Carlos Danger Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 58 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said: I show two, Connecticare and Anthem. Is that for 2018? For 2017 you could have a Gold plan from Anthem with $642 premium, $4500 deductible, and $30 co-pays. Family of 4, $75,000 household income. Neal Correct it is for next year that I think Anthem pulls out of the state exchange leaving just the one. What Obamacare really failed at was some effective measure of controlling costs. It is a long way from affordable when you are talking $8,000 for a family of 4 on 75k and still be on the hook for a $4,500 deductible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted October 16, 2017 Author Share Posted October 16, 2017 21 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said: Correct it is for next year that I think Anthem pulls out of the state exchange leaving just the one. What Obamacare really failed at was some effective measure of controlling costs. It is a long way from affordable when you are talking $8,000 for a family of 4 on 75k and still be on the hook for a $4,500 deductible. There isn't an easy way to control costs with any private insurance scenario. I wonder how many of those $75,000 income homes have no issue with $650 a month worth of vehicle payments... Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 1 hour ago, NaturallyAspirated said: There isn't an easy way to control costs with any private insurance scenario. I wonder how many of those $75,000 income homes have no issue with $650 a month worth of vehicle payments... Neal Yep. market competition isnt working in this scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 10 hours ago, Anler said: Isn't it awesome that Trump IS gonna fix this for us and our premiums are only going to go up 20%? Guess what Nazi Pig Dog if taxpayer money is subsidizing your lower premium you're fooling yourself your not paying for it regardless. IDIOT plus you can add an addition 1/3 for what the government wasted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, Momorider said: Guess what Nazi Pig Dog if taxpayer money is subsidizing your lower premium you're fooling yourself your not paying for it regardless. IDIOT plus you can add an addition 1/3 for what the government wasted Guess what faggot homo candandian fuckstick jagoff.... Trump aint fixing shit. Your faggot ass republicans are wasting that money now. Just gave the military $60 billion more money than they were asking for and now cutting funding for insurance for fucking taxpayers. MAJOR FAILURE... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted October 16, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) 23 hours ago, NaturallyAspirated said: 20% by 2018, 25% by 2020. Neal CBO..... They are about as accurate as Al Gore is predicting climate change. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/01/02/learning-from-cbos-history-of-incorrect-obamacare-projections/#616ab90146a7 Exchange Enrollment Much Less Than CBO Projected When the ACA passed in 2010, CBO projected 21 million people would be enrolled in the exchanges in 2016. After the Supreme Court ruled that the Medicaid expansion was optional for states and not compulsory, CBO increased its projection of 2016 exchange enrollment to 22 million as some people who would otherwise have been enrolled in Medicaid in non-expansion states were then expected to enroll in the exchanges instead. Exchanges plans have proved much less attractive than expected as enrollment will average only about 10 million people this year. This means that CBO’s last projection of exchange enrollment before the exchanges opened overshot actual 2016 enrollment by 120 percent. It turns out that CBO was significantly mistaken about insurer profitability. Insurers have incurred large losses on ACA plans, losses which have grown over time. These losses resulted in a $2.5 billion risk corridor deficit in 2014 and resulted in a $5.8 billion deficit in 2015. The large losses have also driven many insurers from the exchanges. Reinsurance Program Subsidies Much More Generous Than CBO Projected Insurers’ losses in 2014 and 2015 would have even been larger if not for receiving larger per enrollee payments through the reinsurance program than expected. The reinsurance program compensated insurers for a large share of the cost of their most expensive enrollees. CBO projectedthat reinsurance payments lowered premiums by about 10% in 2014. In an April Mercatus study I coauthored, we found that net reinsurance payments equaled about 20% of premiums—double what CBO expected. CBO’s estimates of insurer profitability look even worse since the agency significantly underestimated reinsurance payments as a percentage of premiums. Medicaid Expansion Enrollment Much Greater Than CBO Projected Since the exchanges have enrolled so few relative to expectations, the vast majority of the newly insured are enrolled in Medicaid. The figure below shows CBO’s most recent estimate of Medicaid expansion enrollment along with CBO’s 2010, 2014, and 2015 estimates. The figure—as well as the one on spending—adjusts CBO’s previous year estimates for its current assumptions about state adoption of the expansion. (Currently 31 states have adopted the expansion.) This adjustment allows for a better intertemporal comparison because it holds constant CBO’s assumptions about the percentage of the newly eligible Medicaid population residing in expansionary states. Medicaid expansion enrollment is much higher than CBO expected when the ACA passed in 2010, and it is also significantly higher, particularly in 2017 and beyond, than estimated in both CBO’s 2014 and 2015 reports. Essentially this means that far more people—roughly 50% more—have enrolled in Medicaid in the states that expanded than expected by CBO. Medicaid Expansion Spending Much Greater Than CBO Projected In addition to higher-than-expected enrollment, spending per newly eligible Medicaid enrollee is much greater than CBO expected. As I wrote in July when the Obama administration released the 2015 Medicaid actuarial report, government spending on newly eligible enrollees equaled about $6,366 in 2015—an amount 49% higher than CMS’s projection of $4,281 from just one year earlier. In April 2014, CBO projected the Medicaid expansion enrollee average cost would be approximately $4,200 in 2015, a number very close to the erroneous CMS projection. Previously eligible but unenrolled Medicaid recipients could generally enroll at any time including at the point of needing medical care, meaning that the practical effect of repeal on coverage loss may be significantly overstated. To put it simply, many of the newly covered Medicaid recipients will remain eligible even if the ACA is repealed without a replacement. Economic Growth After Obamacare Much Lower Than CBO Projected In January 2010, CBO projected that growth in real gross domestic product (GDP) would average 3.2% from 2010 to 2016. By way of comparison, the annual GDP growth rate after the first six years of another severe recession (1981-82) averaged 4.6%. Economic growth after the Great Recession has been anemic by historical standards and relative to expectations. As the figure below shows, annual real GDP has increased just 2.1%, 50% below the average growth rate predicted by CBO and less than half the growth rate during the Reagan recovery. The weak economic recovery has produced lower health care spending, and thus lower health insurance premiums, than would have resulted with a stronger recovery. Edited October 16, 2017 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted October 16, 2017 Author Share Posted October 16, 2017 4 hours ago, Highmark said: CBO..... They are about as accurate as Al Gore is predicting climate change. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/01/02/learning-from-cbos-history-of-incorrect-obamacare-projections/#616ab90146a7 Exchange Enrollment Much Less Than CBO Projected When the ACA passed in 2010, CBO projected 21 million people would be enrolled in the exchanges in 2016. After the Supreme Court ruled that the Medicaid expansion was optional for states and not compulsory, CBO increased its projection of 2016 exchange enrollment to 22 million as some people who would otherwise have been enrolled in Medicaid in non-expansion states were then expected to enroll in the exchanges instead. Exchanges plans have proved much less attractive than expected as enrollment will average only about 10 million people this year. This means that CBO’s last projection of exchange enrollment before the exchanges opened overshot actual 2016 enrollment by 120 percent. It turns out that CBO was significantly mistaken about insurer profitability. Insurers have incurred large losses on ACA plans, losses which have grown over time. These losses resulted in a $2.5 billion risk corridor deficit in 2014 and resulted in a $5.8 billion deficit in 2015. The large losses have also driven many insurers from the exchanges. Reinsurance Program Subsidies Much More Generous Than CBO Projected Insurers’ losses in 2014 and 2015 would have even been larger if not for receiving larger per enrollee payments through the reinsurance program than expected. The reinsurance program compensated insurers for a large share of the cost of their most expensive enrollees. CBO projectedthat reinsurance payments lowered premiums by about 10% in 2014. In an April Mercatus study I coauthored, we found that net reinsurance payments equaled about 20% of premiums—double what CBO expected. CBO’s estimates of insurer profitability look even worse since the agency significantly underestimated reinsurance payments as a percentage of premiums. Medicaid Expansion Enrollment Much Greater Than CBO Projected Since the exchanges have enrolled so few relative to expectations, the vast majority of the newly insured are enrolled in Medicaid. The figure below shows CBO’s most recent estimate of Medicaid expansion enrollment along with CBO’s 2010, 2014, and 2015 estimates. The figure—as well as the one on spending—adjusts CBO’s previous year estimates for its current assumptions about state adoption of the expansion. (Currently 31 states have adopted the expansion.) This adjustment allows for a better intertemporal comparison because it holds constant CBO’s assumptions about the percentage of the newly eligible Medicaid population residing in expansionary states. Medicaid expansion enrollment is much higher than CBO expected when the ACA passed in 2010, and it is also significantly higher, particularly in 2017 and beyond, than estimated in both CBO’s 2014 and 2015 reports. Essentially this means that far more people—roughly 50% more—have enrolled in Medicaid in the states that expanded than expected by CBO. Medicaid Expansion Spending Much Greater Than CBO Projected In addition to higher-than-expected enrollment, spending per newly eligible Medicaid enrollee is much greater than CBO expected. As I wrote in July when the Obama administration released the 2015 Medicaid actuarial report, government spending on newly eligible enrollees equaled about $6,366 in 2015—an amount 49% higher than CMS’s projection of $4,281 from just one year earlier. In April 2014, CBO projected the Medicaid expansion enrollee average cost would be approximately $4,200 in 2015, a number very close to the erroneous CMS projection. Previously eligible but unenrolled Medicaid recipients could generally enroll at any time including at the point of needing medical care, meaning that the practical effect of repeal on coverage loss may be significantly overstated. To put it simply, many of the newly covered Medicaid recipients will remain eligible even if the ACA is repealed without a replacement. Economic Growth After Obamacare Much Lower Than CBO Projected In January 2010, CBO projected that growth in real gross domestic product (GDP) would average 3.2% from 2010 to 2016. By way of comparison, the annual GDP growth rate after the first six years of another severe recession (1981-82) averaged 4.6%. Economic growth after the Great Recession has been anemic by historical standards and relative to expectations. As the figure below shows, annual real GDP has increased just 2.1%, 50% below the average growth rate predicted by CBO and less than half the growth rate during the Reagan recovery. The weak economic recovery has produced lower health care spending, and thus lower health insurance premiums, than would have resulted with a stronger recovery. I'm just going by what all the right wing radicals used to criticize Obamacare... Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.