A Health Care System I Won't Miss

Under the rules one can sign up for the exchange as one is in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, so one can pay the penalty and only get the inurance when one has medical bills - another sure financial loser for the exchanges.

Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
Under the rules one can sign up for the exchange as one is in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, so one can pay the penalty and only get the inurance when one has medical bills - another sure financial loser for the exchanges.
Health insurance sold through the marketplaces will impose an open enrollment rule. This year, you will only be able to buy insurance through the marketplaces between October 1, 2013 and March 31, 2014. The policies will take effect no sooner than January 1, 2014. Then, in subsequent years beginning fall 2014, you'll only be able to sign up from October 1 to December 7, and the coverage won't begin until New Year's Day.

For the first three months in 2014, it will be possible to buy insurance while being ambulanced to a hospital. After that, no. I leave it to others to figure out whether a single sensible person would make that window part of a plan.
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
DonDiego, dontcha hate it when people actually click on your links? From your source:

"The CBO did an admirable job of projecting the cost of this legislation as written."

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by just saying that forky is telling the truth and that hoops is...fantasizing.
Not at all, . . . DonDiego posts links so that interested people can learn something.

Unfortunately some folks just skim through things to come up with something to reinforce their own propaganda. F'rinstance, forkushV does not quote the entire paragraph:
"When Congress inevitably fails to implement the Obama plan’s spending cuts, and expands its subsidies to more and more people, the cost of this legislation will grow beyond $3 trillion. The CBO did an admirable job of projecting the cost of this legislation as written. But the text of the legislation does not reflect the reality it would create."...
So you are saying saying the CBO forecast is bad because some future Congress and president may decide to modify it. Seriously?
Apologies for quoting myself, but DonDiego must have missed this one. So I will repeat:

So you are saying saying the CBO forecast is bad because some future Congress and president may decide to modify it. Seriously?
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
So you are saying saying the CBO forecast is bad because some future Congress and president may decide to modify it. Seriously?
DonDiego is not saying the CBO forecast is bad; the CBO forecasts what Congress intends for them to forecast.

DonDiego is saying exactly what the paper he quoted says: ""When Congress inevitably fails to implement the Obama plan’s spending cuts, and expands its subsidies to more and more people, the cost of this legislation will grow beyond $3 trillion. The CBO did an admirable job of projecting the cost of this legislation as written. But the text of the legislation does not reflect the reality it would create."

There is lots of historical and ongoing precedent for Congress to not live up to the requirements of its own legislation, . . . especially with regard to legislated future cost cuts. There is no need to modify Obamacare; Congress just funds the programs fully when the legislation requires Congress to cut the funding.

The best current example is the Medicare "Doc Fix". In 1997 the Balanced Budget Act required automatic adjustments to Federal reimbursements to doctors for Medicare patients in accordance with a legislated formula. But in almost every year since Congress steps up and passes a bill to not reduce the payments; the required downward adjustments, however, are cumulative. So if Congress were to not pass the bill in 2014 the cumulative adjustment would be almost a 30% cut to doctors. If that were to happen few doctors would accept Medicare patients, so it won't happen.
This year the Republicans have plans to replace the old formula, so they don't have to mess with canceling the reimbursement reduction every year.

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Don Diego has already been pointed to the math. Alas he didn't like the source. The CBO is not credible at measuring the financial ramifications of legislation in his eyes. But they concluded the net result is deficit reducing. Don Diego then defferred us to a report that scored a fictional health care system that is not law in any part of the known universe.

Don Diego writes:
"DonDiego supposes the cash resource generated by the $95 penalty-tax would be exhausted well before the last broken arm is set. "

So its up to our gentle readers to see decide has more insight into the math of the bill. People who sat down and scored the figures...or someone who is casually "suppossing" in this forum.

In either case we will know for certain what the math is when the law is fully implemented.
Item 1 - The Penalty Tax

OK, . . . so pjstroh doesn't want to show DonDiego the insurance math. The CBO did not actually do any statistical analysis on the insurance premiums vs costs; it just took whatever figures Congress gave it.

Not to put too fine a point on it, . . . but even though pjstroh said it is so, DonDiego doesn't really believe that the $95 penalty tax is designed to cover the emergency room care expenses of the uninsured. He'd like to verify it. [Hint as to DonDiego's skepticism: the tax-penalty is not $95.]

So, since pjstroh referenced the math at least tell poor old DonDiego where he found out that the $95 penalty-tax is supposed to cover emergency medical care for the uninsured. Whether there's math there or not.


Item 2 - The Young Invincibles
pjstroh writes: "In either case we will know for certain what the math is when the law is fully implemented."

Indeed, that is so.

But some folks have already done some of the math as to how Obamacare may fare:
"If the ObamaCare health insurance exchanges are to function properly, it is crucial that a substantial number of people ages 18-34 join them. This age group that is young and relatively healthy must purchase health insurance on the exchanges in order to "cross-subsidize" people who are older and sicker. Without the young and healthy, the exchanges will enter a "death spiral" where only the older and sicker participate and price of insurance premiums will increase precipitously.

This study finds that in 2014 many single people aged 18-34 who do not have children will have a substantial financial incentive to forego insurance on the exchanges and instead pay the individual mandate penalty of $95 or one percent of income. About 3.7 million of those ages 18-34 will be at least $500 better off if they forgo insurance and pay the penalty. More than 3 million will be $1,000 better off if they go the same route. This raises the likelihood that an insufficient number of young and healthy people will participate in the exchanges, thereby leading to a death spiral.

. . . when the young and healthy drop out of the "insurance pool", [t]his leads to "adverse selection" in which insurance is only attractive to those who are generally older and sicker. If the insurance pool comprises largely people who are older and sicker, then insurance prices will rise to cover their costs. That rate increase causes even more young and healthy people drop their insurance, leaving the pools even older and sicker than before, and so on."

. . . until i.collapse or ii.Government pays for everything.

Ref: The Young Invincibles

Right now those introducing Obamacare are very worried that there will be insufficient young folks buying the insurance, because it isn't in their financial interest. Before pjstroh and DonDiego "know for certain what the math is", DonDiego expects an all encompassing Government funded advertising campaign to convince young people that Obamacare is good for them. If the campaign fails, pjstroh and DonDiego will know math alone is insufficient for success.


We know the math from the system Don Diego says we are better off with - life before Obamacare. In that system the uninsured PAID NOTHING into the system. In Obamacare they pay something. If Don Diego is concerned that the "something" isn't going to be enough to cover all the costs then perhaps ...just perhaps...it is a thoughtful concern. But then why on earth would he then advocate we have the uninsured pay nothing?

Don Diego wanted math. Here is some in its most basic form: "Something" is greater than "nothing".




Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

We know the math from the system Don Diego says we are better off with - life before Obamacare. In that system the uninsured PAID NOTHING into the system. In Obamacare they pay something. If Don Diego is concerned that the "something" isn't going to be enough to cover all the costs then perhaps ...just perhaps...it is a thoughtful concern. But then why on earth would he then advocate we have the uninsured pay nothing?

Don Diego wanted math. Here is some in its most basic form: "Something" is greater than "nothing".


Bull! You and others have become so accustomed to insurance that you apparently have no idea that some people pay for their medical expenses out of their own pockets. I have for years. Up to and including surgery. It costs less than insurance! I have found a number of doctors who charge discounted rates when the patient is paying cash. They don't have to pay a staff member to process the insurance paperwork and they don't have to wait to be paid.

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
So, since pjstroh referenced the math at least tell poor old DonDiego where he found out that the $95 penalty-tax is supposed to cover emergency medical care for the uninsured. Whether there's math there or not.

We know the math from the system Don Diego says we are better off with - life before Obamacare. In that system the uninsured PAID NOTHING into the system. In Obamacare they pay something. If Don Diego is concerned that the "something" isn't going to be enough to cover all the costs then perhaps ...just perhaps...it is a thoughtful concern. But then why on earth would he then advocate we have the uninsured pay nothing?

Don Diego wanted math. Here is some in its most basic form: "Something" is greater than "nothing".


Quote

Originally posted by: BobOrme
Bull! You and others have become so accustomed to insurance that you apparently have no idea that some people pay for their medical expenses out of their own pockets. I have for years. Up to and including surgery. It costs less than insurance! I have found a number of doctors who charge discounted rates when the patient is paying cash. They don't have to pay a staff member to process the insurance paperwork and they don't have to wait to be paid.


OK. So since pjstroh provides no source, DonDiego can safely conclude that there is in fact no source for pjstroh's assertion that the $95 penalty-tax is calculated to cover emergency care for the uninsured.
It's just a made up story.


BobOrme makes an excellent point. The uninsured do not pay nothing now. Only the uninsured who cannot pay or will not pay, pay nothing.


So what about the uninsured who cannot pay under Obamacare?
__If one's taxable income is below 133% of the annual Federal Poverty Level [FLP] ($31,322 for a family of 4), one is exempt from the penalty-tax. ["Something" is reduced.]
*DonDiego opines that a single person making no more than $15,282 [133% of the single FPL] is what most folks think of when considering who gets health care for nothing now. They still will.*]

__If one would have to pay more than 8 percent of their income for health insurance, one is exempt. ["Something" is reduced.]

__What about folks who do not file income taxes based on income? It turns out they are also exempt from the penalty-tax. ["Something" is reduced some more.]

__Native Americans are exempt from the penalty-tax. ["Something blah, blah, blah . . .]

__Undocumented immigrants are exempt from the penalty-tax. Huh???

__What about those subsidies the Government gives to those who do buy insurance, DonDiego's read about, . . . umm, . . . somewhere? [Two can play at this "sources" game.] The subsidies are aimed at people with incomes between 139% to 400% of the FLP. The current 139% FLP, which changes each year, is $31,322 for a family of four and the 400% FLP is $94,200. Wait a minute !!! Folks with income of $94,200 are subsidized ??? ["Something" is reduced even more.]

__What if someone refuses to purchase Obamacare insurance, and then refuses to pay the penalty-tax? How much will it cost to enforce collection of the tax? When the enforcement expenditures exceed $95, "Something" goes negative.


DonDiego supposes "Something" is is not likely to be much greater than "Nothing" for long. But, hopefully, pjstroh can show DonDiego the math, . . . or at least point him to a source. Or not.

Quote

Originally posted by: BobOrme
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

We know the math from the system Don Diego says we are better off with - life before Obamacare. In that system the uninsured PAID NOTHING into the system. In Obamacare they pay something. If Don Diego is concerned that the "something" isn't going to be enough to cover all the costs then perhaps ...just perhaps...it is a thoughtful concern. But then why on earth would he then advocate we have the uninsured pay nothing?

Don Diego wanted math. Here is some in its most basic form: "Something" is greater than "nothing".


Bull! You and others have become so accustomed to insurance that you apparently have no idea that some people pay for their medical expenses out of their own pockets. I have for years. Up to and including surgery. It costs less than insurance! I have found a number of doctors who charge discounted rates when the patient is paying cash. They don't have to pay a staff member to process the insurance paperwork and they don't have to wait to be paid.
An anecdote! Well that proves your case, doesn't it.

I prefer data, such as that the uninsured are twice as likely to die when they visit the ER. If you're cool with that stat, I guess you'd be okay with repealing Obamacare.
(removed...much to complex of a reply. I prefer my simpler one below)
Oh, sorry, I forgot to crunch the numbers for Don Diego. Lets take a look.

Scenario "A" Under Obamacare:
30 Million uninsured * ($100 penalty***) = $3 Billion for uninsured emergency care

Scenario "B" Under DonDiego-care
30 Million uninusred * ($0 penalty) = ZERO dollars for uninsured emergency care

***the 100 is an estimate. Feel free to substitue with whatever whole number above zero you wish.

pjstroh's conclusion Scenario "A" is always a bigger dollar amount than Scenario "B"
Don Diego's conclusion "Something" is not greater than "nothing" for long.

Our readers are free to decide whose evaluation of the math is more accurate.
Happy trails.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now