Doctor Fate wrote:Will Obamacare improve the lives of people without insurance now? It's questionable according to a Daily Beast columnist:

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.

In other words, most uninsured people are single. In other words, most of them are going to pay more than they expect to have to pay and receive less than what they expect.

Sounds like a real winner.

Archduke Russell John wrote:I read this article as well. Realistically, if these young people are rational actors they will choose to pay the penalty rather then get insurance because it is less money. So it got me to wondering what effect will that fact have on these wonderful California rates. My understanding of how insurance works says prices should sky rocket.

when Avik Roy, a columnist from Forbes, decided to try an experiment. He went to eHealthInsurance, the clearinghouse website for people who try to buy individual coverage today, and used two fictional people to obtain insurance offers for a 25-year-old healthy man and a 40-year-old healthy man. He then compared the offers eHealthInsurance produced to the bids the California exchange had provided. The eHealthInsurance premiums were substantially less—and, from this, Roy concluded that California would experience precisely the kind of “rate shock” he and other Obamacare critics had predicted. "Obamacare itself more than doubles the cost of insurance on the individual market," Roy wrote. "I can understand why Democrats in California would want to mislead the public on this point. But journalists have a professional responsibility to check out the facts for themselves." Within a day or so, every right-wing outlet had picked up Roy’s calculation—for a while, it was the lead item on Drudge. The Daily Caller’s headline was typical: “Obamacare drives up insurance premiums by up to 146 percent in California.”

If you’ve ever tried to buy insurance on your own, you have a pretty good idea of how ridiculous Roy’s experiment was. If not, go and read Ezra Klein and Rick Ungar, who over the weekend pointed out each of the many flaws. Among the problems they identified: The prices a consumer sees on eHealthInsurance are classic “teaser rates”—in this case, available only to people who don’t have pre-existing conditions. A 25-year-old with a history of allergies, or diabetes, or repetitive stress injuries, or mental health problems, or any number of other common conditions could not have gotten that rate. In fact, that 25-year-old might not have been able to get insurance at all. “That’s not just comparing apples to oranges,” Ezra wrote. “It’s comparing apples to oranges that the fruit guy may not even let you buy.”

And it’s even worse than that. Insurance bids from eHealthInsurance are for new customers only. Insurers who sell to individuals—that is, insurers who sell in the “non-group market”—frequently raise rates dramatically, and unpredictably, because a particular group of customers have become too expensive to insure. In other words, if you buy on eHealthInsurance, you might get a reasonable rate the first year, only to experience eye-popping increases a year or two later. That won’t happen on the exchanges, because, under Obamacare, insurers can’t charge different prices to new and existing customers.

But the most amazing part of Roy’s entry was what it didn’t say. Roy never acknowledged that, even as young and healthy people would have to face higher premiums, older and sicker people would face lower premiums. He said absolutely nothing—not a single word!—about the federal subsidies available to people with incomes below 400 percent of the poverty line. (That's about $46,000 a year for a single adult, or $94,000 for a family of four.) This has been a pattern with his writing and, unfortunately, much of what I read on the right. Articles focus on the drawbacks of Obamacare but almost never acknolwedge the benefits.

Eventually, in response to criticism I made on Twitter, Roy added a postscript about the subsidies. And in a follow-up that Roy posted on Monday morning, he acknowledged them again—although only late in the piece, and in a highly misleading way. He wrote that only a “select few” will get the discounted prices, a point he's made over and over again. Actually, the majority of people buying coverage on the exchanges will get subsidies. It's difficult to be certain about the overall effect on all Californians buying coverage, because it requires insurer information not available to the public. But it's entirely possible (I'd say likely) that, with the subsidies, the majority of people buying on the exchange next year will pay less than they pay for insurance today.

78 percent of us get coverage through Medicare, Medicaid, or our employers, a figure isn’t likely to change very much, or at least very quickly. Meanwhile, my colleague Jonathan Cohn points out that life for many people who do end up on Obamacare will improve, however flawed the program is, because it translates into insurance they didn’t have before.

rickyp wrote:

78 percent of us get coverage through Medicare, Medicaid, or our employers, a figure isn’t likely to change very much, or at least very quickly. Meanwhile, my colleague Jonathan Cohn points out that life for many people who do end up on Obamacare will improve, however flawed the program is, because it translates into insurance they didn’t have before.

There are a handful of young people who will face higher insurance premiums or a penalty (if they don't have employer insurance) .
But most of the people affected by the ACA will be 1) getting insurance they couldn't get before
or for those who did have ... paying less ..

The notion that the success of the ACA will depend upon that small demographic of young singles (solid Democratic voters by the way) is wrong. The success of the ACA will depend upon how many people will be affected positively. If 78% aren't affected at all, and if a large portion are now insured who weren't insured before , it will be successful.
Will that be good for the economy? One thing the economy likes is certainty. Once people who were previously uninsured have security of insurance their out look will improve and that will benefit the economy. Certainty of payment, also helps medical suppliers plan their businesses better. At the moment the amounts they need to set aside for potentially unpaid bills by the indigent is significant. Get rid of that problem, and their business improves.

As for the young who choose to pay the penalty for not having insurance? The penalty goes towards the general tax pool that would be the ultimate back stop if these young people end up on the tax payers dime after a calamitous medical problem.

source for above:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1134 ... can-party#

What I do know is that the GOP’s health care preoccupation is absolutely destroying its long-term prospects. However well the issue may work in the midterms, when an uptick in conservative turnout can flip a few dozen House seats, 2012 proved that it’s at best a wash in a presidential election, when Democrats can swamp that turnout with their demographic edge, and when the GOP’s challenge is to win moderates and independents as a result. Conservatives argue that the only reason health care didn’t work in 2012 is that Romney was a flawed messenger, given his patrimonial link to Obamacare. But with the Supreme Court largely blessing the law last June, the issue was mostly settled in the public mind, making it at best a non-factor among swing voters.1

the conservative columnist Avik Roy tried to disprove the claims by visiting an online clearinghouse for private insurance plans. Roy solicited bids for a healthy 25-year-old male and a healthy 40-year old male, then pointed out that they came in far below what coverage would cost through the Obamacare exchange. All fine and good, except that Roy’s hypothetical bids were neither here nor there. The point of Obamacare is to provide affordable insurance to people who may be sick or older.

Obama's Health Care Bill aims to reform the American Health Care System and provide affordable quality health care to all Americans.

freeman3 wrote:Tom, what kind of coverage would that 40sh man receive? When I was paying for my own coverage it was about 4k a year ( a lot more than the 2k or so that you indicated in your example). I can't imagine someone in their 40s getting coverage that pays for anything for 2K in California right now (it would have to be bare bones coverage)
The only reason I can think for all these scare tactics on the Right is that they are afraid people are going to like the ACA once it is implemented. Just like they like other social programs the Right was against like Medicare, Social Security, etc.

Don't trust me?
Like DF said, if you would actually read the Forbes article (the one that confused you?) you would see the link there. For today's rates I went to http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ and used a San Diego zip code. For the Obamacare rates I used your link
http://www.coveredca.com/individuals_and_families.html
and clicked on the cost-estimate calculator.

Was Avik really using teaser rates published on the Internet by eHealthInsurance.com as his point of comparison? I mean, you don’t have to be a healthcare policy expert to know that websites like eHealthInsurance.com always flash low rates in front of you—prices that maybe one person in a thousand might actually hope to achieve—to tickle the interest of a potential customer.
It’s not that the flashing low prices are necessarily false as there is always going to be someone who can qualify for the exceptionally low rate— although even they will often find that the actual details of what is covered and not covered may be far less beneficial than they might hope. You see, while many of us like to describe ourselves as “never having been sick a day in my life”, the reality is that such individuals are extremely rare. Have you ever suffered a migraine headache? If you have, be prepared for a substantial increase over the teaser price stated on a website like eHealthInsurance.com. Ever experience a summer of hay fever? Your rate will skyrocket as a result. Did you have acne as a teenager? Uh-oh..price is going up.
Indeed, you don’t have to be a think tank scholar to know that the policies listed on Internet websites do not give much in the way of detail when it comes to what is actually included or excluded from the policies being hyped. The only way one can have that information is to actually fill out the application for insurance and await the final quote.

rickyp wrote:Tom

Don't trust me?
Like DF said, if you would actually read the Forbes article (the one that confused you?) you would see the link there. For today's rates I went to http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ and used a San Diego zip code. For the Obamacare rates I used your link
http://www.coveredca.com/individuals_and_families.html
and clicked on the cost-estimate calculator.

No I don't trust what you offered, because you didn't substantiate it, or qualify it. Neitehr did Arvik.
Tom, what you did is use Internet "Bait and swith rates". No one every gets those rates from ehealth. Actually few people do. If you have any kind of medical complaint, or history your rates go way up...

Here:

Was Avik really using teaser rates published on the Internet by eHealthInsurance.com as his point of comparison? I mean, you don’t have to be a healthcare policy expert to know that websites like eHealthInsurance.com always flash low rates in front of you—prices that maybe one person in a thousand might actually hope to achieve—to tickle the interest of a potential customer.
It’s not that the flashing low prices are necessarily false as there is always going to be someone who can qualify for the exceptionally low rate— although even they will often find that the actual details of what is covered and not covered may be far less beneficial than they might hope. You see, while many of us like to describe ourselves as “never having been sick a day in my life”, the reality is that such individuals are extremely rare. Have you ever suffered a migraine headache? If you have, be prepared for a substantial increase over the teaser price stated on a website like eHealthInsurance.com. Ever experience a summer of hay fever? Your rate will skyrocket as a result. Did you have acne as a teenager? Uh-oh..price is going up.
Indeed, you don’t have to be a think tank scholar to know that the policies listed on Internet websites do not give much in the way of detail when it comes to what is actually included or excluded from the policies being hyped. The only way one can have that information is to actually fill out the application for insurance and await the final quote.

Since you didn't bother to actually list the beenfits of the insurance you were getting a quote for : or the restrictions, I assumed you did just what Arvik did. Buy into a marketing ploy.
read the whole article from Forbes here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... ge-prices/

Younger, healthier people are most likely to see higher premiums because of the benefit mandates and other provisions under the health care reform law while older, sicker people will gain guaranteed access to comprehensive coverage they may not be able to obtain on today's market. Since younger people tend to have lower incomes, they're also most likely to qualify for tax credits that would reduce what they pay for health insurance.

GMTom wrote:Ricky, I did in fact pick out one of the best plans offered and compared that one to the ACA offering. I pointed that out and if you noticed, the difference in cost was much closer (also spelled out) my example was in no way some sort of teaser rate. But that would have meant you had to actually read what I had posted. Your claims are still invalid and unsubstantiated. Keep trying, but I posted real life examples while you continue to post other peoples opinions as factual.

Well, some people don’t have health insurance, and certainly will have their premiums go up, because they don’t have health insurance now so they don’t have any premiums now. But for anyone that that is a challenge there are subsidies in the exchanges, and it’s also about what you get for the money. In other words, people will getting no lifetime or annual limits on their coverage, no discrimination because of preexisting medical condition. It has a whole array of quality that is in the legislation. But, if you don’t have health insurance and you don’t qualify for a subsidy and you’re mandated to have health insurance, yes, you will have an increase. We’re very sensitive to what it means for young people, especially young singles, and there are policies that people can get. I don’t remember saying that everybody in the country would have a lower premium, because everybody in the country doesn’t have health insurance, so how could it be lower. But the fact is, the value of what you get for the cost that you pay is a reduction is a reduction in cost to you. And if you don’t have insurance, you’re going to pay something that you didn’t pay before, but if you can’t afford it, you can have a subsidy… For everybody, it is going to be, again, a liberation, a freedom…

Ray Jay wrote:one of the new rules under the ACA is that insurance companies can no longer modify rates based on a company's health history or expectation. For example, in the past a white collar employer (e.g. insurance company) would have lower rates than a blue collar employer (say oil and gas exploration company) for the same age employee demographic. The insurance companies have a sense of some demographic groups having lower health care costs. This created a dynamic whereby insurance companies would provide lower rates for different employer types. The insurance company would also be motivated to instruct employers and employees on lifestyle changes such as weight loss for long term benefit. Now insurance companies can only price based on age and smoking rates for small employers.