matters is that the extra premium money from the younger people is what was going to subsidize the older ones. If the actuarial assumptions are thrown out of whack because younger people don't sign up, taxpayers are going to have to fork over money to the insurance companies to make up for losses.

Well it means the Government won't save as much money as projected in CBO estimates.  Hospitals/doctors and insurance will still save a shiat ton because less uninsured people will be showing up at the emergency room for free care.


Emergency Visits Seen Increasing With Health Law
 
2014-01-14 11:41:16 AM  

jjorsett: The risk is minimal because they'll sign up on the spot.


www.spencer1984.com
The ACA doesn't work that way!
 
2014-01-14 11:42:37 AM  

jjorsett: mrshowrules: jjorsett: The reason this matters is that the extra premium money from the younger people is what was going to subsidize the older ones. If the actuarial assumptions are thrown out of whack because younger people don't sign up, taxpayers are going to have to fork over money to the insurance companies to make up for losses.

Well it means the Government won't save as much money as projected in CBO estimates.  Hospitals/doctors and insurance will still save a shiat ton because less uninsured people will be showing up at the emergency room for free care.

Emergency Visits Seen Increasing With Health Law


That's just super - an article published on the 2nd day ACA insurance was in effect.
 
2014-01-14 11:43:34 AM  

nmrsnr: It's purported failure to address healthcare costs, which was your initial argument, has nothing to do with it being mandated by the government, and is therefore a non-sequitur response.


Sure, the argument in my original post could have been clearer, but let me lay it out for you again.

1.  Health care costs are the problem, not health insurance costs.  Health insurance costs follow from high health care costs.
2.  The law's primary function was to make health insurance more affordable,  not health care.
3.  Since health care costs will stay relatively similar, certain entities must pay more to make health insurance affordable to all.
4.  Those certain entities are the young and healthy.

When I look at the law, as a whole, it seems like a backdoor screwing of the young to benefit the boomers.
 
2014-01-14 11:43:47 AM  

jjorsett: mrshowrules: jjorsett: The reason this matters is that the extra premium money from the younger people is what was going to subsidize the older ones. If the actuarial assumptions are thrown out of whack because younger people don't sign up, taxpayers are going to have to fork over money to the insurance companies to make up for losses.

Well it means the Government won't save as much money as projected in CBO estimates.  Hospitals/doctors and insurance will still save a shiat ton because less uninsured people will be showing up at the emergency room for free care.

Emergency Visits Seen Increasing With Health Law


Yes.  Everyone who's educated themselves on the subject 'knew' that there would be a spike in demand for medical services once the law went into effect.

Everyone who's educated on the subject knows that there's a huge backlog of sick people who haven't had medical care for a very long time, if at all, and now that they can get medical care, they 'are' getting medical care.

This includes ER visits.

Once that backlog of people with well-advanced illnesses disappears either through medical treatment or death, then you'll see the numbers drop back down again.

But the gist of it is this: There's a lot of people out there with health insurance that are now using that insurance to get care and that includes ER visits.
 
2014-01-14 11:45:13 AM  

Infernalist: SlothB77: So now we need to bail out the insurance companies to keep theOnebamacare sustainable because they are going to suffer huge losses.  Funny how big government begets big government.  And the bailout will be at the taxpayer's additional expense.  Where will it end?

What on earth are you talking about?  The insurance companies are reporting record profits.


Adverse Selection.

Washington's authority for this bailout was buried deep inside ObamaCare, in the law's section 1342. This provision authorized what are known as risk corridors that limit the amount of profit insurers could extract from the program and, most significantly, limit their losses.

This means that if not enough people sign up for ObamaCare, insurers will lose money and taxpayers will make up the difference. If not enough young and healthy people sign up, as is currently the case, taxpayers will have to pay even more.
This is government favoritism and corporate cronyism at its worst, and it's taxpayers that will pay the price unless we stop it.

Now that health insurance companies have begun filing key disclosure documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), we see clear evidence that we're heading for an ObamaCare bailout.

For example, one insurer has disclosed that "as a result of the December 2013 federal and state regulatory changes allowing certain individuals to remain in their previously existing off-exchange health plans, the Company now expects the risk mix of members enrolling through the health insurance exchanges to be more adverse than previously expected."
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report