Obamacare
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
steinman, I'm not going to quote your post, but thanks for trying to explain it to me. I still think there's holes there, but I have some questions that relate to that first.
First of all, why is the existing plan going to cost the government anything at all, let alone trillions? Isn't it mainly regulating what the insurance companies can and cannot do, like them not rejecting pre-existing conditions? Where's the huge outlay of expense for this? That hasn't been clearly mentioned that I can find.
Second, what is the average cost of insurance for an individual (or family) in the USA? Numbers for both "I go out and purchase it" as well as "a company buys 10,000 policies for all of its employees" would both be useful. This relates to how expensive it would really be to be the "insurance of last resort" since that cost was put up by Gas as Trillions. The math MAY go that way, but I'm not sure.
Thanks.
First of all, why is the existing plan going to cost the government anything at all, let alone trillions? Isn't it mainly regulating what the insurance companies can and cannot do, like them not rejecting pre-existing conditions? Where's the huge outlay of expense for this? That hasn't been clearly mentioned that I can find.
Second, what is the average cost of insurance for an individual (or family) in the USA? Numbers for both "I go out and purchase it" as well as "a company buys 10,000 policies for all of its employees" would both be useful. This relates to how expensive it would really be to be the "insurance of last resort" since that cost was put up by Gas as Trillions. The math MAY go that way, but I'm not sure.
Thanks.
GasBandit
Staff member
Subsidies, oversight of the exchange, and (I shit you not) expansion of the IRS to oversee enforcement of the mandate and the fees therein. They had to swipe some of Medicare's budget to be able to get the talking point that it would come in under $1 trillion in the first decade. Now the estimates are upwards of $2.4 trillion.
I assume you're meaning the monthly premiums (the part that comes out of your paycheck). That varies wildly depending on a number of factors. You often get a choice of plans that have different deductibles (how much you're expected to pay per year yourself before they start paying) copays (how much of each visit you're expected to pay yourself even then, up front, before anything else) and coinsurance split (after the deductible is met, what percentage of the bill do you pay vs insurance? 0/100? 20/80? 40/60?)
Also, insurance rates vary greatly depending on what you're covering. If you're getting individual coverage only, it's much, much cheaper than covering a spouse or dependents. Here where I work, our options range from just over $100/mo for high deductible HSA on individual only to $800/mo for comprehensive low deductible coverage for a family of 4.
I'm not sure what you're asking. If you review the congressional budget office's report of the cost of the healthcare act:
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/amendreconprop.pdf
You'll note that they're throwing around numbers in the hundreds of billions per year cost. They theoretically cover this with taxes, but you can see that the cost of covering the uninsured and other programs this act requires is approaching trillions of dollars per decade.
My experience is that CBO reports are usually optimistic. Sometimes horrifically so. For such a complex bill, though, I expect this one to be much, much worse than normal as the lawmakers find out in how many ways it can be abused by interested parties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_costs_in_the_United_States is pretty decent.
So I sat on the website until it let me in, which it did.
I finally got to the signup page and found the ludicrous requirements for a username.
It has to contain at least one capital letter, one lowercase, and one number.
So I can't have stienman. Or Stienman. Or stienman1. I can, however, use Stienman1.
Wat? I've heard of ridiculous requirements for passwords, but this takes the cake, forcing it on usernames.
Who's the idiot that decided every username must include a number? Someone who was bitter that they got AwesomeSauce023 because they were beat by 22 other AwesomeSauce users on AOL and decided that if he had to have a number behind his name, everyone has to have a number behind their name!
Ridiculous.[DOUBLEPOST=1380818910,1380818817][/DOUBLEPOST]I should mention that once I submitted my name, location, username and password, and then security questions it failed at the final step, saying the system was not available to process my application.
As I'm in Michigan this is through the federal system, there's no local exchange. Others in other states may have different experiences.
I finally got to the signup page and found the ludicrous requirements for a username.
It has to contain at least one capital letter, one lowercase, and one number.
So I can't have stienman. Or Stienman. Or stienman1. I can, however, use Stienman1.
Wat? I've heard of ridiculous requirements for passwords, but this takes the cake, forcing it on usernames.
Who's the idiot that decided every username must include a number? Someone who was bitter that they got AwesomeSauce023 because they were beat by 22 other AwesomeSauce users on AOL and decided that if he had to have a number behind his name, everyone has to have a number behind their name!
Ridiculous.[DOUBLEPOST=1380818910,1380818817][/DOUBLEPOST]I should mention that once I submitted my name, location, username and password, and then security questions it failed at the final step, saying the system was not available to process my application.
As I'm in Michigan this is through the federal system, there's no local exchange. Others in other states may have different experiences.
First of all, numbers over a decade are weasel-words. Do it per year at the most, since that's how budgets (family, corporate, or government) are determined. Costs over longer durations are OK as long as the per-year cost is stated. Because that means that the current program is NOT a trillion-dollar program. Not that $100B/year is anything to sneeze at, it's just a vastly different animal.
OK, from steinman's wiki link, about $10k per family, per year, averaging out, something like $2500/year per person? I'm trying to tease out the "if government paid 100%, what would the number be." At 10 million uninsured, and let's just say they're ALL too low-income to pay ANY of it, that's $25B/year. I wish I could compare it to that CBO document, but it seems to be saying a "reduction of deficit" which means you're bringing in more taxes than the program would cost. That's kind of opposite from most of the media surrounding it, but either way makes little sense IMO. If I take Gas's numbers, of around $1 Trillion for a decade, or $100B/year, it's STILL vastly cheaper to provide insurance to everybody off-program for ZERO cost to them, and even if you dump on another 10M partial-payers on a scale, it's STILL cheaper. Then add on those you force to pay a penalty for not having insurance (I agree this is necessary, otherwise people don't pay until you need it, which doesn't work), and... doesn't my proposal cost less than what you're outlaying right now?
OK, from steinman's wiki link, about $10k per family, per year, averaging out, something like $2500/year per person? I'm trying to tease out the "if government paid 100%, what would the number be." At 10 million uninsured, and let's just say they're ALL too low-income to pay ANY of it, that's $25B/year. I wish I could compare it to that CBO document, but it seems to be saying a "reduction of deficit" which means you're bringing in more taxes than the program would cost. That's kind of opposite from most of the media surrounding it, but either way makes little sense IMO. If I take Gas's numbers, of around $1 Trillion for a decade, or $100B/year, it's STILL vastly cheaper to provide insurance to everybody off-program for ZERO cost to them, and even if you dump on another 10M partial-payers on a scale, it's STILL cheaper. Then add on those you force to pay a penalty for not having insurance (I agree this is necessary, otherwise people don't pay until you need it, which doesn't work), and... doesn't my proposal cost less than what you're outlaying right now?
Nope, that's exactly what happened to me as well.
To be honest @Eriol I'm not sure what you mean. You say 'my plan' but I don't understand your plan well enough to figure out where you're getting that money from, or where it's going. We're throwing around estimated numbers like "10 million" but the reality is that far more will be taking from the pot, for instance those that are insured, but make a low enough income that it'll be cheaper for them to sit on the government's largesse than to cover it themselves as they are doing now. I expect most americans and businesses will weigh their options again and force as much of their costs onto the government as they can. That's how capitalism works, and why social programs suffer so badly in a capitalist environment.
Even the CBO's conservative estimates were over 150billion per year in the early stages after implementation, and the costs were increasing by tens of billions per year after that - much, much greater than inflation.
But those estimates are 3 years old, and latest figures actually place it higher than 300 billion per year within a year or two from now, and rising sharply over the implementation period.
Why are we spending 300 billion for "only 10 million" people? The reality is that the program covers much more than those 10 million, and not only that it provides additional coverage by law that is optional now. The costs are over the entire 300 million americans, each of who will incur a greater cost due to parts of the law that force them to get additional coverage they may not already be paying for, or want, or need.
Even the CBO's conservative estimates were over 150billion per year in the early stages after implementation, and the costs were increasing by tens of billions per year after that - much, much greater than inflation.
But those estimates are 3 years old, and latest figures actually place it higher than 300 billion per year within a year or two from now, and rising sharply over the implementation period.
Why are we spending 300 billion for "only 10 million" people? The reality is that the program covers much more than those 10 million, and not only that it provides additional coverage by law that is optional now. The costs are over the entire 300 million americans, each of who will incur a greater cost due to parts of the law that force them to get additional coverage they may not already be paying for, or want, or need.
GasBandit
Staff member
Yes, "over the first decade" is a weasel word, but that's how they chose to frame it. It is couched in that term because the costs aren't evenly divided - some of the costs are deferred to only start to hit the books once the American people are good and fused inextricably to the program.
steinman, the number that would be needed to be "newly insured" is what I mean. X number of people don't have insurance, and can't afford it (to whatever degree), and aren't covered now in your country. So instead of them paying for it, the government is going to pay insurance premiums for them at something resembling a current rate. I used the numbers from the wiki article you posted. That's all. I hope that makes sense what I'm proposing.
And I was remembering badly from Gas's post on the first page:
So to re-calculate. about 25 Million people want health insurance, but don't have it right now, and would require new spending to get it. The government will pay an insurance company $2500 per person per year for it, according to the numbers from your wiki link steinman. Thus total out-of-pocket per year is: $62.5 Billion per year. STILL less than $100B per year. And that number doesn't inflate per year either with weird costs down the road. And can you imagine if the feds gave the insurance contract to open bid? It'll be less than the national average if ONE company gets it. Or even 1 contract per state, the insurance companies will be fighting tooth and nail to get that contract, because it'll be massive. The ultimate cost will be less than $2500 per person. Then ADD IN the extra revenue from those who have lots of income, but are choosing not to get insurance. Most will buy insurance rather than pay the penalty, but some will. So the cost will be less than $62.5B per year.
Summary:
And I was remembering badly from Gas's post on the first page:
So I lowballed at 10 Million in "new spending". Should have been 15. Add in the 10 million for the line "are already eligible for existing government programs (before TAHA) but haven't" since you still need to cover that cost. The cost goes DOWN some from the income in tax penalties from the 9 million who have a fair amount of money but aren't buying insurance. Some will pay the penalty, some will buy insurance, so either way it's a gain in money for the feds.
So to re-calculate. about 25 Million people want health insurance, but don't have it right now, and would require new spending to get it. The government will pay an insurance company $2500 per person per year for it, according to the numbers from your wiki link steinman. Thus total out-of-pocket per year is: $62.5 Billion per year. STILL less than $100B per year. And that number doesn't inflate per year either with weird costs down the road. And can you imagine if the feds gave the insurance contract to open bid? It'll be less than the national average if ONE company gets it. Or even 1 contract per state, the insurance companies will be fighting tooth and nail to get that contract, because it'll be massive. The ultimate cost will be less than $2500 per person. Then ADD IN the extra revenue from those who have lots of income, but are choosing not to get insurance. Most will buy insurance rather than pay the penalty, but some will. So the cost will be less than $62.5B per year.
Summary:
- # of people without insurance and would need new spending from feds to get coverage: 25 Million
- Average cost of insurance, per person according to wiki (family of 4 cost, div by 4): $2500/year
- Cost of "buying" insurance for 25 Million, per year: $62.5 Billion/year
- Add in any revenue from the 9 Million that have over $75,000/year, but choose not to
- Projected cost of AHA over 10 Years: ~$1,000 Billion
- Project cost of my plan over 10 Years: $62.5 Billion * 10 = $625 Billion + fudge factor = $700 Billion or LESS with a better rate gotten by competition for the quote
The penalty for NOT having insurance. I didn't make it explicit enough that there would be such a penalty. Or to put it another way, make the government insurance "cost" $3000 per year for everybody, then provide a subsidy for those on low income, up to the point where buying private will be cheaper than buying the government's insurance. I'm not suggesting government "become" an insurance company, only that they then buy (in bulk) policies from others, that are then provided for $3000 or less, depending on income.
Ah, I find myself seriously contemplating reading the stupid thing. I found a good spot to get it though, so here're the links of note:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/content-detail.html <-- Healthcare act (~3.4 million characters)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ152/content-detail.html <-- Amendments to the act (~200 thousand characters)
I really don't have time for it, but I also am finding myself unable to articulate well on the problems inherent in the act itself since I'm merely parroting what others are saying.
The vast power over American Citizen's healthcare and health information privacy given to the executive branch is more troubling than the cost. But I really need to be able to quote from it and point out sections when I'm making my arguments.
So irritating...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/content-detail.html <-- Healthcare act (~3.4 million characters)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ152/content-detail.html <-- Amendments to the act (~200 thousand characters)
I really don't have time for it, but I also am finding myself unable to articulate well on the problems inherent in the act itself since I'm merely parroting what others are saying.
The vast power over American Citizen's healthcare and health information privacy given to the executive branch is more troubling than the cost. But I really need to be able to quote from it and point out sections when I'm making my arguments.
So irritating...
The provider for insurance at my job had the same requirement, and this was years ago. I had the same argument. I have to fail at least once every time I log in before I remember exactly how I went about corrupting my U53rn4me before it will let me in.
Simple solution, then. Have the people who have no health insurance earn their subsidy for the government-provided plan byyyy.....spying on other Americans! That way, the Government is not directly doing the spying (getting around that pesky "can't spy on citizens" problem), they get a dedicated support staff, and they can make up whatever deficit might rear its ugly head by cutting back on whatever portion of $600 billion was going to be earmarked for the domestic defensive efforts. It's win-win!
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
My company's traffic system requires a password 8+ characters long with capitals, lower cases, numbers, and requires a password change every 90 days and you can't use the same password more than once in the same year (because people just rotate through PASSword1, PASSword2 PASSword3 etc)
But our usernames are uniform and assigned by the service as (ourcompany'scustomernumber)(firstinitial)(lastname)
But our usernames are uniform and assigned by the service as (ourcompany'scustomernumber)(firstinitial)(lastname)
1.) It's the Affordable Care Act. Call it Obamacare and I stop listening to you.
2.) If I can get through the glitches and whatnot, I'll have insurance from the same provider as thousands of others in the state, just at a rate I can actually afford.
3.) There are people benefiting from this act that you have actually met. People you know. Are you really saying you'd willingly take health insurance away from a friend or neighbor to satisfy your political fetishes?
3a.) (It's pretty much a given @GasBandit would.)
2.) If I can get through the glitches and whatnot, I'll have insurance from the same provider as thousands of others in the state, just at a rate I can actually afford.
3.) There are people benefiting from this act that you have actually met. People you know. Are you really saying you'd willingly take health insurance away from a friend or neighbor to satisfy your political fetishes?
3a.) (It's pretty much a given @GasBandit would.)
GasBandit
Staff member
Yes, I'd definitely leave any given person I know in the gutter to die of hypothermia with no access to health care, because that's the only possible result of what happens in a world without Obamacare and that makes me SO ROCK HARD. Like a MIGHTY REDWOOD.
Schmuck.
It's not a bad video, DA. Just listen to it already and stop worrying about what they call it. They can call it the happy fun nuclear Nazi bill and it's not going to change that almost no one knows what's in it, still, 4 years later.[DOUBLEPOST=1380941276,1380941181][/DOUBLEPOST]
Yeah, I posted on page one but for some reason couldn't get the video to embed (thus a link).
So you're a hard ass only to those anonymous stick figures out there? "You have a right to health care... you can afford" only applies to people you can't put a face to?
We had a guy pass out at work here today. There aren't enough employees to compel coverage. So he's already out $800 just for the ambulance run. I can't afford that. I doubt he can, either.
Schmuck.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Oh hey, it's that Monkeysphere problem again.
If I had to guess, it's probably also what's at the root of the current tomfoolery in Congress. "The stuff I'm doing only handicaps people I don't care about so therefore I'm OK with it."
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Don't you have a gutter you need to be bleeding out in, peasant?
GasBandit
Staff member
Eddie. Well. There's a tender subject.
But he currently gets care. Right? He has bills, but he's not going to die due to lack of health insurance, unless he himself chooses not to receive care.
The current system is broken. You may feel the new system is better. It may be better, for you. Is it better for everyone? No. It's certainly not. I have friends losing good healthcare and having to trade down to a worse plan on obamacare, and paying more for it.
So. It's good for you. Not good for others.
Your attempt to characterize it as though opponents are killing people is disappointing. You are much smarter than that.
Your healthcare is going to cost money. Just because it isn't costing you your money doesn't mean someone else isn't losing out so you don't have to cover an $800 ambulance bill. Someone else is going to cover it for you.
Don't attempt to portray opponents as morally wrong or corrupt. They have priorities that differ from yours. The only difference is that you want them to cover your healthcare.
I suppose stealing from others is ok, as long as it's for healthcare and mandated by the government.
Oooh, wait, I'm not supposed to portray my opponents as morally wrong or corrupt, am I?
So. Let's keep it civil, shall we?
Yes, exactly. But we should only be stealing from the folks who can afford it/won't miss it. It's RobinHoodCare (which is totally not socialism).
--Patrick
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
Do you believe you are entitled to the time and treasure of another person just because they're wealthier than you? And that such transference of wealth should have the threat of government-sanctioned force behind it?
GasBandit
Staff member
Not much, so long as you hand it over without a fuss.
But go ahead and stop paying your taxes and see what happens.
It's no worse than claiming that opponents are killing people.
I disagree with both statements anyway. It's no more stealing than the fact that your taxes pay for my children's education. An educated society benefits everyone. A healthy society benefits everyone.
So using such inflammatory language isn't useful, IMO, on either side.
I agree. I guess I expected better out of you and hadn't realized you were being sarcastic with DA. God love the big lug, but DA is basically GB on the other side of the coin.