Obamacare and you

[KRonn]

That number sounds suspiciously similar to the total number of uninsured people in America K.

Numbers of uninsured I've seen is 30-40 million? And how many uninsured are young adults, 18-30 who don't feel they need insurance so don't buy it? They rarely go to a doctor and if they have to they pay for it. Many are working, some could pay for insurance, others would get subsidies.

[Admiral Yi]

Numbers of uninsured I've seen is 30-40 million?

Kay.  But I'm still deeply skeptical of 90 million losing their coverage because of Obamacare.

And how many uninsured are young adults, 18-30 who don't feel they need insurance so don't buy it? They rarely go to a doctor and if they have to they pay for it.

Sure, that's the whole point of the individual mandate: young healthy people subsidizing folks with pre-existing conditions and such.

[garbon]

And how many uninsured are young adults, 18-30 who don't feel they need insurance so don't buy it? They rarely go to a doctor and if they have to they pay for it.

Sure, that's the whole point of the individual mandate: young healthy people subsidizing folks with pre-existing conditions and such.

Yeah but we are only really getting the 26-30 of that range. The others will be rather cheaply on their parents coverage.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah but we are only really getting the 26-30 of that range. The others will be rather cheaply on their parents coverage.

You're assuming that the 26 year old mandate had no effect on family plan rates.

[garbon]

Yeah but we are only really getting the 26-30 of that range. The others will be rather cheaply on their parents coverage.

You're assuming that the 26 year old mandate had no effect on family plan rates.

You're right, I am mistakenly making that assumption.

Though it would be pretty shitty, if understandable, if plans go up for kids being covered.

[Ideologue]

I want to point out that I haven't been given a raise in order to buy health insurance.

[KRonn]

Numbers of uninsured I've seen is 30-40 million?

Kay.  But I'm still deeply skeptical of 90 million losing their coverage because of Obamacare.

And how many uninsured are young adults, 18-30 who don't feel they need insurance so don't buy it? They rarely go to a doctor and if they have to they pay for it.

Sure, that's the whole point of the individual mandate: young healthy people subsidizing folks with pre-existing conditions and such.

I'm skeptical also about the 90+ million but we'll see as next year rolls in and the employer mandate kicks in. We have seen some companies drop employees down to under 30 hours or not hire above a certain number (50 I think) to avoid the ACA rules. Besides, those figures are supposedly from the govt.

As for the youngsters buying coverage, I hope they do but my point was that many didn't have coverage because they chose not to and they're still counted as among the uninsured, not that the ACA was needed to give them coverage. They can still choose to get health care insurance, or not. And the fines for not buying insurance apparently can't go up very high to compel them to buy else it stops being a tax as the SJC ruled and it becomes a fine or penalty, which may then be seen as unconstitutional. Lol, I was wondering why the damn fines were so low. They get larger in later years but IMO the fines for not buying insurance could be more than buying it, thereby more incentive to get the insurance. 

The cost of the ACA plans may still be higher than private plans were on the individual market unless people qualify for subsidies. And I don't think it's true that all the indie plans were lousy. That's just a canard being floated. Yeah, I'm sure some were but many or even most probably not. Many people like me if I wasn't working would just want a plan to cover the big stuff like hospitalization.  In fact, to defray some of the high costs of the ACA plans the Obama admin wants to push a bill to subsidize people who lost insurance and have to pay more on the exchanges. That's kind of ass backwards as it takes people who were paying their own insurance and has the govt instead subsidising them.

[Admiral Yi]

We have seen some companies drop employees down to under 30 hours or not hire above a certain number (50 I think) to avoid the ACA rules.

That's entirely predictable.  But the only way this mechanism could cause someone to lose coverage is if their employer were previously providing insurance, and the new requirements were just enough to make those employers no longer want to provide insurance.

It's going to be much more common that companies that didn't provide insurance drop their employees to part time to avoid the mandate.  Which means their employees don't lose insurance because of Obamacare.

[merithyn]

We have seen some companies drop employees down to under 30 hours or not hire above a certain number (50 I think) to avoid the ACA rules.

That's entirely predictable.  But the only way this mechanism could cause someone to lose coverage is if their employer were previously providing insurance, and the new requirements were just enough to make those employers no longer want to provide insurance.

It's going to be much more common that companies that didn't provide insurance drop their employees to part time to avoid the mandate.  Which means their employees don't lose insurance because of Obamacare.

And in fact, those same people will now be in a position to get insurance, which they couldn't do before. This is the exact opposite of what KRonn is claiming.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't see how they couldn't get it before.  Yes, some people will now get free money, but you seem to be suggesting something more widespread.

[KRonn]

We have seen some companies drop employees down to under 30 hours or not hire above a certain number (50 I think) to avoid the ACA rules.

That's entirely predictable.  But the only way this mechanism could cause someone to lose coverage is if their employer were previously providing insurance, and the new requirements were just enough to make those employers no longer want to provide insurance.

It's going to be much more common that companies that didn't provide insurance drop their employees to part time to avoid the mandate.  Which means their employees don't lose insurance because of Obamacare.

And in fact, those same people will now be in a position to get insurance, which they couldn't do before. This is the exact opposite of what KRonn is claiming.

Some will have more of an option for insurance, true, mainly those with low incomes and unable to afford before. They'll get subsidized insurance and before they should have been able to get Medicaid. Not sure about that but Medicaid has been expanded and will now cover more people. But many could have afforded their own insurance and chose not to and will pay for their own on the ACA plans. The ACA may or may not be cheaper than buying on the individual market, that market is now going away for the most part anyway. And it wasn't just lousy insurance as is what is trying to be said, it was insurance of all kinds and for many people quite affordable.

[merithyn]

You're both ignoring the pre-existing condition clause that was in affect prior to ACA. My company alone insured over 5000 people in Illinois who qualified for the Pre-Ex federal policy that was in affect for the last few years.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm not ignoring it Meri.  Those people are a minority.  Your previous statement was more general than that.  It suggested that the antecedent for "they" was those working people who had not previously had employer provided insurance.

[merithyn]

I'm not ignoring it Meri.  Those people are a minority.  Your previous statement was more general than that.  It suggested that the antecedent for "they" was those working people who had not previously had employer provided insurance.

I was referring to everyone who couldn't have insurance before, most notably those who didn't qualify no matter the cost.

[Admiral Yi]

This might be a good data point for the theory that computer skills and verbal communication add to a constant then.