Sounds like great news! :)
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83017336/
QuoteWhy Affordable Care Act costs continue to fall
By Lisa Mascaro
March 10, 2015, 12:57 p.m.
As the Supreme Court considers the fate of government subsidies to millions of consumers receiving coverage under the Affordable Care Act, a nonpartisan budget analysis found Monday that projected costs of President Obama's signature healthcare program continued to fall.
Just in time for Washington's annual fight over government spending, the Congressional Budget Office issued its revised outlook for the projected costs of implementing the act. As it has previously, the budget office found that the program is proving to be less expensive than previously expected.
Q. What's the bottom line?
Projected costs of the program are about one-third lower than when first estimated when the law was passed.
In 2010, when the Affordable Care Act became law, the insurance-related costs were estimated by the budget office to be $710 billion over the five-year period 2015-19. Today, those costs are expected to be $506 billion during the same period, a 29% reduction. For the year 2019 alone, the projection is 33% lower.
Costs have tumbled even since the last round of budget office estimates in January. The projected 10-year cost of providing healthcare under the Affordable Care Act has fallen to $1.21 trillion. That's down 11%, or $142 billion, from January's estimate of $1.35 trillion, the office said. Projected costs of the subsidies have dropped 20% from their January estimate.
Q. Why are costs lower than expected?
The main reason is that the private insurers selling health policies on the state and federal marketplaces are charging lower premiums than projected. That translates into lower costs for the government, which this year will help about 7 million low- and middle-income Americans subsidize their monthly premiums.
It's not that health insurance costs aren't continuing to rise. But they're increasing at a much slower rate than expected. Private insurance premiums are expected to grow 5.6% per year, on average, over the next decade. That's a downward revision of roughly 5% in 2016 and 10% in 2025.
Another reason costs aren't as high as expected is that slightly fewer people are now expected to enroll in Medicaid, the government-run program for lower-income Americans.
Medicaid enrollment is projected to be about 2 million lower than previously thought, in part because fewer people than anticipated lost their employer-based coverage when the program began. Also, slightly more people were already receiving Medicaid than had been understood previously.
Q. Don't healthcare costs always increase? Why are they rising less?
The reasons are still up for debate. For one thing, the Affordable Care Act has increased pressure on insurance companies to keep costs low. Under the law, insurers must provide rebates to policyholders if the companies exceed certain spending thresholds on their administrative overhead.
But the recession also slowed cost increases.
Healthcare costs grew on average 5% a year from 1998-2005, but 1.8% between 2006-13. Less spending by the private healthcare companies in 2013 "reinforced a trend" that had begun earlier, the budget office said.
Q. Are lower costs a blip or here to stay?
The budget office said it remained "unclear" whether the slower growth is due to the recession or other factors, but it found the trend to be "sufficiently broad and persistent."
The budget office noted that some of the insurance policies being sold on the exchanges may initially see a price increase in coming years as insurers broaden coverage options.
Prices are projected to rise 8.5% annually in the next few years for the benchmark "silver" policy, which is the second-lowest cost option on the exchange. But they will slow to 5.6% afterward — growing at a 6.4% annual rate, on average, over the decade.
The budget office noted the private insurance projections are "highly uncertain, especially because the causes of the pronounced slowdown in spending in the past several years are not well understood. Projections of growth in premiums for private health insurance offered through the exchanges are even more uncertain because the exchanges are so new."
Q. How many people are expected to enroll in the program?
An estimated 12 million Americans in 2015 are expected to sign up for private insurance plans on the marketplaces, the budget office said.
Over the next decade, that number is expected to grow to 22 million. An additional 14 million are projected to be covered through Medicaid and another government program specifically for children.
Q. What does the budget office report mean for Obamacare's future?
The figures are a boon to the program, particularly as it faces continued Republican opposition. GOP lawmakers are pushing to repeal or amend the law. But as more Americans become covered, undoing it becomes more politically challenging.
More importantly, the Supreme Court is expected to rule this summer on a key provision of the law that allows the government to provide subsidies to Americans who buy insurance through the marketplaces.
Opponents who brought the case argue that subsidies should not be given in the 37 states relying on the federally run exchanges, saying a strict interpretation of the law states subsidies can be offered only to state-run exchanges. The Obama administration has countered that the law allows for subsidies nationwide, regardless of the type of exchange.
Congress could simply tweak the law to clarify the provision; but with the House and Senate under GOP control, that appears unlikely.
So has it destroyed America yet? How are the death panels coming along?
Quote from: Syt on March 17, 2015, 01:01:12 AM
So has it destroyed America yet? How are the death panels coming along?
The death panels killed off the weak and sickly, which is part of what led to such substantial savings. Republicans in Congress opposed the plan, insisting that a laissez-faire approach would have similar results.
Quote from: Syt on March 17, 2015, 01:01:12 AM
So has it destroyed America yet?
Working on it. :(
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,12630.0.html (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,12630.0.html)
That's nice, although I would point out that just because something ends up costing less than first anticipated on paper is not irrefutable proof that it is efficient.
I don't think efficiency is going to be a major issue with Obamacare either way. It's going to sink or swim on the coercive aspect.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2015, 10:50:41 AM
I don't think efficiency is going to be a major issue with Obamacare either way. It's going to sink or swim on the coercive aspect.
You can't divorce the two. The better Obamacare works on its own, the less weight there will be on the coercive pillar. It's easier to force people to buy insurance if it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to buy it.
Obamacare sucks. We should've let people continue to die until we got single payer. P.S. well, maybe not put so starkly. I still don't like it.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2015, 11:57:46 AM
Obamacare sucks. We should've let people continue to die until we got single payer. P.S. well, maybe not put so starkly. I still don't like it.
Nobody "likes" obamacare. They just like it more than Bushcare, which was the alternative allowed by politics. Actually finding the optimal alternative was never ever in the cards. Small steps.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2015, 11:57:46 AM
Obamacare sucks. We should've let people continue to die until we got single payer. P.S. well, maybe not put so starkly. I still don't like it.
Guess what? People are gonna continue to die anyway, no matter how health care is paid for.
It still blaffes me that the goverment can force the american people to buy something.
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 09:47:36 AM
It still blaffes me that the goverment can force the american people to buy something.
ITS A TAX!!11
Sure.
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 09:47:36 AM
It still blaffes me that the goverment can force the american people to buy something.
Like automobile insurance. :mad:
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 19, 2015, 06:36:09 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 09:47:36 AM
It still blaffes me that the goverment can force the american people to buy something.
Like automobile insurance. :mad:
Pretty mean forcing people without cars to get automobile insurance.
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2015, 06:47:04 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 19, 2015, 06:36:09 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 09:47:36 AM
It still blaffes me that the goverment can force the american people to buy something.
Like automobile insurance. :mad:
Pretty mean forcing people without cars to get automobile insurance.
People without any income are not forced to pay for health insurance either. :smarty: :P
Ok?
Ok.
Asoka?
I also would like single-payer car insurance, home insurance, and burial insurance.
Of course, car insurance will become a moot point in like ten years.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 07:20:04 PM
Of course, car insurance will become a moot point in like ten years.
:hmm:
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 09:47:36 AM
It still blaffes me that the goverment can force the american people to buy something.
You are easily baffled. This sort of thing has existed for a long time.
Quote from: DGuller on March 20, 2015, 07:30:27 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 20, 2015, 04:12:49 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 07:20:04 PM
Of course, car insurance will become a moot point in like ten years.
:hmm:
Self-driving cars?
Do we think that in ten years, we'll have gotten rid of insurance though? Won't insurance still really be necessary until all cars on the road are self-driving?
Quote from: garbon on March 20, 2015, 07:35:52 AM
Do we think that in ten years, we'll have gotten rid of insurance though? Won't insurance still really be necessary until all cars on the road are self-driving?
Yeah, it's not going to be so quick, it'll take a couple of decades. And many in the insurance industry don't think that self-driving cars will cut into their revenue (they're delusional).
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 07:20:04 PM
Of course, car insurance will become a moot point in like ten years.
You get insurance for your house, yet it is not moving. Why wouldn't you need car insurance for a self driving car?
I can be stolen, it can be vandalized, you can have an accident even if it's self driving (not all accidents are caused by reckless driver behaviour), you can be hit by something (a block of concrete falling from an overpass), etc, etc,
Also, if the system ever goes wrong and you hit something/someone, who's taking care of the indemnity if you are uninsured.
Quote from: viper37 on March 20, 2015, 12:36:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 07:20:04 PM
Of course, car insurance will become a moot point in like ten years.
You get insurance for your house, yet it is not moving. Why wouldn't you need car insurance for a self driving car?
Well it seems like it would fundamentally alter what the insurance is for. As it stands car insurance covers both damage that might happen to your car but also damage that you as the operator might do to others. Depending on how self-driving cars are ultimately implemented I could see the latter becoming less and less of a concern.
Yes. Something like 99% of accidents are caused by human error. If you eliminate that error I imagine it would profoundly change the nature of automobile insurance.
It's been occasionally discussed around here - so much of our trial time is taken up with driving offences. Imagine how policing and criminal justice system would be changed if you suddenly have no more human drivers...
Quote from: garbon on March 20, 2015, 12:38:53 PM
Well it seems like it would fundamentally alter what the insurance is for. As it stands car insurance covers both damage that might happen to your car but also damage that you as the operator might do to others. Depending on how self-driving cars are ultimately implemented I could see the latter becoming less and less of a concern.
As I said, accidents aren't only cause by reckless driver behavior. There was a huge accident near where I live on the highway. Withint 10 minutes, cars where caught in heavy blizzard and roads became icy. Heavy trucks were unable to effectively slow down in time, one of them hit a car wich had slowed down, then other trucks hit the accident, then other cars.
A self driving car would have immediatly slowed down, just as the drivers did. Yet, there was an accident. And the need for insurance.
Quote from: Barrister on March 20, 2015, 12:41:24 PM
Yes. Something like 99% of accidents are caused by human error. If you eliminate that error I imagine it would profoundly change the nature of automobile insurance.
It's been occasionally discussed around here - so much of our trial time is taken up with driving offences. Imagine how policing and criminal justice system would be changed if you suddenly have no more human drivers...
You will sue car manufacturers for gross negligence because the computer crashed, or because inadequate programming caused an accident, due to slower time than a human driver to adjust to rapidly changing weather conditions.
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2015, 06:47:04 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 19, 2015, 06:36:09 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 09:47:36 AM
It still blaffes me that the goverment can force the american people to buy something.
Like automobile insurance. :mad:
Pretty mean forcing people without cars to get automobile insurance.
Yet it's okay to force people without health to get health insurance?!?!?!
Quote from: viper37 on March 20, 2015, 12:36:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 07:20:04 PM
Of course, car insurance will become a moot point in like ten years.
You get insurance for your house, yet it is not moving. Why wouldn't you need car insurance for a self driving car?
It's quite likely that once self-driving cars are ubiquitous, private ownership of cars will no longer make sense for most people. I've seen projections that it cuts the number of cars on the road by 90%.
I'm sure owning your own car will still be cheaper than renting a private car for people who drive to work everyday.
I'm not.
Quote from: Maximus on March 20, 2015, 03:04:52 PM
I'm not.
I don't see how renting it out midday, nights or weekends can compensate for administrative costs. Plus the commuter will want a car some of those times too.
You don't own a car now, do you?
Besides getting you places, they also serve as a mobile storage space. I don't see private ownership going away anytime soon. It would be too radical a change for many people.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2015, 03:06:57 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 20, 2015, 03:04:52 PM
I'm not.
I don't see how renting it out midday, nights or weekends can compensate for administrative costs. Plus the commuter will want a car some of those times too.
In my opinion, the future of self-driving cars is in self-driving mass transit. Personal use cars as we know them are an efficient solution only when you need someone to drive them. It would be more efficient if you could call up self-driving vans with an Uber-like app when you need a lift.
Quote from: DGuller on March 20, 2015, 03:12:24 PM
In my opinion, the future of self-driving cars is in self-driving mass transit. Personal use cars as we know them are an efficient solution only when you need someone to drive them. It would be more efficient if you could call up self-driving vans with an Uber-like app when you need a lift.
Yes. The argument is not mine --I'll see if I can find it-- but it was predicated on a network of robotic taxis with something like a 3-minute response time. I could see that being supplemented by route-sharing buses.
[Ide] By the time we get viable self-driving buses/taxis/long-haul cargo trucks, we'll also need self-driving killer robots to mow down all of the excess, unemployed proles. [/Ide]
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2015, 06:47:04 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 19, 2015, 06:36:09 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 09:47:36 AM
It still blaffes me that the goverment can force the american people to buy something.
Like automobile insurance. :mad:
Pretty mean forcing people without cars to get automobile insurance.
Well, people without pulse or other signs of life are not forced to buy health insurance either.
Quote from: Barrister on March 20, 2015, 12:41:24 PM
Yes. Something like 99% of accidents are caused by human error. If you eliminate that error I imagine it would profoundly change the nature of automobile insurance.
I can see you say something like this when, in 20 years, you unveil your jury-judge-and-executioner robot, Barrister 2040, to eliminate the human error in law enforcement. :D
Quote from: viper37 on March 20, 2015, 12:36:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 07:20:04 PM
Of course, car insurance will become a moot point in like ten years.
You get insurance for your house, yet it is not moving. Why wouldn't you need car insurance for a self driving car?
I can be stolen, it can be vandalized, you can have an accident even if it's self driving (not all accidents are caused by reckless driver behaviour), you can be hit by something (a block of concrete falling from an overpass), etc, etc,
Also, if the system ever goes wrong and you hit something/someone, who's taking care of the indemnity if you are uninsured.
I don't think car insurance against theft or vandalisation is the type you are required to buy, though.
Quote from: Tamas on March 17, 2015, 10:23:39 AM
That's nice, although I would point out that just because something ends up costing less than first anticipated on paper is not irrefutable proof that it is efficient.
It is, when the costs anticipated on paper were already expected to be lower than the previous model - and opponents claimed such anticipated costs were vastly underestimated.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2015, 01:23:52 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 20, 2015, 12:41:24 PM
Yes. Something like 99% of accidents are caused by human error. If you eliminate that error I imagine it would profoundly change the nature of automobile insurance.
I can see you say something like this when, in 20 years, you unveil your jury-judge-and-executioner robot, Barrister 2040, to eliminate the human error in law enforcement. :D
It's a very boring robot. It executes you by droning on about curling.
Quote from: Maximus on March 20, 2015, 03:00:14 PM
It's quite likely that once self-driving cars are ubiquitous, private ownership of cars will no longer make sense for most people. I've seen projections that it cuts the number of cars on the road by 90%.
90% seems a lot as that will cut into availability of cars during rush hours etc. But even a 50% reduction would be a huge change and is more likely to happen.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 21, 2015, 12:32:06 AM
[Ide] By the time we get viable self-driving buses/taxis/long-haul cargo trucks, we'll also need self-driving killer robots to mow down all of the excess, unemployed proles. [/Ide]
Please, have I ever appeared to be that cruel? The robots will simply force-sterilize the eugenically unfit. It's a compromise everybody can get on board with.
Lies lies lies.
Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2015, 01:59:27 PM
Lies lies lies.
Yeah I am not sure everybody would get on board with Ide's forced sterilization plan either.
Looks like costs are going to go up, since Ted Cruz will be needing insurance.
Oh, teh irony.
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2015, 10:23:18 AM
Looks like costs are going to go up, since Ted Cruz will be needing insurance.
Oh, teh irony.
Hehe. He's losing his insurance from his wife's company since she left to work on his campaign, so needs to find another source. :D At least as a Senator he's getting it the same way as us peons do since our esteemed legislators changed the law to make themselves fall under the same system as the rest of us, rather than continue the Federal plans they used to have.
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2015, 10:23:18 AM
Looks like costs are going to go up, since Ted Cruz will be needing insurance.
Oh, teh irony.
What do you want him to do? Pay the penalty for not having ObamaDon'tCare?
No, I don't have any problem with him using it of course. I don't agree with lots of things, that doesn't mean I should not use the services my government offers anyway.
I am happy that he will be mocked for it though, because he is a complete and total douchebag who deserves any and all mocking, fair or otherwise. He is everything that is wrong with American politics.