That point is wrong. Because the uncertainty in 2016 (or whenever that program ends) would be greater than it is when the program is running.
You can’t compare now to 2016 without the program. You need to compare now with the program to 2016 without.
So…you’re suggesting that there will be greater uncertainty in 2016, and that will lead to premium increases?
.
F-P: You’re re-defining uncertainty in that post from how we had been using it, but the point remains the same and is correct.
You posit that with the expiration of that program, the increases that we would have seen in 2014 will hit us in 2016. That they were just deferred. But the level of uncertainty in 2016 will be much lower than 2014, so any risk premium that insurers will have to institute will be proportionally lower. So it doesn’t make sense to argue that the increase is just being deferred.
I’m not saying it’s “just being deferred”. I’m saying at that point the risk issue will be a greater issue than it is now, and that the risk of a spiral beginning at that point are greater than they are now. (It’s true that the risk of the spiral had there been no risk-sharing mechanisms in 2014 would have been even greater, but there were risk-sharing mechanisms in 2014, so this scenario is not a valid point of comparison.)
So the fact that there has not been a “death spiral” to this point is not an indication that there will not be one in 2016 (or whenever these mechanisms phase out). This contradicts the assertion made by 2manytacos, which is why I brought it up.
That is different from the argument I thought you were making, but I still don’t think it is very persuasive.
Your premise is that risk corridors were successful at reducing the financial risk from uncertainty about participants in 2014 to levels below those that will be present in 2016 without the risk corridor program.
But what facts support that premise? We know that the 2014 level of uncertainty was much higher than it will be in 2016. And we know that risk corridors only subsidize part of the financial impact from getting the premiums wrong. So why isn’t it more likely that the mitigated risk present in 2014 will be higher than the unmitigated risk present in 2016?
It’s not just risk corridors, it’s also the reinsurance fund.
And I didn’t say it would happen, only that it could. Reread my initial post (#157).
As it happens, I was just the other day speaking to my uncle, a fellow health care actuary (now retired) and he was absolutely convinced that the bottom would (gradually) fall out of the exchange market once these supports were removed. But for me, I just look on it as a possibility.
It’s refreshing IMO getting to see more journalists joining me in calling out this SCOTUS case for the “farce” that it is.
Sorry, 2, but this guy is not a journalist. He’s an advocacy journalist. So, yeah, people pushing the same agenda you push are “joining you” in this.
It’s refreshing to see you continuing to post links with incorrect summaries. It’s like, you have an agenda or something, almost making it illegitimate.
Quick! Stop the presses! The uninsured rate is at historic lows.
We’d better yank those subsidies away from people before they realize that they like having health insurance.
They like having health insurance paid for by other people. This isn’t really surprising.
Wait a second! You mean to say they propose to use my money to give that penniless urchin proper vaccinations! Hold on here, give me a moment to rethink my position!
Ponder, ponder, ponder…
OK, I’m done. Do it.
Out of curiosity, are you willing to share how much you actually paid in taxes in the last few years, on average? It might give your declaration of generosity a bit of context.
You have every right to spend your money how you see fit. Get your hand out of my pocket and stop spending my money.
Last time I checked all developed nations on earth know how to be human.
But we already know that humanity is not your strong subject.
Oh please, Bricker. That’s just silly and you know it.
Why do you get to define what it means to be human?
I don’t need to, others more important than me already did.
‘Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.’
-Martin Luther King Jr.
"Everyone has the right to health, including health care, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Health care is a public good, not a commodity. The U.S. health care system must fulfill these principles:
*Universality: Everyone in the United States has the human right to health care.
*Equity: Benefits and contributions should be shared fairly to create a system that works for everyone.
*Accountability: The U.S. government has a responsibility to ensure that care comes first."
-Amnesty International.
How old is the human race?
So far as I can tell, you have quoted the opinions of several commentators in the last 65 years or so.
What makes their opinions about “inhumane” correct, especially against the objective evidence that the human race has not adopted their views for the vast majority of its existence?
I call this a “Susanita” argument, they ignore that humanity has progressed, and that we have to compare ourselves with the ones that are better, not with the ones that are worse. (The cartoon character from a very old Mafalda comic never got the point that you have to compare yourself to the ones that have better lives so one has an incentive to improve) Virtually all do see now that slavery is not a thing a human should endure. (But with you I wonder, after all you showed in a GD thread that you thought that the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision was a good one!)
It took us 10,000 years (in civilization/historical terms) to drop Slavery; nowadays, besides giving the vote to women and minorities, health care is also seen by most civilized nations as a right.
What you are pushing in you reply is just a demand to compare us to the troglodytes of the past. No, thank you.