And if they somehow jerry rig the system in order to not miss an interest payment, sending the global economy into a freefall?
But hey, let’s assume that despite all of this, they manage to not miss an interest payment. Everything would be hunkydory, right? Well, no. You conceded that much. But let’s see how bad that would be:
P.S. Reviewing my last post. I can’t find the actual deadline the companies had to meet in submitting exchange premiums, so I could be wrong about September being the month. But even if I am wrong on September, I don’t see why the employer mandate delay would much affect premiums.
Also, the delay on the employer mandate would, if anything, be favorable to the finances of insurance companies participating in the exchanges, because the delay caused a moderate number of healthy working people into being eligible for exchange coverage. One reason that I think the premium deadline must have been after July 2 is that I can’t see the Obama administration having given such a gift to the insurance companies. If the administration did do that, the media would have caught it by now.
He wasn’t gifting the Insurance companies, he was gifting the businesses that were complaining.
You are correct that the premiums look like they were due in September (though I also can’t find a hard date, but the posts about the subject on google all seem to stem from early September, so a ~Sept 15 deadline seems likely) but I also would think that the insurances costs took that deferral into account, as pretty much everyone says that the offered packages are more expensive than anticipated by the ACA proponents. Having the Small/Medium business segment anticipated to pitch in members should have lowered those costs.
As to the differences between the two: the individual mandate extension only delays the penalty by a year. The exchanges and such stay open (unless I missed some of this annoying story in the media) and the rest of ACA will roll out. You just won’t get penalized for not having insurance for an extra year. These penalties go to the general fund for health care, but they don’t get absorbed by insurance companies.
The employer mandate deferral actually allows one decision maker in every small and medium business from having to jump on the insurance bandwagon for an extra year. From a “damage” perspective between the two, I agree with you. The employer mandate is different from the individual mandate and is the worse of the two to defer.
Googling there are many similar hard-news articles.
Now, not every mainstream media article is favorable to Obamacare. Some say that that the most expensive hospitals are often excluded from coverage, but that’s not the same as saying the premiums came in high.
Surprise! – I did find ax-grinding right wing opinion articles saying premiums came in high. That’s why you shouldn’t watch TV
For instance, the “premiums came in low” in your articles was a comparison to a CBO estimate from March of 2012 as a general cost for the entire US (which is a bad estimate method to use for individual states as COL is different, but let’s let that slide). That estimate was $15,400 a year for a family in the second lowest-cost silver plan in 2016.
So they are taking a single data point, just plugging it into the CBO’s original estimate and then saying it’s coming in 16% lower in 2016. I find that…questionable at best. You’re taking what amounts to an educated guess as to costs in 2016 and then replacing a data point and going “Look how the resulting guess changes!”
It would be a better illustration to compare this year’s estimated to this year’s actual.
And the people believing it’s more expensive is because of statements from Obama, like:
So, when you go and check our your health exchange as a 27 year old person who’s never had health insurance and this is what you see (for the link hating: $145 per month after subsidy if you make $25,000 a year), you have to either go “What kind of cell phone does a Congress man/President use that individually costs more than that?” or “Wow, what I’m seeing is way more than they expected!”
Then, there are those people who have health insurance that remember the statements made by Obama during his campaign about healthcare being $2,500 a year cheaper. And that certainly hasn’t materialized from this package, either.
To add on top of that, the unsubsidized plans average $774 across the information the HHS provided in the exchanges (family of 4 at $94,000 a year). This is $9,288 per year. That means, even with the “16% lower in 2016” statement, that means that over the next 2.5 years, an additional $3,648 per year (or $304 per month) will be added as costs for the unsubsidized plans.
If we assume that the subsidized rate will also cost more over the same time frame (and will not freeze at it’s current rates of subsidy, and it very well could be increased through Congressional action as part of a social program) that means that the $282 for a family of 4 making $50,000 a year will add $110 per month after subsidies using the same rate of increase.
Thus, public perception is that it’s more expensive. Without watching TV, I might remind you.
The average individual’s cell phone bill is up by 31% since 2009, to $71 a month. (cite) My wife and I pay just north of that $145 figure for our plan and my rate has a 17% discount through my employer. So while the insurance may not be as cheap as some people pay for their cell phone service, it’s not out of line for what a lot of other people are paying.
If you are getting individual insurance, why do you assume you are getting multiple devices on a cell phone plan? If the insurance was even $80-90 after subsidy, I would agree that it’s “cheaper than a cell phone bill” in spirit, if not in actuality. However, it’s a bit more than double the $71 figure for the average cost of a cell contract.
If you go read that survey, you’ll see that 58% of those surveyed said that their costs come from group plans. Group versus Individual plan information was not segregated for the average cost. So, yes, it goes up to $200 but that’s for multiple devices. Is it fair to compare the price of group cell phone coverage with individual insurance?
If we abuse your provided example, you pay $150 a month for your wife and yourself. What is that? Two devices? If it’s two devices, that’s $75 a month for each of you. Applying that $150 a month figure to a 27 year old individual making $25,000 a year is not a good comparison.
But, let’s say that the 27 year old in this hypothetical is on your group plan with a significant other. That 27 year old’s cost is $75 a month, or half the cost. That person is still paying twice the cost of her cell phone charges in insurance. The information provided by the president is flawed on it’s face, good sir.
And since those figures do not include taxes, phone insurance, for some carriers using your phone as a Hot Spot, the cost of apps, the cost of your phone upgrades, and even more since mobile phone companies are pretty good at finding things to bill you for, ONCE MORE I will assert that it’s not out of line for what a lot of people are paying.
Where does it say that on your cite? I see "the carrier now offers unlimited talk, text, and data for only $70 per month ($120 per month if you’re a couple of two, or $150 per month for a family of four). " which is $70 for an individual. Even if you take the final costs for the individual and add the average device subsidy (20-30 per month), T-Mobile comes in at $95 a month after taxes. And this is their “Cadillac” service plan. You can also get started on TMobile for $30 less a month. (The other carriers have similarly priced starter plans).
Remember your other cite, this average being $71 a month? That means that half of those costs fall below that $71 a month. Those are the people that would most likely be getting this subsidy at $25,000 individual income per year.
Apps are a separate thing and are not covered on the cell phone bills for any of the major smartphone OSs (iOS, Win, and Android all have separate marketplaces that side step the carrier). If you want to include this, how far down that rabbit hole do you want to try and go? In-App purchases to a free app? Music/Media that’s bought on a cell phone? Because these things are more of a “fun time” purchase, I do not equate this with a cell phone cost and more along the lines of a “Cable TV/Gaming/Hooker” expense.
On top of that, the “lot” of people that are spending $120 or more a month on their individual phones are likely NOT the same people that need subsidies at the $25,000 (which is about $21,000 take home not including the annual tax refund in April) mark for individuals. If they have a roommate, roughly half of that income is going for necessities. Food, gas, roof, electricity, etc. If they don’t have a roommate, that jumps to 3/4 or more of their income. This changes, of course, if they get other government subsidies (food stamps, free phone, etc). Then on top of necessities, you’ll have things like TV, Game systems (include computers here), a vehicle in many circumstances, and that “Extra” money kinda starts running out. This is the income level that a lot of people take the $30 Go Phone plan option and side-step the whole “$120 a month” issue entirely.
Now, let’s stuff all of that reasoning into a corpse bag and assume for arguments sake that every single person ever, without fail, pays $120 for each phone for cellular service (Which makes you get way more discount than 17% ). It still costs 22.5% more to pay for insurance than it does to pay for your cell service.
I thus maintain my assertion that this is contrary to what the President said which was that it was LESS than your cell phone bill.
For individuals, AT&T offers 4GB of data and unlimited talk and text for $110 per month. A full two years of service plus an iPhone 5 would cost a total of $2,839.99.
Divide that by 24. Voila.
The price for Sprint is essentially the same. Which means individual data plans for two of the four major carriers in this country are in the $120 per month ballpark. Again, not including taxes, phone insurance ($6-15 a month), for some carriers using your phone as a Hot Spot (that’s included with AT&T but an extra $19.99 or $49.99 per month for Sprint), the cost of apps, the cost of your phone upgrades, etcetera.
So once more with feeling: Not a significant difference for a great many people from the person who will need to pay less than $150 a month for their healthcare.
I think it is pretty clear that there would be more people covered. There might be more part timers - but it is not at all clear that this will increase the trend that is already happening, and there might be some more unemployment (very doubtful) but certainly far less than a default. (And assuming that the market and an auction after the default would look the same as before the default is delusional to put it mildly.)
I think the overheated rhetoric of the Tea Partiers is a good demonstration that they don’t have a lot of actual objections.
Lots and lots of people have already signed up on the state run web sites, so it is looking popular. The worst that can happen from the Republican point of view is clearly that ACA gets implemented and for the most part people like it. There are definitely people who will pay more (sometimes for more coverage) but many more people who get affordable insurance now where they could not get it before. I am fairly certain that much of the negative polling on ACA comes from FUD, not the facts. Hell, Cruz pretty much admitted that people will like it.
As for the downside of default, I have a request of the Republican legislators who claim it is no big deal. They should agree that if a default happens, and some combination of bad things happen - Dow drops 2,000 points in a week, unemployment goes up 2% in three months, borrowing costs increase, whatever, they will immediately resign. I’m sure a lot of Dems would happily agree to the same deal about ACA going into effect with no default.
Let’s see if they have the guts to stand behind their predictions.
So you went with the most expensive (not even verizon, which is the most populous) carrier, once again integrated “apps” and ignored the statements about how little you actually have if you make $25,000 a year.
A great many people do spend good money on their cell phones. This level of subsidy arent’t them. And if you move up the earnings chain and DO make enough to pay for all the cell phones you could want, you still aren’t going to be cheaper because the subsidy shrinks.
Even if we go to the family level: $282 (family making $50,000) is more expensive than your $150 current cell bill.
So, what do you tell the more than half of the people who pay less than that $147 cut off? “Well, you should have spent more on your cell phone so this seems like it’s cheaper.” ?
I don’t give a shit. I provided a citation that individual phone bills for the **two **largest carriers are $120 a month before a bunch of other things which are not uncommon on cell phone bills, making a monthly bill comparable to the $145 a month premium which was used as an example above. Sorry that you don’t like this. Sorry it doesn’t resemble your phone bill or even the average phone bill. But it doesn’t represent some theoretical super high international plans either - $120 a month is standard for inclusive data plans these days. As I have showed you.
And, as you also showed, the AVERAGE COST is $71 a month, which you then ignored. You ignore that half of the users reported BELOW a $71 cost. You ignored the fact that you pulled the most expensive plan base and also ignored the most populous carrier to focus on the most expensive. You also ignored the fact that $120 is still 22.5% less than $147. You also add premium features that aren’t used all that much by the budget conscious. Apps? Hot spots? Not on a Go Phone.
As a reference, Prepaid users are roughly 100 million in count and those plans top out at about $80, well below your “You can buy it for this price!” Statement.
So, who’s using these plans? The families who make $50,000 a year or the individuals struggling to make ends meet at $25,000 a year?
It’s NOT a comparable price for people making $25,000 a year, whether or not you want it to be.
I never denied that people who are opposed to universal health care say the premiums are high. My objection was to the idea that “pretty much everyone” thinks that way. I don’t, and most of the front page no-ax-to-grind newspapers reports on the announced premiums agreed with me.
I do apologize for accusing you of watching TV :smack:
