The GOP’s Obamacare Youth Hoax

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator996, Aug 22, 2013.

  1. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    The majority of young people who get their coverage through employers and those who are unemployed get to stay on the parent's plan to their mid-20's...

    And the GOP expects them reject Obamacare ???


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/matt-miller-the-gops-obamacare-youth-hoax/2013/08/21/39a5a3a2-0a5a-11e3-8974-f97ab3b3c677_story.html

    The GOP’s Obamacare Youth Hoax

    By Matt Miller, E-mail the writer




    It’s rare for a political party to trumpet a position that unintentionally reveals its myopia, incoherence and expediency. Yet such is the trifecta with the Republican campaign to call attention to Obamacare’s young “victims.”

    Republicans are obsessed with the supposed injustice being done to some healthy young people who will effectively subsidize their sicker elders when Obamacare’s individual mandate takes effect.

    The crusaders are nothing if not convinced of the righteousness of their cause. “The whole scheme is enlisting young adults to overpay, so other people can have subsidies,” Dean Clancy, a vice president at FreedomWorks, told my Post colleague Sarah Kliff. “That unfairness reminded us of the military draft.”

    Conservatives are therefore urging young Americans to resist. “I’m burning my Obamacare draft card,” runs one theatrical riff from a group called Young Americans for Liberty, “because I’m too busy paying student loans to pay for somebody else’s health insurance.” Republican policy advisors have urged the party to make such child abuse a big part of their anti-Obamacare message.

    Sounds like a sexy argument, except for one thing. Republicans seem to have forgotten where most people aged 19 to 34 get health coverage: from their employer. And at virtually every company, young people pay the same premiums as employees who are much older than they are and who get more expensively sick than they do. In other words, the evil cross-subsidy Obamacare’s foes are storming the barricades to roll back already exists, at vastly larger scale, in corporate America.

    These youngsters are already in chains! They’ve been put there by the private sector! And, inexplicably, young employees have entered this servitude of their own volition. (To extend the GOP’s draft analogy, it turns out there’s a voluntary army of health care masochists from sea to shining sea.)

    How could injustice on this scale escape the GOP’s searing moral scrutiny?

    After all, the president is only hoping thatabout 2.7 million young people will purchase coverage in the new exchanges. But 20 million Americans between the ages of 19 and 34 get coverage from their employer right now, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

    If you’re keeping score, that makes employer-based health care’s cross-subsidy about eight times more evil than Obamacare’s.

    How does it work? Compare a typical, strapping young employee of 28 to her broken- down 58-year-old colleague. These two employees have very different annual health expenses. Yet under the nefarious plot known as “group health insurance,” they basically pay the same premiums. It turns out every big company in America is essentially a socialized health care republic, in which the young subsidize the old, and the healthy subsidize the sick — all of whom pay the same premiums for the same plans.

    Similar dynamics explain why, in the federal health-care plan, spry 42-year-olds like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz subsidize 79-year-old geezers like Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch.

    Maybe that’s why Cruz always seems so angry.
  2. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,730
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +984
    I've had my daughter (who was in grad school) on our insurance for an extra couple of years. Had she not been eligible to stay on ours, we would have bought her coverage elsewhere (through UF's student plan or UHC or BCBS). However, only about 1 M additional young people have actually been covered by this provision of Obamacare. So there are a ton of kids out there not on their parents insurance, not covered by group plans and not buying on the open market.

    Why? MONEY.
  3. oldgator
    Offline

    oldgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,605
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +139
    1 million people to Gatordowneast appears to be insignificant by his tone.
  4. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    So your admission is that your daughter would have been one of those uncovered if she had to buy the insurance herself...since she was not working but in grad school.

    So the healthcare program you advocate is one where wealthy families will subsidize themselves and anyone else is SOL?

    You don't think you're paying for their healthcare through the rising default rates?


    By the way, many people who qualify haven't taken advantage of the ACA...

    Good job of obfuscation GOP!!

    :grin:
  5. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,730
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +984
    Can you not read? My daughter would have been covered as we would have bought her coverage with Blue Cross Blue Shield or United Health Care or at least put her on UF's student plan. Because we are responsible. We had another child between jobs for several months and we bought her a temporary policy from BCBS. Had nothing to do with ACA.

    We will see if young people step up and pay $250-$300 month for their health care under ACA won't we? They had access to policies prior and could buy catastrophic coverage kicking in over $2 K in out of pocket for $70 month. Those policies can no longer be issued under ACA. So why do we now think youngsters without coverage will pony up $75 week for health care when they wouldn't spend that per month? Because they will now get free physicals? Because Obama says so? Because of a $95 annual fine?

    We shall see, won't we?
  6. DaveFla
    Offline

    DaveFla VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    18,444
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,020
    Looks like the Obama cheerleaders are in full-spin mode today. Obama's Pproval numbers must have taken another hit.
  7. PSGator66
    Offline

    PSGator66 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +914
    gator996 and oldgator - You two can have Obamacare but I want to keep what I have. It is such a great program that the very supporters - Unions and Congress don't want anything to do with this. UVA also supported Obama and Obamacare and they are now going to eliminate spousal coverage. This plan is garbage and you two know it so if you are able to pluck a single positive out the the 2,000 plus pages congrats! If this goes through it could potentially scar this country for the foreseeable future.
  8. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15

    The point you're missing is that the young person who doesn't come from a family that can afford to subsidize their healthcare is SOL???

    The subsidy for those kids will now come from the government
    (kinda like the subsidy you gave your children)


    And I'm not sure what the work out is for the unemployed...but the gov't sunsidy should reduce the out-of-pocket below $300 a month...
  9. DaveFla
    Offline

    DaveFla VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    18,444
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,020
    Say what????

    And where, pray tell, does the government get the means by which they provide this assistance?

    Could you possible BE any more naive?
  10. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,730
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +984
    Lets have a lesson in finance for 996.

    Q 1- And just who pays for the subsidies from government?

    So lets see, those of us who buy our own health care coverage as small business owners, employers or to ensure our families are to pay much higher premiums due to Obamacare and we will also pay to subsidize those who currently don't have insurance and we are adding 16 M to Medicaid rolls and this will not cost any of us any more money?

    Q 2- Please work out the math for us 996.
  11. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15

    Naïve about what?

    Unemployed young people without a family plan to be on will be receiving subsidy to purchase insurance.

    You dispute that fact?
  12. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Taxes, which also help pay for the highly inefficient ER bills racked up by those unable to pay now. Were you born yesterday?
  13. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    You're already paying for highly inefficient ER care for people who can't pay. What are you talking about?
  14. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,730
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +984
    So why did we need Obamacare? Why spend hundreds of billions on new regulations to dictate something we already cover today? Why not let the states be laboratories, allow insurors to sell across state lines (if they are willing to cover anyone who applies including pre existing conditions), allow kids to stay on parents plan and take on 18% of the economy with baby steps.
  15. tim85
    Offline

    tim85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    4,173
    Likes Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,173
    Are the bills we pay for these ER visits really all that comparable to the costs of Obamacare? I ask because I really don't know, however, it seems like they wouldn't be.
  16. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,730
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +984
    They are not. And of course by moving those who come into Emergency rooms during normal daylight hours (in larger cities) to the county health department, those costs can be reduced.
  17. cjgator76
    Online

    cjgator76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    17,422
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +562
    The bolded part is simply false.

    Subject to any limits imposed by state law, group insurers regularly use age as a factor in setting premiums, and in those situations young people do not "pay the same premiums as employees who are much older than they are and who get more expensively sick than they do."

    If it were otherwise - i.e., if this guy's premise was correct - there would be no reason for the 3:1 oldest/youngest maximum ratio specified in the ACA. Why would the government impose a 3:1 cap on age rating if the private sector villains were already setting premiums at 1:1?

    Either the writer is terribly misinformed or he's trying to mislead his readers.
  18. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15


    I don't know of any place I've worked at that employees paid different premiums for the same plan based on their age.

    That's what the author is saying...
  19. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,730
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +984
    You obviously have never dealt with the insurance agent as the owner of a company or the HR Director in charge of negotiating rates. Every group policy is priced based on the make up and medical history of the group. A younger group with more men will be cheaper than the same with more women. A group with most people under age 30 will be far cheaper than a group with most members in their 40s, 50s and 60s.

    As far as the employee is concerned, the employer sets the amount that each employee contributes for a single or family plan. But I can promise you, that is not how the actuaries price it.
  20. cjgator76
    Online

    cjgator76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    17,422
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +562
    I know that what he's saying, and he's absolutely wrong.

    As for your own experience, perhaps you're in one of the few states that currently prohibits age-based rating. Most states permit it, and often with ratios higher than the 3:1 limit imposed by ACA. My working life has been spent in Florida, and for about 20 years I handled the annual renewal for our small group. I can't ever remember a time when our premiums weren't based on the age of each employee.

    Anyway, as I said earlier the 3:1 limit imposed by Obamacare would be a complete nonissue if, as the writer contends, insurers were already charging young and old employees the same rates. But it isn't a nonissue, it's a huge issue. This is an excerpt from a letter that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (state officials) sent to the feds, requesting a gradual phase in of the 3:1 limit:

    If young and old employees are currently paying the same rates nationwide, why on earth would the national state commissioners group worry about the new 3:1 limit causing "rate shock" and young people dropping coverage?

Share This Page