Well, not about the law in general, or in wanting to repeal it; but they have a powerful message that highlights a serious vulnerability in the law’s structure.
I am a strong Obama supporter, keep in mind, and it pains me to say this. But I am tired of cringing when I hear NPR stories like this:
What young person with an IQ higher than room temperature is going to hear things like that and think Obamacare sounds like a good deal they should sign up for? It’s not a huge extrapolation to go from there to “this system will only work if young people pay in more than they get back out, so older people can get back more than they pay in”. Why on earth was it set up that way, rather than simply putting the wealthy on the hook to subsidise everyone else to varying degrees?
Unlike some, I don’t insist that the only way to do healthcare is single payer (my Canadian sister has had some sobering problems on that front) or a “public option”. But it’s insane that they set up a system that would require the president’s most loyal age demographic to semi-voluntarily take on a bad deal for themselves to keep his signature program afloat. And when they try to sell it as a good deal for young people to “get coverage” despite the realities described above, it just provides an opening for conservatives to whisper sweet libertarian nothings in their ears and get them to distrust government.
As I’ve asserted in other threads, I still think Democrats have a bright future and will retain the loyalty of the millennial generation (as well as the one following it at least). But there’s no sense taking this for granted or shooting ourselves in the foot.
You forget that today’s young people are kinder and more generous than previous generations. They also engage in more high risk activities (sports) and might find it in their benefit to pay a little extra to have the peace of mind to go skydiving or playing soccer.
None of it is to say that people won’t complain anyways, but I think your fears are overstated.
Hopefully you are right, but I still find it bizarre that they would pull a sort of reverse “spoils system” on their best demographic, and make them the group that has to take a bad deal to prop up the system.
From what I’ve been able to figure out, the lowest cost plans on the exchanges would seem to cost about $1,500 a year for a young individual (and I don’t think that includes any subsidies). Or, the same person can pay somewhere between $300 and $800 (as near as I can tell) and have no insurance.
I agree that we’re going to see a lot of problems the first few years in the system, but that’s no excuse to tell people to flush several hundred bucks down the drain and get nothing whatsoever out of that money (except the satisfaction that the tax will help to make other people’s health care more affordable). But I think that most people who think about it for more than 10 seconds will find that paying $1,500 (less whatever subsidies one is eligible for) to get a very basic level of health care insurance is a much better deal than paying $600 for literally nothing.
I lived during the eras of draft card burning and find it amusing (and upsetting) that conservative political groups are now encouraging people to break the law.
That is only true as long as their health stays excellent, and as long as they don’t get into any kind of accident. The assumption is that they will benefit from the insurance when they get a really shitty day down their lives.
Now if this does NOT happen to them and they manage to keep their cells free of cancer, keep pathogens neutralized and keep and their limbs intact and their organs pretty and unclogged, then yes, they will have lost money. We are in perfect agreement.
But isn’t money a far second to good health? Of course it is! If they go through life healthy, surely they should thank their lucky stars that all they’re out of is money from their pocket, as opposed to, you know, having to deal with the absolute NIGHTMARE so many people quietly endure, so as not to ruin OUR DAYS with their negativity.
Disclaimer: I am biased because I am weak and sickly.
The entire insurance industry has always been based on the fact that some people get less back than they pay in, to balance those who get more. Young people may be less likely to have expensive health problems, but they aren’t immune. The point of having insurance is that it’s there on case the need arises.
“Obamacare is an unfair tax on young people” is still bullshit.
I know what you’re saying, but I would add that people only seem to make the argument about health insurance costs being “wasted money” if they are fortunate enough not to get sick. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think I have ever heard someone complain that car insurance or homeowners insurance is “wasted money.” I can’t figure out why that is.
Isn’t this just the same model as Social Security and Medicare? Young people usually don’t draw SS or Medicare unless they are have an accient or get very sick. Otherwise, they just pay into it so that the current older generation can live, and the young people hope there is still a system when they need it. Of course you put the burden on the young, because they are by far the largest cohort, thus the pain is spread around more thinly, each having to pay less.
This. The entire point of health insurance for under 65’s is that you pay more then you’re likely to get out of it. You trade the possibility of a low chance of having to pay a large amount of money for definately having to pay a smaller amount of money.
This was true before Obamacare and will be true after. The only difference is the existence of subsidies and tax-penalites change the equation somewhat, so that the “smaller amount of money” is even smaller.
Well, if pre-existing conditions do not prevent anyone from getting insurance at a later date then the young are justified in feeling that they are wasting money. Under our current system people know there is a serious cost to not being insured at a young age. Try getting insurance in your 50’s after a few heart attacks.
The OP is strange to me. Old people are young people are not in competition. We are all in the same society. Old people are the parents and grandparents and future of young people. Young people should want to pay out of respect for the elderly people who need this and fear of the inevitable future when they will need the same (unless they’ve died young). What benefit is there in NOT pulling together for the good of the nation as a whole?
Edit: short-term financial benefit for the individual is the answer to the rhetorical question, I know, but I hate it.
But with other kinds of insurance, it is based more on whether you have the random bad luck to incur greater costs than the average person. Normally, insurance companies would like to have as many new customers as possible. But no one is saying here that they need to get as many middle aged people signed up as possible. The statement that they need lots of young people to sign up so the system isn’t imbalanced clearly shows that the middle aged people who sign up are actually a drag on the system. This is not the way insurance is designed to work.
What they should have done is subsidise everyone so that it is a good deal for insurance companies to get each new customer, yet keeping it a good deal for the people who sign up as well. Then the “free lunch” would be paid for via progressive taxation, and no one would have to hold their breath and hope that the mix of people signing up was in any sort of demographic balance.
And just as a matter of politics, and gratitude for that matter, they certainly should not have disproportionately laid the burden on their strongest age group.
Anecdotally, my health insurance rates went up and my coverage went WAY down as my company is changing things relative to this law and I’m still young and in excellent health. The idea that the insurance industry is based on some people pay more than they get out and others pay less isn’t insurance, it’s socialism (for better or worse, but it is).
Insurance is generally based on risk. Look at car insurance. Young inexperienced drives pay more, people with a accidents and tickets pay more, people with more expensive cars pay more. If someone is judged with low risk then gets in a wreck, their risk goes up and their rates go up. In general, health insurance has been the same, older people are higher risk, smokers are higher risk, overweight and obese people are higher risk.
Personally, I was fairly optimistic about ACA, I like a lot of the things that it promises, but it’s left a very bitter taste in my mouth because now I have to subsidize it. I’m paying almost 50% more in premiums a month now and my coverage is way down, which means if I have to pay that much mroe out of pocket, I have to really think about whether I want to go, which I probably won’t short of a major injury or illness. So, in essence, it’s had the opposite effect of discouraging me from going to the doctor for preventative care.
So from my perspective, and thinking about the math, financially I very well may be better not paying any premiums, paying the tax penalty, and saving the difference up and then just paying out of pocket. The only reason not to is the catastrophic coverage, but basically I’m paying all that much more money for that low chance. Yes, I’m still going to do it, because that’s exactly what insurance is for, but it is a hard pill to swallow and I do feel shafted.
This works much better at the family and community level. Most people do not feel some duty to help someone they’ve never met. You seem to think that the young people, many who are just starting a family and buying their first home with very little income and savings, should desire to sacrifice for the elderly. Many of the elderly are a lot more wealthy than those just starting out. I can certainly understand that many young people are wondering why they have to pay the same amount for insurance as a wealthy senior who owns his home and has a nice nest egg.
Middle aged people are probably more or less break even, but we sign up anyway, so there is less incentive to try to recruit us. The plan does subsidize poor people by the way, so some of what you ask for is in it. However as much as I’m in favor of progressive taxation, it seems fair to have the people getting the benefit pay for the program. Young people are not a permanent group - barring mishaps they are going to get old and then get more out than they put in. So, over the life of a person, it averages out to be pretty fair. Sure the guy who dies in an accident at 30 is ripped off, but the guy who lives to 100 is going to be ahead.
To be fair, I don’t think the elderly are relevant here. They are on Medicare, a program which has been there for decades. The real issue is young versus middle aged here. Voyager does have a point that most young people will get older at some point; but in the early going, the middle aged will get the best deal as they didn’t have to pay in when they were young.
And I still see no answer for why Democrats are not rewarding their people. I mean, I guess it at least proves they are not cravenly about just doing stuff for their voters like the right would have us believe; but at least treat them neutrally, c’mon.
Unless I’m gravely mistaken, the Democrats believe all Americans are “their people” and that any short term costs for the young come back in long term savings.
The group that is really eating the most costs and will continue to eat the most costs are wealthy Americans who don’t have employer subsidized health coverage. But I don’t imagine you are saying these are the Democrats’ “people”.
Well, that’s a huge problem. You’re supposed to be willing to sacrifice for your country, and what is your country if not the people in it?
I’m not willing to make pointless sacrifices to enrich the executives of the insurance industry, though.
You still have a false dichotomy, though. It’s not young vs. old. We are all in this together, and it’s not as simple as “those sick but rich old people aren’t paying their share!”
The first four words of the thread title make no sense to me. Sure, they’re “right” in terms of not being “left” but right about something? Not in a million years.
They assume that all Americans think like right wingers and obsess over how they can game the system to maximize their personal net worth. Maybe a young person could skip insurance and be better off financially, as long as he accepts the risk involved. I think most people in general as well as most young people see insurance as a necessity when they take a minute to weigh the risk. And not every young person is a selfish bastard looking out for number one- they all have parents and grandparents and if they participate and by so doing make it more affordable for their elders, a lot of them will.