rickyp wrote:geo

I have no idea if its net effect on the overall economy will be positive or negative, and I expect no one else does either

But Fate, and all his sources are certain that their estimates are correct ...

I prefer to pass final judgement when there is actual evidence.

So far the only evidence is the return of excess insurance premiums to consumers and the lower than expected premiums in the Vermont and California exchanges (which although it currently affects less than 5% of the populace is a positive in that coverage can be bought for less than previouslt estimated by critics.) and the following.

If you’re a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month. (By “average,” I mean the median monthly premium across California’s 19 insurance rating regions.)

The next cheapest plan, the “bronze” comprehensive plan, costs $205 a month. But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com (NASDAQ:EHTH), the median cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92.

In other words, for the typical 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.

Under Obamacare, only people under the age of 30 can participate in the slightly cheaper catastrophic plan. So if you’re 40, your cheapest option is the bronze plan. In California, the median price of a bronze plan for a 40-year-old male non-smoker will be $261.

But on eHealthInsurance, the median cost of the five cheapest plans was $121. That is, Obamacare will increase individual-market premiums by an average of 116 percent.

Perhaps also the lower than expected health care cost inflation, but the causes of that can't really be isolated. Oh and this ....

As early as 2011, it appeared the Affordable Care Act was working. As of May, more than 600,000 new young people became insured, taking advantage of the Act's provision that children up to age 26 could be covered by their parents' insurance. This increases profits for the insurance companies, which should translate to lower premiums, since the new insurees pay into the system but require fewer health services. In fact, health insurance companies reported record profits for the first quarter of 2011.
Second, 46% more small businesses than in 2010 offered health care benefits, according to a Kaiser survey. More insured small business employees fewer bankruptcies, better credit scores and higher consumer demand. This allows them to spend more, boosting economic growth. In fact, there were fewer bankruptcies in August 2011 than the prior year.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpol ... reform.htm

The city of Long Beach, Calif., for example, is cutting the hours of many of its 1,600 part-time workers to fewer than 27 hours per week, the Times reported, in an effort to prevent them from qualifying for company-offered health insurance.

Long Beach officials have said the benefits they otherwise would have to offer could cost the municipality as much as $2 million, a price that could result in cutbacks to city services.

"We're in the same boat as many employers," Tom Modica, the city's director of government affairs, told the Times. "We need to maintain the programs and service levels we have now."

More than 2 million workers at large restaurant chains, retailers and a variety of other companies that employ more than 50 people across the U.S. are facing similar consequences.

Bill Dombrowski, who heads up the California Retailers Association told the Times that the cuts represent “the only way to survive economically” under the requirements under the Affordable Care Act.

Last week, the largest U.S. movie-theater chain cut the hours of many workers below 30 hours to bypass the law. In a memo to employees, the Regal Entertainment Group, blamed the decision explicitly on the policy often referred to as “Obamacare.”

“To comply with the Affordable Care Act, Regal had to increase our health care budget to cover those newly deemed eligible based on the law's definition of a full-time employee,” the company stated in a memo. “To manage this budget, all other employees will be scheduled in accord with business needs and in a manner that will not negatively impact our health care budget.”

Darden Restaurants Inc., which owns the Olive Garden and Red Lobster chains, made similar cuts last year, too, before the company reversed course due to intense criticism.

The author of the article I'm quoting also claims (with lots of sources) the following and though I think this makes all the sense, until full implementation takes affect her claims can't be fully supported... However:

Third, health care reform is needed because 25% of Americans have little or no health insurance to cover their costs. Over 101,000 Americans die each year simply because they didn't have insurance. Not only is this bad for them, it's also bad for the economy. For example, half of all bankruptcies result from medical costs.
Fourth, health care reform is needed to stem the economic costs of health care fraud. Between 3-10% ($60-$200 billion) is lost to fraud each year. If those same percentages are applied to the $436 billion Medicare program, the cost of Medicare fraud is $14-$30 billion.

The US economy is actually doing quite well right now. If the prognosticators Fate is sourcing were right, the economy would be stalled because of the implementation of the ACA....

Its beginning to feel like the ACA is one of those things that is here to stay, like Gay Marriage. As people get used to it, there will be increasing reforms as evidence mounts that tackling the Health Care mess actually means that personal capital and financial resources are freed for other purposes.

And I get it that ACA isn't a single payer system.... But it is a step towards universality and towards improving health care cost

Do you read? I've already shown that was NOT TRUE in CA

compare that to todays rates and I find that same man would be paying $116 today

rickyp wrote:

Do you read? I've already shown that was NOT TRUE in CA

What you've posted from Forbes is a comparison of rates for 25 year old men.
Only.
Turns out its about the only group that pays more than today.
Wonder why he chose 25 year old men and not some other demo with more meaning to a Forbes reader?

In the map below, I illustrate the regional variations in Obamacare’s rate hikes. For each of the state’s 19 insurance regions, I compared the median price of the bronze plans offered on the exchange to the median price of the five cheapest plans on eHealthInsurance.com for the most populous zip code in that region. (eHealth offers more than 50 plans in the typical California zip code; focusing on the five cheapest is the fairest comparator to the exchanges, which typically offered three to six plans in each insurance rating region.)

As you can see, Obamacare’s impact on 40-year-olds is steepest in the San Francisco Bay area, especially in the counties north of San Francisco, like Marin, Napa, and Sonoma. Also hard-hit are Orange and San Diego counties. . .

That Obamacare more than doubles insurance premiums for many Californians is especially ironic, given the political posturing of the President and his administration in 2010. In February of that year, Anthem Blue Cross announced that some groups (but not the majority) would face premium increases of as much as 39 percent. The White House and its allies in the blogosphere, cynically, claimed that these increases were due to greedy profiteering by the insurers, instead of changes in the underlying costs of the insured population.

Don't trust me?

rickyp wrote:tom

Don't trust me?

And what were the benefits offered Tom?
And the deductibles?
Are they identical?
I doubt it.

The poll shows 49 percent of Americans say they believe the Affordable Care Act is a bad idea. That’s the highest number recorded on this question since the poll began measuring it in 2009. Just 37 percent say the plan is a good idea.

As the political battle over implementation of the law heats up in Washington, the numbers mark an increase in unpopularity since July 2012, right after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Obama’s overhaul. Back then, 44 percent of NBC/WSJ poll respondents called it a bad idea, vs. 40 percent who called it a good one. . . .

For individuals, the current poll also finds 38 percent of respondents saying that they (and their families) will be worse off under the health care law. That’s the highest percentage of respondents to express a negative outlook toward “Obamacare” since 2010, when the president signed this signature piece of legislation into law following an extended, bruising battle in Congress.

By comparison, 19 percent say they'll be better off, and 39 percent say the law won't make much of a difference.

On the one hand, it's great that young single folks can insure themselves for about $1600-2000 a year, even if they don't qualify for a subsidy. On the other hand, as Will points out, lots of young single people can insure themselves for a lot less than that right now. I don't think this is what they've been expecting.

Anecdotally, they seem to be expecting the kind of generous package that Mom and Dad have, at around the cost of their monthly cell phone bill. I don't think it's sunk in that Obamacare will force them to pay $150 a month for insurance similar to bare bones plans that are available right now in many states for $100 a month--which they've declined to buy. And I'd be willing to bet that the average childless adult making $32,000 a year is expecting the government to kick in a lot more than $18 a month towards the cost of this suddenly-more-expensive insurance.

Why were they (and I) expecting more generous benefits? Because discussions of cost, and subsidies, tended to be focused around the hypothetical family of four. Families of four qualify for subsidies at quite high incomes--up to almost $95,000. That made it sound rather broad based. But for childless singles, the income range that qualified for help is much smaller. Effectively, a childless adult with a college diploma, or for that matter, a trucking license, is unlikely to qualify for more than nominal assistance in paying for health insurance.

But how many young, single people are there? Is it really enough to worry about what they're expecting?

Well, according to a 2009 brief from Kaiser, childless adults compose almost 60% of the population of uninsured.

and instead of wondering how equal the plans are, why not look for yourself?

rickyp wrote:Tom

and instead of wondering how equal the plans are, why not look for yourself?

I wasn't wondering Tom.

The benefits for the plans you compared were very different.

You aren't comparing plans with the same value to the consumer.You're the guy presenting the information. If you can't present it comprehensively don't bother.