Obama Prepares to Screw his Base

[Torie]

The idea of young people as Obama's base is also patently absurd. Very few turnout and those that do vote just slightly more Dem than everybody else. Is Bucks County, PA Obama's base too? Ethnic/racial minorities are Obama's base. And the GOP is furious about it.

Youngs voted 60% for Obama. And anyway, it juiced up the headline, so any hyperbole attending it all was well worth it for the prose poetry. Thanks! 

[Sbane]

Again the age discrimination in group plans is a state generated rule where it exists, and is far more muted than what is in Obamacare. So while the principle is the same, the magnitude is not. Magnitude matters.  I mean, I favor progressive taxation just like you do, but we still argue some about the magnitude of the "progressivity" (among other things) don't we? 

I am not aware of employers charging you a different premium based on your age. Does this actually happen?

No, but the rates that the carriers charge based on those in the plan are state regulated, and mandate age discrimination, albeit as I said, at a lower level than Obamacare. The youngs in essence are subsidizing in particular uninsured olds, so they can get insurance at lower rates than otherwise.

I don't get what you are saying. As far as I know, any person who works for a large company that offers healthcare does not pay more or less based on their age. Am I wrong about this? If I am correct, this is pure community rating which is even more "radical" than what Obamacare does with the individual market.

[Torie]

Again the age discrimination in group plans is a state generated rule where it exists, and is far more muted than what is in Obamacare. So while the principle is the same, the magnitude is not. Magnitude matters.  I mean, I favor progressive taxation just like you do, but we still argue some about the magnitude of the "progressivity" (among other things) don't we? 

I am not aware of employers charging you a different premium based on your age. Does this actually happen?

No, but the rates that the carriers charge based on those in the plan are state regulated, and mandate age discrimination, albeit as I said, at a lower level than Obamacare. The youngs in essence are subsidizing in particular uninsured olds, so they can get insurance at lower rates than otherwise.

I don't get what you are saying. As far as I know, any person who works for a large company that offers healthcare does not pay more or less based on their age. Am I wrong about this? If I am correct, this is pure community rating which is even more "radical" than what Obamacare does with the individual market.

No, or course nominally the employer pays the premium. The premium rate is regulated, so an employer employing a bunch of geezers pays less than the actuarial risk, and the reverse, if it is an IT outfit filled with 20 somethings all wearing tight jeans. At least I think that is the case, but it is just possible I am full of it here, when it comes to employer plans (it is certainly true with individual plans, which among other reasons, is why my carrier loses a bunch of dough on me. I am sure Blue Cross/Anthem prays for my early and immediate death. 

See if you can reduce the old man to ashes on this one sbane. You have a shot this time.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Funny, I don't recall premiums skyrocketing when Romneycare got implemented. Our sicks must have been different from all these other sicks.

[badgate]

Wait, so you're telling me my premium will be higher for the ONE YEAR where I am not eligible to be covered by my parents? OBAMA HOW DARE YOU!!!!! 

[Torie]

Funny, I don't recall premiums skyrocketing when Romneycare got implemented. Our sicks must have been different from all these other sicks.

You had only 4% uninsured (these blue states are just so upscale these days), and I don't think it changed the cross subsidy formulas.

[Sbane]

Again the age discrimination in group plans is a state generated rule where it exists, and is far more muted than what is in Obamacare. So while the principle is the same, the magnitude is not. Magnitude matters.  I mean, I favor progressive taxation just like you do, but we still argue some about the magnitude of the "progressivity" (among other things) don't we? 

I am not aware of employers charging you a different premium based on your age. Does this actually happen?

No, but the rates that the carriers charge based on those in the plan are state regulated, and mandate age discrimination, albeit as I said, at a lower level than Obamacare. The youngs in essence are subsidizing in particular uninsured olds, so they can get insurance at lower rates than otherwise.

I don't get what you are saying. As far as I know, any person who works for a large company that offers healthcare does not pay more or less based on their age. Am I wrong about this? If I am correct, this is pure community rating which is even more "radical" than what Obamacare does with the individual market.

No, or course nominally the employer pays the premium. The premium rate is regulated, so an employer employing a bunch of geezers pays less than the actuarial risk, and the reverse, if it is an IT outfit filled with 20 somethings all wearing tight jeans. At least I think that is the case, but it is just possible I am full of it here, when it comes to employer plans (it is certainly true with individual plans, which among other reasons, is why my carrier loses a bunch of dough on me. I am sure Blue Cross/Anthem prays for my early and immediate death. 

Now that is actually true, and of course it will depend from state to state. Still, my point is that those who are employed by large organizations will see minimal to no change from the change in policy. It is really the small group and individual markets that will get affected.

Also, what the hell do tight jeans have to do with good health?

[Torie]

It means that the tight jeans folks are not fats. If they are, well I just don't want to picture that.

[Lief 🗽]

It means that the tight jeans folks are not fats. If they are, well I just don't want to picture that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muffin_top

[Landslide Lyndon]

Torie's obsession with entitlements reminds me of krazey's one with the labor unions.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Wait, so you're telling me my premium will be higher for the ONE YEAR where I am not eligible to be covered by my parents? OBAMA HOW DARE YOU!!!!! 

No, it doesn't go like that. It's not a cliff, it's a slope.  Regardless of the law, as you age, you'll pay more and more until you hit Medicare. The law just means that the increase will come sooner rather than later.  Since younger people are less likely to have employer-sponsored insurance, and tend to have less income to buy health insurance, that doesn't strike me as a good deal.  How much individual subsidies will help I don't know.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

LOL, the changes on what youngs pay is small, and I'm sure that 3.8% Medicare tax is hurting you a lot more than any possible decrease in your premiums you may have had. Obama has done plenty of things to screw his base, but this isn't one of them.

[Franzl]

well the actual numbers won't be out until 2014, but it's a well known fact that the bill subsidizes for it anyone who has difficulty paying their going rate.

The going rate for many youngs now is zero - they don't buy insurance. Why should they?  When you have a zero net worth, having insurance is just silly, isn't it?

I have a good friend who had the same attitude. And then severe asthma put him in the ICU for a while. And now he has $50,000 in medical bills. So he can either file bankruptcy and spend many years in financial purgatory or work out a settlement and spend fewer years in limbo but have to live off the kindness of strangers.  Genius plan, Torie!

BK is the ticket of course. It will cost about 5K to effect. So he gets a 90% discount as it were per your hypo.

You think people should go bankrupt because they got sick?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The results Torie posted are based on a study conducted by the conservative American Action Forum. The study's methodology was to survey major insurance providers. Color me skeptical.

Also, pro-tip for Torie: this is the only way to create a functional health insurance marketplace.

[opebo]

Torie - you're really wasting your breath.  Hardly anyone who is young will ever make any significant income - beyond subsistence level that is - so your dire warnings don't mean much to the audience.  Unless of course they're easily confused, like poors who vote GOP.

[Sbane]

Wait, so you're telling me my premium will be higher for the ONE YEAR where I am not eligible to be covered by my parents? OBAMA HOW DARE YOU!!!!! 

No, it doesn't go like that. It's not a cliff, it's a slope.  Regardless of the law, as you age, you'll pay more and more until you hit Medicare. The law just means that the increase will come sooner rather than later.  Since younger people are less likely to have employer-sponsored insurance, and tend to have less income to buy health insurance, that doesn't strike me as a good deal.  How much individual subsidies will help I don't know.

This is not true at all. The new law would benefit those in their 40's and 50's (or who are otherwise in poor health) but "screw" those who are younger and healthier. Of course, if you want to lower overall insurance premiums, this is the way to do it. Medicare doesn't have much to do with it.

[opebo]

The new law would benefit those in their 40's and 50's (or who are otherwise in poor health) but "screw" those who are younger and healthier. Of course, if you want to lower overall insurance premiums, this is the way to do it. Medicare doesn't have much to do with it.

Yeah but aren't the vast majority of people below 40 either unemployed or working for subsistence level wages and thus eligible for subsidy?  So, in the end it will be older, richer people who will subsidize them - and thus it all evens out?

[Brittain33]

I'm pretty sure Mass uninsurance rate was way above 4% before Romneycare, if still low by national standards. Romneycare brought it down to 4%. And before Romneycare, youngs interested in self-insuring in Mass (there were many who want the security of health insurance or at least catastrophic insurance) couldn't get it at a fair price because the insurers priced it high due to adverse selection problems and probably state regulation.

[krazen1211]

His base will simply freeload like they always do. Miss 32 year old power lawyer working 80 hours a week will pay for it.

[Torie]

well the actual numbers won't be out until 2014, but it's a well known fact that the bill subsidizes for it anyone who has difficulty paying their going rate.

The going rate for many youngs now is zero - they don't buy insurance. Why should they?  When you have a zero net worth, having insurance is just silly, isn't it?

I have a good friend who had the same attitude. And then severe asthma put him in the ICU for a while. And now he has $50,000 in medical bills. So he can either file bankruptcy and spend many years in financial purgatory or work out a settlement and spend fewer years in limbo but have to live off the kindness of strangers.  Genius plan, Torie!

BK is the ticket of course. It will cost about 5K to effect. So he gets a 90% discount as it were per your hypo.

You think people should go bankrupt because they got sick?

If it saves them money as compared to paying insurance premiums, sure. Obviously, the system needs to preclude that with mandatory insurance, but absent that, it is a good financial strategy, and I can't criticize it.

I don't know why the premiums should not be just set at market, with subsidies based on income levels, with a system that makes it possible for insured to switch insurance companies with pre-existing conditions. That is the tricky part - making whole the company who has to take on a sick, in a system that is not a single payer of course. But it is worth the trouble to do it that way, so folks can fire vendors they don't like. I have fired many doctors, who did not do it the way I wanted them to do it - or wasted my time.

[Franzl]

If it saves them money as compared to paying insurance premiums, sure. Obviously, the system needs to preclude that with mandatory insurance, but absent that, it is a good financial strategy, and I can't criticize it.

Alright, you've calmed me down a bit.

[opebo]

His base will simply freeload like they always do. Miss 32 year old power lawyer working 80 hours a week will pay for it.

Haha, well discouraging the behavior of being a lawyer will certainly be a positive side-effect!

However, don't feel too bad, krazen - all those 'freeloaders' will also be working 80 hours per week, cleaning up the garbage or frying chicken or something like that.  So, your 'everybody is miserable' goal will be more than fulfilled.

[emailking]

I am willing to pay these higher premiums if necessary. Of course I'd love to be able to keep more money for discretionary purchases, but if this is the cost of universal coverage, so be it. I am willing to make that scrifice.

[krazen1211]

His base will simply freeload like they always do. Miss 32 year old power lawyer working 80 hours a week will pay for it.

Haha, well discouraging the behavior of being a lawyer will certainly be a positive side-effect!

However, don't feel too bad, krazen - all those 'freeloaders' will also be working 80 hours per week, cleaning up the garbage or frying chicken or something like that.  So, your 'everybody is miserable' goal will be more than fulfilled.

That's an interesting theory. The actual trend is to slash hours to 25 to avoid paying for obamacare.


What would those freeloaders be unhappy about? Miss 32 year old power lawyer and others like her are providing for them.

[Sbane]

http://www.bakerlaw.com/alerts/special-health-care-reform-series-health-insurance-exchanges-from-the-employers-perspective-8-7-2012/

Obamacare community rating does not affect the large employer group market. This is defined as having more than 100 employees. Of course they can't participate in the exchanges for now either, though that may change.