or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Insurance Costs Under Obamacare
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Insurance Costs Under Obamacare

post #1 of 739
Thread Starter 
From the CBO...

Quote:
The nongroup market would consist of coverage purchased individually through the new insurance exchanges that would be established, and coverage purchased by individuals and families directly from insurers. The average, unsubsidized premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law.

Quote:
The legislation would have much smaller effects on premiums for employment-based coverage. In the small group market, which is defined in this analysis as consisting of employers with 50 or fewer workers, CBO and JCT estimate that the change in the average premium per person resulting from the legislation could range from an increase of 1 percent to a reduction of 2 percent in 2016 (relative to current law).

In the large group market, which is defined here as consisting of employers with more than 50 workers, the legislation would yield an average premium per person that is zero to 3 percent lower in 2016 (relative to current law).

So, prices go up, but costs go down? Is that how it works? Interestingly, many of the proponents of these reforms on here have zeroed in on the idea that costs per person for insurance are too high for those who must purchase it themselves, but the bills in question will, according to the CBO, substantially raise premiums for people buying insurance. Of course, there will be subsidies, but not for people making more than about $75k. Sounds like a great plan, right?
post #2 of 739
Cool thread. I wanted to study the JCT estimates at work today but a couple of meetings and other projects get in the way. Will put it on my to-do list.
post #3 of 739
Wellpoint, one of my clients, did a study and estimated some premiums could triple under the new plan.
post #4 of 739
You're not using the proper metrics.

If you receive a subsidy that overcomes price increases, you A) are in the right income bracket and b) are just getting your basic human rights so C) you are likely to vote Obama in 2012.

If the above does not apply to you, fuck you, you had yours and now we're taking some of it away.
post #5 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
Wellpoint, one of my clients, did a study and estimated some premiums could triple under the new plan.

Further reading...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...177212064.html

The whole plan frankly scares the crap out of me.
post #6 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
If the above does not apply to you, fuck you, you had yours and now we're taking some of it away.

post #7 of 739
^
post #8 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
^

I don't think that's funny in a thread started by a jew. Or maybe it is.
post #9 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek View Post
I don't think that's funny in a thread started by a jew. Or maybe it is.
I think you are taking quik's humor too seriously or missing the point altogether. I think quick was addressing the socialism of this plan, not making disparaging comments on Matt's heritage.
post #10 of 739
Ok, I wanted to post a reply but I feel like a lonely girl who just entered a gay leather bar, I'll let you guys do your gross stuff on your own.
post #11 of 739
Not that I care about 'merican politics, but you would think the folks at MIT are a little bit better at math than the average person:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29959.html

So who is right?
post #12 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by racetrack View Post
Not that I care about 'merican politics, but you would think the folks at MIT are a little bit better at math than the average person:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29959.html

So who is right?

The basic answer is, it doesn't really matter.

The non-group, individual market is rather small. This study indicated a modest savings and also indicated, as I did in my original post in this thread, that transfer payments from the wealthy to the poor will further isolate them from the true cost.

Quote:
The report concludes that under the Senate's health-reform bill, Americans buying individual coverage will pay less than they do for today's typical individual market coverage, and would be protected from high out-of-pocket costs.

So all he is commenting on is the smallest portion of the health care insurance market. Whether a nogroup, individual policy is $200 cheaper or $600 more, is really immaterial vs. the impact to group plans, both small and large, and the huge new transfer of wealth.
post #13 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
The basic answer is, it doesn't really matter.

The non-group, individual market is rather small. This study indicated a modest savings and also indicated, as I did in my original post in this thread, that transfer payments from the wealthy to the poor will further isolate them from the true cost.



So all he is commenting on is the smallest portion of the health care insurance market. Whether a nogroup, individual policy is $200 cheaper or $600 more, is really immaterial vs. the impact to group plans, both small and large, and the huge new transfer of wealth.

7% of total lives, and 7.2% of sector revenue, last I checked.
post #14 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by whacked View Post
7% of total lives, and 7.2% of sector revenue, last I checked.

Thank you for the data; you're in a much better spot to get that number than me.
post #15 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by racetrack View Post
Not that I care about 'merican politics, but you would think the folks at MIT are a little bit better at math than the average person:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29959.html

So who is right?

From the story:

Quote:
The "microsimulation" analysis is by Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Treasury Department official under President Bill Clinton. Gruber used data from the Congressional Budget Office.

I'm sure he tortured the numbers until they told him what he wanted to hear.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Insurance Costs Under Obamacare