Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Obamacare Predictions for May 2015 (Page 48)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 48 pages: 1  2  3  ...  45  46  47  48   
Author Topic: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Besides, based on history, what would have been the average premium rise in the last 7 years (since 2008)?

$7,365? [Smile]

Which is why I've been pointing out the absurdity of using "premiums" as the measure, rather than the entire cost. I was reading an article yesterday that attributes much of the wage stagnation over the last few years to employers spending more on their portion of the health care cost increases. When you add the subsidies and all the new taxes that were added, the idea that what you've shown is a lower rate of cost growth than would otherwise have occurred gets strained.

When you look at the FACT that the economy slowed over all you realize that citing to it is nothing but an illusion, and very likely just misleading.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Besides, based on history, what would have been the average premium rise in the last 7 years (since 2008)?

$7,365? [Smile]

Now said $2500 decrease you are convinced he really meant a $7365 increase. [DOH]
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Which is why I've been pointing out the absurdity of using "premiums" as the measure, rather than the entire cost. I was reading an article yesterday that attributes much of the wage stagnation over the last few years to employers spending more on their portion of the health care cost increases. When you add the subsidies and all the new taxes that were added, the idea that what you've shown is a lower rate of cost growth than would otherwise have occurred gets strained.

When you look at the FACT that the economy slowed over all you realize that citing to it is nothing but an illusion, and very likely just misleading.

Seriati, overall health care cost growth in the US has slowed under Obama. And economic growth has improved dramatically from the terrible state it was in when Obama came into office. So, what is the evidence for your "FACT that the economy slowed over all"?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rafi, if you ever acknowledge how wrong your previous assertions were on this very thread, you may recover a shred of credibility to make new assertions. But why should anyone trust a person on this site who repeatedly makes wrong statements and never owns up to them?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Now said $2500 decrease you are convinced he really meant a $7365 increase. [DOH]
Please re-read my original sentence, Rafi. You have completely misinterpretated it and missed my point.

[ September 25, 2015, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just looked up Obamacare plans in Texas for a family of four with two teenagers with no subsidy so an example of one I would have to buy is:

Bronze HSA 100®
UnitedHealthcare Life Insurance Company
$941.68
per month
Network: UnitedHealthcare Choice
Deductible: $12,600
Coinsurance: 100/0
Estimated Premium: $941.68
Meet the deductible, no further out-of-pocket expense.

Affordable Care Act compliant plan.

Only available during Open Enrollment and Special Enrollment periods (must meet criteria of a Qualifying Life Event to be considered "Special Enrollment").

-----------------------------------------

So whatever prediction I made about Obamacare, and it was an off the wall one anyway, this reality is much, much worse.

How is this the least bit affordable?

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not. That's a plan for idiots.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What's a good plan?

In Texas, not eligible for subsidies, 2 teens and 2 adults in their 40s. Non-smoking. I'm open to suggestions.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What's a good plan?

In Texas, not eligible for subsidies, 2 teens and 2 adults in their 40s. Non-smoking. I'm open to suggestions.

If anyone is good at this stuff, I'd also be interested in knowing what is the number I use with the IRS to determine if the plan is a certain percentage of income to determine if I have to pay the penalty or not. What's the plan dollar amount to use there.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's by ZIP code nowadays. What's your ZIP?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I plugged in Houston. Almost every single plan in that area is better than the one you've described, so I'm clearly guessing in the wrong area. If you let me know your region and how you expect to use the doctor -- and if you're looking for disaster coverage or actually intend to see a doctor -- I'll try to recommend something.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, so you have a privileged account that you are using to get the estimates? I ask because I would like to do some investigating for my daughter. I have a lot more patience to try different approaches than she does.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's say 77077 zip and my family has never used more than 3500 dollars in a year for medical bills and that was for two childbirths so I think I'd just go with the cheapest plan which I suppose would be disaster type coverage like for a heart attack, stroke, or cancer. Thanks for making the effort. When I filled out my taxes with the H&R Block free program it said I owed $185 for my Obamacare penalty so that's what I paid but I didn't know the number to use to see if the Obamacare plan I was supposed to pick would be more than 8% of our annual income (let's say 53k, "luckily" our stocks don't pay any dividends so they don't count for income unless we sell). That's only $4240 so I'm probably one of those who can get my penalty back from the IRS. Perhaps. I heard the IRS actually knows there are a lot of people who deserve to have their penalties refunded and they know who they are but they aren't going to really act on it. It would be worth it though to fill out an adjustment.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I missed the edit window, but my cell phone did a bit of mischief. I meant to write: "Tom, do you have a privileged account that you are using to get the estimates?" etc.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al: sadly, I no longer do. I'm no longer working for an insurer. But I know how to game the system a bit.

cherry: Hm. That ZIP code appears to have some grim insurance options, especially for people who just need disaster insurance. If you make more than ~$100K a year as a family, you won't be able to avoid paying a penalty for having no insurance; the cheapest plan in your area for your family is $594 a month. (I wouldn't recommend that one, though, since for $5 extra per month you can get a plan that would save you considerable money in the event of an actual hospital stay.) If your actual reported income is only $53K, then things look much better. Not only do you not have to pay a penalty for a lack of insurance, but that $594/month becomes $121.

At that rate, I'm on the fence. I definitely would normally advise someone with a family in excellent health and an income of over $100K to suck it up and pay the penalty. But for $126 a month, you can get a plan that reduces your total possible medical exposure (within limits, of course; all modern insurance has catches and gotchas, which annoys me to no end) to $6K per person. That's potentially a huge buffer against life-destroying medical costs.

That said, if you have substantial savings or wealthy family or some other way to avoid being financially destroyed by a major medical emergency, I'd just get your money back from the IRS and pay into a medical savings account. If not, find the cheapest insurance that gives you free or dramatically reduced costs after the deductible and a deductible that's low enough for you to bear.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Seriati, overall health care cost growth in the US has slowed under Obama. And economic growth has improved dramatically from the terrible state it was in when Obama came into office. So, what is the evidence for your "FACT that the economy slowed over all"?

Greg, the economy growth rate under Obama is slower than historical averages, when you compare the slowing in health care costs to that trend (and factor in the other things I mentioned), what you're trumpeting as a victory for Obama looks pretty much like nothing. It's just beta, there's no Alpha being created by this Administration's policies.

If the economy begins growing at its historical rate again, the illusion that is the lowered "healthcare costs" will disappears entirely, as healthcare costs grow in line with the economy. Why would should a President get credit for pretending the statistical noise in his favor is an achievement, and the noise against him has nothing to do with him?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why would should a President get credit for pretending the statistical noise in his favor is an achievement, and the noise against him has nothing to do with him?
What? And rationally evaluate the performance of a President? How are we supposed to be sure we get the right answers?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Greg, the economy growth rate under Obama is slower than historical averages, when you compare the slowing in health care costs to that trend (and factor in the other things I mentioned), what you're trumpeting as a victory for Obama looks pretty much like nothing.
Seriati, show your math. Until you do, you are just posturing.

I comprehensively demonstrated that those here criticizing Obamacare had a terrible track record for wrong predictions. I showed my sources and my analysis. Remember, Obamacare opponents uniformly said that things would get much worse when regulations increased as part of the effort to provide everyone with additional coverage and to give tens of millions of uninsured people health care coverage. You don't have to take my word for it, the comments are in this very thread.

The reduction in the growth rate in health care costs has been dramatic. The economic growth rate was affected by the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, but has been recovering better than the rest of Europe. You raise an assertion that the current trends are statistical noise. Based on your track record on this topic, there is no basis for believing your assertion unless you demonstrate that claim with analytical rigor (not just cherrypicking, but considering a range of factors on both sides, as I did in this very thread when I was evaluating everyone's predictions).

[ October 02, 2015, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
quote:
Greg, the economy growth rate under Obama is slower than historical averages, when you compare the slowing in health care costs to that trend (and factor in the other things I mentioned), what you're trumpeting as a victory for Obama looks pretty much like nothing.
Seriati, show your math. Until you do, you are just posturing.
Which math? Have you looked at any source for growth of the economy by year? I'm interested what source you think paints a different picture. What measure shows that the change in healthcare spending is not in line with the change in spending overall?
quote:
I comprehensively demonstrated that those here criticizing Obamacare had a terrible track record for wrong predictions.
I think you showed, exactly what I said, making specific predictions is a fools errand. Picking one possibility out of an infinite number of possible results is never going to be a high percentage game.
quote:
I showed my sources and my analysis. Remember, Obamacare opponents uniformly said that things would get much worse when regulations increased as part of the effort to provide everyone with additional coverage and to give tens of millions of uninsured people health care coverage. You don't have to take my word for it, the comments are in this very thread.
I've read the thread, end to end, more than once. I get you feel vindicated, but you haven't demonstrated the correctness of your own positions in your efforts.
quote:
The reduction in the growth rate in health care costs has been dramatic. The economic growth rate was affected by the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, but has been recovering better than the rest of Europe. You raise an assertion that the current trends are statistical noise.
Yes, that's my suspicion. It's almost impossible to verify cleanly, because no good source exists that reasonable compiles all costs of the new product in a manner that the "sides" can agree on. It's absolutely clear that general economic slowdown and slowdown in consumer spending correlate to the slowdown in healthcare spending. It's absolutely clear that government subsidies have increased, increasing the overall tax burden and hidden costs of the system. Its absolutely clear that only those seeking to deceive site to the growth rate of premiums as relevant (given that its manipulated by the government) as evidence of slower growth (it could however be evidence of the opposite).

It's debatable but a reasonable position that a portion (perhaps significant) of wage stagnation may be directly linked to increases in healthcare costs of employers (it's not debatable that there is a known correlation between increases/decreases in salary versus decreases/increases in benefits).

The only part that is actually opinion, is whether there is a left over bit that represents Beta, and which direction it points. You don't get credit for Alpha though, period, end of story.
quote:
Based on your track record on this topic, there is no basis for believing your assertion unless you demonstrate that claim with analytical rigor (not just cherrypicking, but considering a range of factors on both sides, as I did in this very thread when I was evaluating everyone's predictions).
Really, what track record are you basing this on? I've demonstrated more than one of your claims as overblown, and not actually been refuted on my claims. Is that the track record you're referring to?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Elmedorfs answer was wrong - reduced labor only lowers growth IF labor is close to capacity OR it results in a shortage of a particular labor niche.

We have such a massive oversupply of labor there is no reason to anticipate this will happen.

Also Ryan has pretty big misunderstandings of economics it will likely increase people 'joining the middle class' in that it will provide more employment opportunities for those who want/need to work.

Also Kline misunderstands the report - he talks about it 'destroying full time jobs' - it should create more full time jobs based on this finding - since individuals will reduce overtime hours worked resulting in increased total employment both part time and full time.

And now:
quote:
ObamaCare will reduce work hours equivalent to 2 million jobs in the next decade amid a host of incentives not to work or to work less, a new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report says -- the latest blow to President Obama’s signature health insurance plan.

The report estimates the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, will make the labor supply shrink by 0.86 percent in 2025. This amounts to a shrinkage equivalent to approximately 2 million full-time workers.

I think you may not have a very good handle on this.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are these hours that bring these workers under a "typical" work week such that they are at or slipping below "full time employment"? Or is this a reduction in hours to those who are sleep deprived on mandatory overtime and at risk of making mistakes because of it when patient well being is on the line?

Not trying to be all defensive, but that snip of data could mean at least 2 (and probably more) very different things depending upon the lens it's viewed through.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've never understood why reducing work hours is bad thing when it's people choosing not to work.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ScottF
Member
Member # 6897

 - posted      Profile for ScottF         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd love to reduce the hours I work but it's outweighed by maintaining the standard of life I've chosen.

If [insert benefactor here] were to remove that particular obstacle for me I'd likely choose to work on my golf game instead.

Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I've never understood why reducing work hours is bad thing when it's people choosing not to work.

Most of it is people who can now afford to retire because they're not dependent on their employer for health insurance. A fair number of them actualyl plan to continue working, but on a self-employment/entrepreneurial basis, and so aren't counted for the basic employment numbers.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I've never understood why reducing work hours is bad thing when it's people choosing not to work.

Ever been paid by the hour?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fine, I'll play.

Yes.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 48 pages: 1  2  3  ...  45  46  47  48   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1