Report: Obamacare Marketplaces Stabilizing
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:43:24 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Report: Obamacare Marketplaces Stabilizing
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Report: Obamacare Marketplaces Stabilizing  (Read 808 times)
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 07, 2017, 06:34:30 PM »

Absent anyone on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue trying to screw with them:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/327896-report-obamacare-markets-stabilizing-absent-drastic-changes-to-law


Logged
vote for pedro
Rookie
**
Posts: 185
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.45, S: 0.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2017, 08:39:03 PM »

That article makes me wonder if Peter Sullivan actually read the report.  Nowhere in the report does it say "marketplaces stabilizing."  In fact it says "Our analysis of 2016 results and the market enrollment so far in 2017 shows that the ACA individual market is not in a "death spiral." But it isn't on a stable footing either."

So the 2017 rate increases outpaced the number of healthy people dropping coverage.  But rates need to go higher and they need to find more healthy people willing to pay higher premiums before it will "stabilize."

https://www.globalcreditportal.com/ratingsdirect/renderArticle.do?articleId=1828594&SctArtId=421970&from=CM&nsl_code=LIME&sourceObjectId=10047007&sourceRevId=5&fee_ind=N&exp_date=20270408-00:16:31

Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,222
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2017, 09:40:08 PM »

That article makes me wonder if Peter Sullivan actually read the report.  Nowhere in the report does it say "marketplaces stabilizing."  In fact it says "Our analysis of 2016 results and the market enrollment so far in 2017 shows that the ACA individual market is not in a "death spiral." But it isn't on a stable footing either."

So the 2017 rate increases outpaced the number of healthy people dropping coverage.  But rates need to go higher and they need to find more healthy people willing to pay higher premiums before it will "stabilize."

https://www.globalcreditportal.com/ratingsdirect/renderArticle.do?articleId=1828594&SctArtId=421970&from=CM&nsl_code=LIME&sourceObjectId=10047007&sourceRevId=5&fee_ind=N&exp_date=20270408-00:16:31

The vast majority of Exchange enrollees receive subsidies based on their income, and are therefore completely shielded from any rate increase.

If the formula says your bill is $200, it doesn't matter if the calculated rate goes up from $500 to $600 - your bill is $200 either way. All the pearl-clutching you hear every year about "OMG rate increases!" is mostly spin.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2017, 03:19:34 AM »

That article makes me wonder if Peter Sullivan actually read the report.  Nowhere in the report does it say "marketplaces stabilizing."  In fact it says "Our analysis of 2016 results and the market enrollment so far in 2017 shows that the ACA individual market is not in a "death spiral." But it isn't on a stable footing either."

So the 2017 rate increases outpaced the number of healthy people dropping coverage.  But rates need to go higher and they need to find more healthy people willing to pay higher premiums before it will "stabilize."

https://www.globalcreditportal.com/ratingsdirect/renderArticle.do?articleId=1828594&SctArtId=421970&from=CM&nsl_code=LIME&sourceObjectId=10047007&sourceRevId=5&fee_ind=N&exp_date=20270408-00:16:31

The vast majority of Exchange enrollees receive subsidies based on their income, and are therefore completely shielded from any rate increase.

If the formula says your bill is $200, it doesn't matter if the calculated rate goes up from $500 to $600 - your bill is $200 either way. All the pearl-clutching you hear every year about "OMG rate increases!" is mostly spin.

The people on the individual market who aren't getting subsidies are more likely to buy directly from an insurer rather than use the exchanges.  And these rate hikes apply to them too.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,222
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2017, 07:50:30 AM »

That article makes me wonder if Peter Sullivan actually read the report.  Nowhere in the report does it say "marketplaces stabilizing."  In fact it says "Our analysis of 2016 results and the market enrollment so far in 2017 shows that the ACA individual market is not in a "death spiral." But it isn't on a stable footing either."

So the 2017 rate increases outpaced the number of healthy people dropping coverage.  But rates need to go higher and they need to find more healthy people willing to pay higher premiums before it will "stabilize."

https://www.globalcreditportal.com/ratingsdirect/renderArticle.do?articleId=1828594&SctArtId=421970&from=CM&nsl_code=LIME&sourceObjectId=10047007&sourceRevId=5&fee_ind=N&exp_date=20270408-00:16:31

The vast majority of Exchange enrollees receive subsidies based on their income, and are therefore completely shielded from any rate increase.

If the formula says your bill is $200, it doesn't matter if the calculated rate goes up from $500 to $600 - your bill is $200 either way. All the pearl-clutching you hear every year about "OMG rate increases!" is mostly spin.

The people on the individual market who aren't getting subsidies are more likely to buy directly from an insurer rather than use the exchanges.  And these rate hikes apply to them too.

Correct, and I would certainly support a change to the subsidy rules to help them too, but they make up a very small percentage of ACA Individual enrollees.

When you hear about "OMG 20% rate hikes!!!!" remember that that's an outlier anyway, and that the few areas that really do have rate increases that high, most people are actually getting 0% instead of 20%.
Logged
Fusionmunster
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,483


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2017, 08:14:17 AM »
« Edited: April 08, 2017, 08:55:33 AM by Fusionmunster »

For the middle class who make too much to qualify for the subsidies and dont get insurance from work like my family, paying 1200$ a month for a catastrophic plan for 4 is less than ideal. Still, its good to hear about Obamacare stabilizing.
Logged
vote for pedro
Rookie
**
Posts: 185
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.45, S: 0.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2017, 10:10:08 AM »

That article makes me wonder if Peter Sullivan actually read the report.  Nowhere in the report does it say "marketplaces stabilizing."  In fact it says "Our analysis of 2016 results and the market enrollment so far in 2017 shows that the ACA individual market is not in a "death spiral." But it isn't on a stable footing either."

So the 2017 rate increases outpaced the number of healthy people dropping coverage.  But rates need to go higher and they need to find more healthy people willing to pay higher premiums before it will "stabilize."

https://www.globalcreditportal.com/ratingsdirect/renderArticle.do?articleId=1828594&SctArtId=421970&from=CM&nsl_code=LIME&sourceObjectId=10047007&sourceRevId=5&fee_ind=N&exp_date=20270408-00:16:31

The vast majority of Exchange enrollees receive subsidies based on their income, and are therefore completely shielded from any rate increase.

If the formula says your bill is $200, it doesn't matter if the calculated rate goes up from $500 to $600 - your bill is $200 either way. All the pearl-clutching you hear every year about "OMG rate increases!" is mostly spin.

Haha if you say so.  The scheme needs healthy people to enroll.  They are the ones footing the bill.  The healthier a person is, the more money they are likely to earn. 

When they say the marketplace is extremely fragile, it's because people deciding whether to enroll or not are healthly.  Hit those people with a rate increase and they may say screw it.  Which means rates have to go up more and causes the death spiral.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2017, 10:27:44 AM »

That article makes me wonder if Peter Sullivan actually read the report.  Nowhere in the report does it say "marketplaces stabilizing."  In fact it says "Our analysis of 2016 results and the market enrollment so far in 2017 shows that the ACA individual market is not in a "death spiral." But it isn't on a stable footing either."

So the 2017 rate increases outpaced the number of healthy people dropping coverage.  But rates need to go higher and they need to find more healthy people willing to pay higher premiums before it will "stabilize."

https://www.globalcreditportal.com/ratingsdirect/renderArticle.do?articleId=1828594&SctArtId=421970&from=CM&nsl_code=LIME&sourceObjectId=10047007&sourceRevId=5&fee_ind=N&exp_date=20270408-00:16:31

The vast majority of Exchange enrollees receive subsidies based on their income, and are therefore completely shielded from any rate increase.

If the formula says your bill is $200, it doesn't matter if the calculated rate goes up from $500 to $600 - your bill is $200 either way. All the pearl-clutching you hear every year about "OMG rate increases!" is mostly spin.

The people on the individual market who aren't getting subsidies are more likely to buy directly from an insurer rather than use the exchanges.  And these rate hikes apply to them too.

Correct, and I would certainly support a change to the subsidy rules to help them too, but they make up a very small percentage of ACA Individual enrollees.

When you hear about "OMG 20% rate hikes!!!!" remember that that's an outlier anyway, and that the few areas that really do have rate increases that high, most people are actually getting 0% instead of 20%.

A very small number?  It's more like half.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article116988418.html

This includes both those who make too much to qualify or subsidies, and (esp in states that didn't expand Medicaid) those who make too little.
Logged
vote for pedro
Rookie
**
Posts: 185
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.45, S: 0.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2017, 03:01:50 PM »

That article makes me wonder if Peter Sullivan actually read the report.  Nowhere in the report does it say "marketplaces stabilizing."  In fact it says "Our analysis of 2016 results and the market enrollment so far in 2017 shows that the ACA individual market is not in a "death spiral." But it isn't on a stable footing either."

So the 2017 rate increases outpaced the number of healthy people dropping coverage.  But rates need to go higher and they need to find more healthy people willing to pay higher premiums before it will "stabilize."

https://www.globalcreditportal.com/ratingsdirect/renderArticle.do?articleId=1828594&SctArtId=421970&from=CM&nsl_code=LIME&sourceObjectId=10047007&sourceRevId=5&fee_ind=N&exp_date=20270408-00:16:31

The vast majority of Exchange enrollees receive subsidies based on their income, and are therefore completely shielded from any rate increase.

If the formula says your bill is $200, it doesn't matter if the calculated rate goes up from $500 to $600 - your bill is $200 either way. All the pearl-clutching you hear every year about "OMG rate increases!" is mostly spin.

The people on the individual market who aren't getting subsidies are more likely to buy directly from an insurer rather than use the exchanges.  And these rate hikes apply to them too.

Correct, and I would certainly support a change to the subsidy rules to help them too, but they make up a very small percentage of ACA Individual enrollees.

When you hear about "OMG 20% rate hikes!!!!" remember that that's an outlier anyway, and that the few areas that really do have rate increases that high, most people are actually getting 0% instead of 20%.

A very small number?  It's more like half.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article116988418.html

This includes both those who make too much to qualify or subsidies, and (esp in states that didn't expand Medicaid) those who make too little.

That's a great article everyone should read.  Billy Blinson is rightfully balking at paying $1750 per month because he is healthy and doesn't have any medical expenses.  As each healthy person reaches their breaking point and bails, premiums rise even higher for everyone else, causing more healthy people to bail out.  You can claim it isn't a death spiral if you want but that is playing word games.  The scheme cannot survive without healthy people paying the freight.





Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,222
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2017, 03:24:04 PM »

Looks like I was a little off on my numbers. Here's some 2017 numbers for you:
http://acasignups.net/17/04/07/milliman-provides-one-my-holy-grails-hard-exchange-enrollment-data

On Exchange (subsidized): 9.0 million
On Exchange (unsubsidized): 1.6 million
Off Exchange (ACA compliant): 5.3 million
Off Exchange (Grandfathered/Transitional): 1.8 million
Basic Health Plans (NY/MN): 0.8 million

So that's 9.8 of 16.7 million (58.7%) receiving subsidies (not counting the GF/transitional because those are pre-ACA, health-status rated stable products).

Still, that is the majority, and there's no good breakdown that I've seen on whether the headline "OMG 20% rate increases!" are disproportionately distributed among the subsidized (where people's rate increase is actually 0%) or the non-subsidized (where people have to pay it). I sure wish the Exchanges had gone online on November 1, 2016, rather than November 15, because I don't doubt there were hundreds of thousands of people who heard scary headlines and voted with the expectation of a large rate increase, only to find out later that they wouldn't be getting one, thanks to subsidies. (And I sure hope that people in that situation didn't mistakenly credit Trump for their lower-than-expected bill...)



That's a great article everyone should read.  Billy Blinson is rightfully balking at paying $1750 per month because he is healthy and doesn't have any medical expenses.  As each healthy person reaches their breaking point and bails, premiums rise even higher for everyone else, causing more healthy people to bail out.  You can claim it isn't a death spiral if you want but that is playing word games.  The scheme cannot survive without healthy people paying the freight.

There's no question that the subsidy formula could use some work, as I have long advocated and no Democrat has never opposed. People making 401% of the FPL are definitely screwed by it. Increasing the subsidies would induce more healthy people onto the Exchanges, which would then lower the cost of insurance and turn around and lower the subsidy.

It's also a reason why the individual mandate needs to be increased considerably. Right now, the individual mandate is very weak, and for most people, the penalty is considerably less than the cheapest health insurance plan available. Raising that penalty to, say, the cost of the cheapest bronze plan, would induce a lot more healthy people into the insured block.
Logged
Classic Conservative
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,628


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 08, 2017, 04:18:54 PM »

So much for stabilizing https://mobile.twitter.com/modrnhealthcr/status/850311464963506176
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,222
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 08, 2017, 07:59:59 PM »


Come on now, one random insurer in one random state pulls out, and now it's "so much for stabilizing??"

If your local grocery store stops selling one particular brand of canned chili because that company wasn't making money selling that kind of chili in that kind of store, does that mean that the chili market is collapsing? Or is it just a symptom of the free market, where some companies can't hack it and fail, while others succeed?
Logged
vote for pedro
Rookie
**
Posts: 185
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.45, S: 0.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2017, 09:19:19 AM »


Come on now, one random insurer in one random state pulls out, and now it's "so much for stabilizing??"

If your local grocery store stops selling one particular brand of canned chili because that company wasn't making money selling that kind of chili in that kind of store, does that mean that the chili market is collapsing? Or is it just a symptom of the free market, where some companies can't hack it and fail, while others succeed?

LOL in your last post your suggestion was to drastically increase the existing government penalty as a means to force more healthy consumers to buy an obamacare policy they don't want or need. 

Literally your next post trying to claim obamacare is operating as a "free market." 

What would happen if the mandate was reduced or eliminated?  Even fewer healthy people would sign up, hastening the death spiral.  It is absolutely not  "free market."

Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 12 queries.