US uninsurance rate drops to 13.4%, record low

[Badger]

The question remains: Why are young people disproportionately uninsured compared to other age groups?

Because they are immature and think than they are invisible, young and than only old people have healthcare needs.

Oh, and--today more than ever--they're poorer than their elders. And dramatically less likely to enter the workforce in a job that provides health insurance.

Those MIGHT be factors as well. Just saying.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

What? The law mandating people get insurance was put into place and the percentage of people without insurance dropped?! Truly this is an incredible achievement and goes to show how successful the ACA is!

Coming up next, hear the amazing tale of how decreasing the speed limit on the highway causes the average speed to decline!

[Badger]

What? The law mandating people get insurance was put into place and the percentage of people without insurance dropped?! Truly this is an incredible achievement and goes to show how successful the ACA is!

Coming up next, hear the amazing tale of how decreasing the speed limit on the highway causes the average speed to decline!

So you're saying......both laws work?

[Paul Kemp]

What? The law mandating people get insurance was put into place and the percentage of people without insurance dropped?! Truly this is an incredible achievement and goes to show how successful the ACA is!

Coming up next, hear the amazing tale of how decreasing the speed limit on the highway causes the average speed to decline!

So you're saying......both laws work?

Yea, I really don't understand the argument that I've seen (both here and irl) from those who oppose Obamacare that "of course it works when you force people to do something!"

So the only issue at play here and the reason for opposition is that it's "forcing" people to do something that benefits not only themselves but society as a whole? Not that it doesn't actually work?

Strange, and quite frankly, desperate reasoning.

[7,052,770]

Maybe they'll mock murder laws for reducing the murder rate next...

[King]

Maybe they'll mock murder laws for reducing the murder rate next...

We could've done better with a free market solution!

[angus]

What? The law mandating people get insurance was put into place and the percentage of people without insurance dropped?! Truly this is an incredible achievement and goes to show how successful the ACA is!

Coming up next, hear the amazing tale of how decreasing the speed limit on the highway causes the average speed to decline!

So you're saying......both laws work?

Yea, I really don't understand the argument...

Strange, and quite frankly, desperate reasoning.

There's really not much to understand.  And it's hardly strange or desperate.  Somebody writes a news article claiming that lack of ownership of a product has decreased since the government threatened a penalty if you don't buy the product, and you're bound to find lots of people who immediately point out that it really isn't newsworth:  Uninsured rates down?  Well, no shit. 

It's rather like reporting that Robert Mugabe was re-elected president of Zimbabwe in 1990.  Well, given that the choice was either to vote for him or be beaten silly with the butt of a gun, there's no wonder that he won.  No reason to act surprised about it.  Same story here.

[memphis]

People who aren't sociopaths understand implicitly that a lower rate of uninsured people is a very good thing for individuals and for the nation as a whole. Republicans, on the other hand, don't see it as an accomplishment.

[Paul Kemp]

What? The law mandating people get insurance was put into place and the percentage of people without insurance dropped?! Truly this is an incredible achievement and goes to show how successful the ACA is!

Coming up next, hear the amazing tale of how decreasing the speed limit on the highway causes the average speed to decline!

So you're saying......both laws work?

Yea, I really don't understand the argument...

Strange, and quite frankly, desperate reasoning.

There's really not much to understand.  And it's hardly strange or desperate.  Somebody writes a news article claiming that lack of ownership of a product has decreased since the government threatened a penalty if you don't buy the product, and you're bound to find lots of people who immediately point out that it really isn't newsworth:  Uninsured rates down?  Well, no shit.  

It's rather like reporting that Robert Mugabe was re-elected president of Zimbabwe in 1990.  Well, given that the choice was either to vote for him or be beaten silly with the butt of a gun, there's no wonder that he won.  No reason to act surprised about it.  Same story here.

It is newsworthy because a high controversial, much maligned piece of legislation is working despite a large opposition who insisted (to put it very nicely) that it would not.

[angus]

It is newsworthy because a high controversial, much maligned piece of legislation is working despite a large opposition who insisted (to put it very nicely) that it would not.

To put it nicely, a large number of people believed it when legislators had claimed previously that they understood that the fact that Americans spend at least one-sixth of their money on medical care was a problem, and that they would attempt to deal with this bureaucracy and inefficiency.  To put it nicely, a large number of people were quite surprised when a number of legislators claimed never to have read it even as they voted on it.  To put it nicely, no one is surprised at the fact that when someone puts a gun to your head and asks you to buy something, you buy it.  To put it nicely, if that's what you call "working" then yes, I'd have to agree that the PPACA is working very nicely.  Here, buy this or pay a fine.  That all works out very nicely, doesn't it?

[Paul Kemp]

It is newsworthy because a high controversial, much maligned piece of legislation is working despite a large opposition who insisted (to put it very nicely) that it would not.

To put it nicely, a large number of people believed it when legislators had claimed previously that they understood that the fact that Americans spend at least one-sixth of their money on medical care was a problem, and that they would attempt to deal with this bureaucracy and inefficiency.  To put it nicely, a large number of people were quite surprised when a number of legislators claimed never to have read it even as they voted on it.  To put it nicely, no one is surprised at the fact that when someone puts a gun to your head and asks you to buy something, you buy it.  To put it nicely, if that's what you call "working" then yes, I'd have to agree that the PPACA is working very nicely.  Here, buy this or pay a fine.  That all works out very nicely, doesn't it?

To put it nicely, you used a whole lot of words to convey the same exact point as the one you made in your previous post.

What exactly is the issue here? Is it just an opposition to the government forcing individuals to buy something, despite the fact that it may benefit the general good? Perhaps the disagreement comes with it being for the general good?

Is it that legislators don't read bills and/or talk out their asses when promoting the bill? Obviously, you and I are both aware that this is hardly the only instance where this is the case so it would be silly to use this as a major sticking point as why this particular law may be garbage in the opinion of some.

[angus]

What exactly is the issue here?

That's pretty much what we're asking as well.  

[7,052,770]

It is newsworthy because a high controversial, much maligned piece of legislation is working despite a large opposition who insisted (to put it very nicely) that it would not.

To put it nicely, a large number of people believed it when legislators had claimed previously that they understood that the fact that Americans spend at least one-sixth of their money on medical care was a problem, and that they would attempt to deal with this bureaucracy and inefficiency.  To put it nicely, a large number of people were quite surprised when a number of legislators claimed never to have read it even as they voted on it.  To put it nicely, no one is surprised at the fact that when someone puts a gun to your head and asks you to buy something, you buy it.  To put it nicely, if that's what you call "working" then yes, I'd have to agree that the PPACA is working very nicely.  Here, buy this or pay a fine.  That all works out very nicely, doesn't it?

Your over-the-top "gun to the head" imagery is totally unnecessary. The "punishment" for not buying health insurance is an extra 1% of income tax, which is much cheaper than health insurance premiums, and the vast majority of people's out-of-pocket health care costs.

No, the ACA is working because most uninsured people wanted health insurance from the beginning and the subsidized Exchanges are making that possible. Most people who were uninsured by choice are still uninsured by choice and just paying the extra 1%.

The next goal is to get those people who are uninsured on purpose to enroll, and that's going to be difficult. We could start by increasing the extra tax to the point where it makes financial sense to enroll, but that's a non-starter idea until Democrats retake the House and increase their Senate margin by 5.

[angus]

1% this year.  2% in 2015.  2.5% in 2016.  And that's just what we know so far.

Headline:  "Government says if you don't buy something you get punished for not buying it.  One year later, a bunch of people have bought that thing."

This is news?

[7,052,770]

1% this year.  2% in 2015.  2.5% in 2016.  And that's just what we know so far.

Headline:  "Government says if you don't buy something you get punished for not buying it.  One year later, a bunch of people have bought that thing."

This is news?

Did you even read my post? The "fine"/tax/whatever you want to call it is toothless and meaningless. That shouldn't be the case, but it is

The reason health insurance enrollment is rising is subsidized Exchange insurance, along with expansion of Medicaid, forbidding pre-existing condition discrimination, and allowing up-to-26-year-olds to stay on their parent's insurance. It has very little to do with the Individual Mandate.

[angus]

I do understand that at the moment the legal opinion is that it is largely unenforceable.  I'm not arguing that point.  (I also agree that it shouldn't be unenforceable.  If we have a law, then it should be enforced, whether I agree with the law or not.  That is not the weirdest of all this Obamacare business, but at least we're in agreement here.)

As to the explanation behind the polling data, I'm not sure either of us has a clear enough crystal ball to say why precisely.  My own feeling is that if you scare people into buying something, then they'll buy it.
 
I'm surprised a wholesome, progressive idealist like yourself can even stomach pretending to support the PPACA.  What a horrible compromise.  How Dick Cheney is it to have the congress write a law that funnels even more money from individuals toward corporations?  It'd be one thing if we were arguing over socialized medicine.  One can argue the merits of a decent nationalized medical policy.  I have argued its merits on this forum (not that I'm totally convinced of its net benefit, but I can at least see its appeal.)  Still, I cannot possibly see any merit in the clusterfuçk that is the PPACA being defended by anyone who is being serious.  It obviously leaves many people without automatic medical bill payments.  It obviously does not decrease our "health care" burden economically.  It obviously will add at least another 300 trillion dollars to the costs of medical services per year over the next five years.  It obviously amounts to younger people subsidizing through their labors (during an economic recession) the extreme costs involved in keeping older people alive during the last ten years of their lives.  All it does really is give the Dems a "victory."  Really, can't you rise above all the politics and be neutral and see it for the projection of an already inefficient system that it already is?

Still, all that is really beyond the scope of this thread.  My goal here isn't to attack the PPACA.  I have done that at great length in other threads and so have other reasonably well-informed posters.  Here I only wanted to point out that that the obvious is obvious, and should not be surprising.

[tik 🪀✨]

The government isn't forcing you to buy things with the threat of violence. Indeed, the government isn't forcing you to participate any more than you were already. They're just being open about it now. You were already a participant in the healthcare and insurance industries by being alive. You were already paying for the uninsured with your tax dollars indirectly. Now it's upfront. And the consequence of a tax burden for not being insured is direct and tangible. And monetary. Not violent coercive behavior. It's silly to pretend this new arrangement takes away your rights. It's just rearranged everything so that it's obvious that you must participate.

[Mechaman]

The real good numbers in this poll is that the drop is more significant with 18-34 year olds than 35-64 year olds:

Question: Why is the uninsured rate for 25-34 year olds higher than 18-24 year olds? How does their overtaking of the youngs in 2011 in the context of the long-term numbers?

18-25 are often covered by their parents insurance.

Yes, and many people like to act like The New Economy doesn't exist.  Even after the "recovery" many people in their twenties are still living with their parents and working at Starbucks hoping that their law degree will eventually get them a job that will hopefully pay off their student loan debts by the age of 50.
Of course when you have hundreds of thousands in student loan debt and you are earning $9.25/hr and working probably 30 hours a week (if you're lucky) it's going to be hard to justify paying for a decent health insurance plan on top of all of your already large debt unless you have a plan that is already covered by your employer (if you are lucky enough to have a job to begin with and are not relying on selling rocks on ebay or something).

But yet, some of you would rather blame twenty somethings for being cocky youthful assholes who think they are invincible rather than acknowledge the crooked system that has resulted in most Americans having mountains of debt they will be lucky to have paid off by the time they are retired.  I am not blaming the ACA for this as I believe the symptoms of the problem existed long before it.  Actually, ACA, as much as I disagree with the concept of it (making more and more Americans succumb to greedy bloodsucking insurance companies), has done at least a little bit of good in allowing young adults to stay on their parents insurance until the age of 25, expanding the eligibility and funding for Medicaid, making restrictions on what insurance companies can deny coverage on, etc etc.  I'm not going to say that it is a step in the right direction, but it was better than doing nothing.  Hopefully people over the age of 25 will try to take advantage of the exchanges so they aren't forced to bend over and take it from the various companies out there.  However, the problem will continue to persist, regardless of how much percentage of a poor/middle class person's yearly income you are charging for not having the audacity to buy insurance.

So what is the problem?  People are still paying for healthcare.

[Mechaman]

Hopefully people over the age of 26 25 will try to take advantage of the exchanges so they aren't forced to bend over and take it from the various companies out there. 

FTFY

(I'm only being pedantic because I was mixed up on this point for a couple of years.)

Haha thanks!

[Tender Branson]

Well, this is what usually happens if a health care reform law with a mandate is implemented ...

Would be shocking if the rate did not fall.

[Badger]

The real good numbers in this poll is that the drop is more significant with 18-34 year olds than 35-64 year olds:

Question: Why is the uninsured rate for 25-34 year olds higher than 18-24 year olds? How does their overtaking of the youngs in 2011 in the context of the long-term numbers?

18-25 are often covered by their parents insurance.

Yes, and many people like to act like The New Economy doesn't exist.  Even after the "recovery" many people in their twenties are still living with their parents and working at Starbucks hoping that their law degree will eventually get them a job that will hopefully pay off their student loan debts by the age of 50.
Of course when you have hundreds of thousands in student loan debt and you are earning $9.25/hr and working probably 30 hours a week (if you're lucky) it's going to be hard to justify paying for a decent health insurance plan on top of all of your already large debt unless you have a plan that is already covered by your employer (if you are lucky enough to have a job to begin with and are not relying on selling rocks on ebay or something).

But yet, some of you would rather blame twenty somethings for being cocky youthful assholes who think they are invincible rather than acknowledge the crooked system that has resulted in most Americans having mountains of debt they will be lucky to have paid off by the time they are retired.  I am not blaming the ACA for this as I believe the symptoms of the problem existed long before it.  Actually, ACA, as much as I disagree with the concept of it (making more and more Americans succumb to greedy bloodsucking insurance companies), has done at least a little bit of good in allowing young adults to stay on their parents insurance until the age of 26, expanding the eligibility and funding for Medicaid, making restrictions on what insurance companies can deny coverage on, etc etc.  I'm not going to say that it is a step in the right direction, but it was better than doing nothing.  Hopefully people over the age of 26 will try to take advantage of the exchanges so they aren't forced to bend over and take it from the various companies out there.  However, the problem will continue to persist, regardless of how much percentage of a poor/middle class person's yearly income you are charging for not having the audacity to buy insurance.

So what is the problem?  People are still paying for healthcare.

Excellent post, Mech! I'd quibble with the last line because someone will ALWAYS "pay" for healthcare, whether through increased taxes for a single-payer system, a Rube Goldberg mix of higher taxes and insurance compnies trading absorbtion of previous non-insurables with pre-existing conditions in exchange for a larger market of youngs buying insurance, or whatever.

Other then that, it belongs in the Good Post thread.

[7,052,770]

Well, this is what usually happens if a health care reform law with a mandate is implemented ...

Would be shocking if the rate did not fall.

Again, the penalty for not buying insurance is an extra 1% in income taxes, MUCH lower than the typical insurance premium. The Individual Mandate is responsible for virtually none of the drop the uninsured rate -- the people who were intentionally uninsured already aren't going to change their minds now with this low of a penalty.

The reason the uninsured rate dropped is the subsidized Exchanges, the ban of pre-existing condition discrimination, and allowing people to stay on their parent's insurance until they're 26. It has nothing to do with the Individual Mandate.

[Mechaman]

The real good numbers in this poll is that the drop is more significant with 18-34 year olds than 35-64 year olds:

Question: Why is the uninsured rate for 25-34 year olds higher than 18-24 year olds? How does their overtaking of the youngs in 2011 in the context of the long-term numbers?

18-25 are often covered by their parents insurance.

Yes, and many people like to act like The New Economy doesn't exist.  Even after the "recovery" many people in their twenties are still living with their parents and working at Starbucks hoping that their law degree will eventually get them a job that will hopefully pay off their student loan debts by the age of 50.
Of course when you have hundreds of thousands in student loan debt and you are earning $9.25/hr and working probably 30 hours a week (if you're lucky) it's going to be hard to justify paying for a decent health insurance plan on top of all of your already large debt unless you have a plan that is already covered by your employer (if you are lucky enough to have a job to begin with and are not relying on selling rocks on ebay or something).

But yet, some of you would rather blame twenty somethings for being cocky youthful assholes who think they are invincible rather than acknowledge the crooked system that has resulted in most Americans having mountains of debt they will be lucky to have paid off by the time they are retired.  I am not blaming the ACA for this as I believe the symptoms of the problem existed long before it.  Actually, ACA, as much as I disagree with the concept of it (making more and more Americans succumb to greedy bloodsucking insurance companies), has done at least a little bit of good in allowing young adults to stay on their parents insurance until the age of 26, expanding the eligibility and funding for Medicaid, making restrictions on what insurance companies can deny coverage on, etc etc.  I'm not going to say that it is a step in the right direction, but it was better than doing nothing.  Hopefully people over the age of 26 will try to take advantage of the exchanges so they aren't forced to bend over and take it from the various companies out there.  However, the problem will continue to persist, regardless of how much percentage of a poor/middle class person's yearly income you are charging for not having the audacity to buy insurance.

So what is the problem?  People are still paying for healthcare.

Excellent post, Mech! I'd quibble with the last line because someone will ALWAYS "pay" for healthcare, whether through increased taxes for a single-payer system, a Rube Goldberg mix of higher taxes and insurance compnies trading absorbtion of previous non-insurables with pre-existing conditions in exchange for a larger market of youngs buying insurance, or whatever.

Other then that, it belongs in the Good Post thread.

Of course.  I didn't mean that it would be completely free, just that under a nationalized system it wouldn't hurt as much when the costs are done via taxation.

I will say openly that I would love to see taxes on the top earners raised to 60%, at the very least, to help pay for healthcare.

Point is actually, the poor shouldn't pay.

[memphis]

Well, this is what usually happens if a health care reform law with a mandate is implemented ...

Would be shocking if the rate did not fall.

Again, the penalty for not buying insurance is an extra 1% in income taxes, MUCH lower than the typical insurance premium. The Individual Mandate is responsible for virtually none of the drop the uninsured rate -- the people who were intentionally uninsured already aren't going to change their minds now with this low of a penalty.

The reason the uninsured rate dropped is the subsidized Exchanges, the ban of pre-existing condition discrimination, and allowing people to stay on their parent's insurance until they're 26. It has nothing to do with the Individual Mandate.

Also, Medicaid expansion. I'd take these exact figures with a grain of salt though.The ability of the public to answer a question like this correctly is is a higher bar than some of you may realize.

[politicallefty]

That changed as the ACA allowed people under the age of 26 to stay on their parents' insurance.

You can see the two lines cross in late-2010.

That was one of the first parts of the ACA to be implemented, going into effect six months after it was signed into law (in other words, September 2010). If the House bill had passed, the age would've been set at 27 instead. Some states already had dependent coverage laws similar to the ACA, though those states were exceptions. Currently, it seems as though NJ has the most generous dependent coverage law, covering dependents until the age of 31.