(11-30-2012 08:14 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/20...rewed.html
Quote:The newly announced rules limit insurers to charge their oldest customers no more than three times as much as younger ones. As shown in the following chart based on estimates by international management consulting firm Oliver Wyman, the rule will force insurers to hike rates for 18- to 24-year-olds by 45 percent even as rates for those 60 and older drop by 13 percent in most states. That means a 22-year-old waitress paying $2,068 for her health insurance will have to fork over $3,000 when Obamacare takes effect.[3] And these figures even underestimate the actual impact....
The real-world consequence of this regulatory misjudgment is that young people will have an even greater economic incentive to simply pay the $695 annual penalty for not having coverage and wait until they are sick before they purchase it. [4] In short, it is now even more likely that Obamacare will amplify the perverse incentives for “free-riding” that it was intended to counter.
Of course it will do precisely that.
So now we have a bill supposedly intended to provide universal coverage that will in fact cause fewer employers to provide insurance for employees than before, and fewer individuals not covered by employer plans to purchase insurance than before.
This is what happens when politicians who are insulated from the real world draft and pass and sign legislation.
(11-30-2012 08:14 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/20...rewed.html
Quote:The newly announced rules limit insurers to charge their oldest customers no more than three times as much as younger onesAs shown in the following chart based on estimates by international management consulting firm Oliver Wyman, the rule will force insurers to hike rates for 18- to 24-year-olds by 45 percent even as rates for those 60 and older drop by 13 percent in most states. That means a 22-year-old waitress paying $2,068 for her health insurance will have to fork over $3,000 when Obamacare takes effect.[3] And these figures even underestimate the actual impact....
The real-world consequence of this regulatory misjudgment is that young people will have an even greater economic incentive to simply pay the $695 annual penalty for not having coverage and wait until they are sick before they purchase it. [4] In short, it is now even more likely that Obamacare will amplify the perverse incentives for “free-riding” that it was intended to counter.
So, the bolded part does not take risk into the equation? That's like charging someone just coming out of bankruptcy the same mortgage interest rate as someone with an 820 credit score. Makes no sense. You have to price for risk.
*UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES*
The Markets understand them... Politicians? not so much..
You cannot ask insurers to operate if you tie thier hands and forbid them to underwrite a risk. We had this kind of a system for auto insurance in Michigan for a time. Insurers weren't allowed to have a territorial variance that exceeded a fixed %....so they could either inflate the territorial factors for outstate drivers, underrate Detroit drivers or not write in the state. A great number of carriers chose the latter course...
(11-30-2012 10:39 AM)El Grande Flippero Wrote: [ -> ]You cannot ask insurers to operate if you tie thier hands and forbid them to underwrite a risk.
True. So the logical consequence is it becomes a gov't responsibility.
(11-30-2012 10:27 AM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2012 08:14 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/20...rewed.html
Quote:The newly announced rules limit insurers to charge their oldest customers no more than three times as much as younger onesAs shown in the following chart based on estimates by international management consulting firm Oliver Wyman, the rule will force insurers to hike rates for 18- to 24-year-olds by 45 percent even as rates for those 60 and older drop by 13 percent in most states. That means a 22-year-old waitress paying $2,068 for her health insurance will have to fork over $3,000 when Obamacare takes effect.[3] And these figures even underestimate the actual impact....
The real-world consequence of this regulatory misjudgment is that young people will have an even greater economic incentive to simply pay the $695 annual penalty for not having coverage and wait until they are sick before they purchase it. [4] In short, it is now even more likely that Obamacare will amplify the perverse incentives for “free-riding” that it was intended to counter.
So, the bolded part does not take risk into the equation? That's like charging someone just coming out of bankruptcy the same mortgage interest rate as someone with an 820 credit score. Makes no sense. You have to price for risk.
But the rules say you *cant* price for risk..
You can't tie the maximum cost of one group to another and not affect the price structure of both groups! Just does not work in math. If A and B were independent variables and you then stick them in a relational equation then a change on one will always effect the others.
(11-30-2012 10:43 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2012 10:39 AM)El Grande Flippero Wrote: [ -> ]You cannot ask insurers to operate if you tie thier hands and forbid them to underwrite a risk.
True. So the logical consequence is it becomes a gov't responsibility.
Yes...Obamacare will ultimately lead to a single payer system. Like a snake, it will slowly swallow the exisiting system because it renders it economically untenable on a number of fronts...
(11-30-2012 11:23 AM)El Grande Flippero Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2012 10:43 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2012 10:39 AM)El Grande Flippero Wrote: [ -> ]You cannot ask insurers to operate if you tie thier hands and forbid them to underwrite a risk.
True. So the logical consequence is it becomes a gov't responsibility.
Yes...Obamacare will ultimately lead to a single payer system. Like a snake, it will slowly swallow the exisiting system because it renders it economically untenable on a number of fronts...
Isn't a single payer system similar to what Seniors have now? They seem pretty happy with that.
(11-30-2012 05:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2012 05:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't a single payer system similar to what Seniors have now? They seem pretty happy with that.
No, it isn't.
So then maybe it is similar to what the military has now?
(11-30-2012 10:36 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]*UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES*
The Markets understand them... Politicians? not so much..
These are intended consequences if you ask me...
(11-30-2012 11:23 AM)El Grande Flippero Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2012 10:43 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2012 10:39 AM)El Grande Flippero Wrote: [ -> ]You cannot ask insurers to operate if you tie thier hands and forbid them to underwrite a risk.
True. So the logical consequence is it becomes a gov't responsibility.
Yes...Obamacare will ultimately lead to a single payer system. Like a snake, it will slowly swallow the exisiting system because it renders it economically untenable on a number of fronts...
This is an INTENDED consequence.
This was the plan all along. The dems knew exactly what they were doing when they hatched this scheme. They knew that there was know way this would work. They also knew that once it has begun a federal program will NOT end or get smaller. They knew that they would screw things up so bad it would have to come to a one payer system.
(11-30-2012 05:27 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2012 05:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2012 05:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't a single payer system similar to what Seniors have now? They seem pretty happy with that.
No, it isn't.
So then maybe it is similar to what the military has now?
A guy who works for me is a vet and he called the VA because his shoulder is jacked up and causing him so much pain he can't work. They gave him an appointment in next March.
So to answer yoyur question, I hope not.
(12-01-2012 10:05 AM)TomorrowHerd Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2012 11:23 AM)El Grande Flippero Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2012 10:43 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2012 10:39 AM)El Grande Flippero Wrote: [ -> ]You cannot ask insurers to operate if you tie thier hands and forbid them to underwrite a risk.
True. So the logical consequence is it becomes a gov't responsibility.
Yes...Obamacare will ultimately lead to a single payer system. Like a snake, it will slowly swallow the exisiting system because it renders it economically untenable on a number of fronts...
This is an INTENDED consequence.
This was the plan all along. The dems knew exactly what they were doing when they hatched this scheme. They knew that there was know way this would work. They also knew that once it has begun a federal program will NOT end or get smaller. They knew that they would screw things up so bad it would have to come to a one payer system.
Correct. Everyone will go running to the government because the government made it impossible for the private sector to operate.
(11-30-2012 08:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Of course it will do precisely that.
So now we have a bill supposedly intended to provide universal coverage that will in fact cause fewer employers to provide insurance for employees than before, and fewer individuals not covered by employer plans to purchase insurance than before.
This is what happens when politicians who are insulated from the real world draft and pass and sign legislation.
It sounds like it will be a horible deal for young people buying individual insurance, but I'm not sure the effect will be as bad for those who get their insurance through work. When companies provide health insurance don't they provide a single premium (for every plan offered) for all their employees, regardless of age? That certainly seemed to be the case where I worked, but then I wasn't paying all that much attention to the premiums others were paying. If that is the case the insurance companies should still be able to use the same actuarial calculations as are currently used because they are charging the yound and old workers the same rate.
(12-02-2012 09:17 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote: [ -> ] (12-01-2012 10:05 AM)TomorrowHerd Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2012 11:23 AM)El Grande Flippero Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2012 10:43 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2012 10:39 AM)El Grande Flippero Wrote: [ -> ]You cannot ask insurers to operate if you tie thier hands and forbid them to underwrite a risk.
True. So the logical consequence is it becomes a gov't responsibility.
Yes...Obamacare will ultimately lead to a single payer system. Like a snake, it will slowly swallow the exisiting system because it renders it economically untenable on a number of fronts...
This is an INTENDED consequence.
This was the plan all along. The dems knew exactly what they were doing when they hatched this scheme. They knew that there was know way this would work. They also knew that once it has begun a federal program will NOT end or get smaller. They knew that they would screw things up so bad it would have to come to a one payer system.
Correct. Everyone will go running to the government because the government made it impossible for the private sector to operate.
And this is the BIG miscalculation on the part of the socialists. Americans don't think like that, and that will be nothing like what is going to happen.
oh hey anecdotal evidence mixed with elementary logic and reason
(12-05-2012 09:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]oh hey anecdotal evidence mixed with elementary logic and reason
you don't know what those words mean.
(11-30-2012 05:27 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2012 05:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2012 05:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't a single payer system similar to what Seniors have now? They seem pretty happy with that.
No, it isn't.
So then maybe it is similar to what the military has now?
My brother wishes congress was subjected to the VA system! HE said maybe if those princes of men had to be subjected to the most inefficient medial care in the nation they might do something better for our soldiers.