When you put it like that, you make it sound like both sides are being petty and should share blame equally. This isn’t “bickering” over who is to blame. One side took hostages and is blaming the other side for failing to accede to their demands. This sort of nonsense needs to be rebutted every time is is brought up.
cite please? The 2012 numbers leave about 300BB on the table after paying all mandatory items.
I think the way to read that is (a) $95 per person up to $285 per family OR (b) 1% of income… whichever is greater.
They can roll debt.
How the hell do you think you roll debt when you refinance a house? The proceeds from the new debt is used to pay off the old debt. The vast majority of all federal debt is purchased at auction by a short list of ~20 “primary dealers” and they retire the old debt with the new debt.
The auction process doesn’t involve bidding on the principal amount, it involves bidding on the interest rate.
So you ALWAYS know how much the auction will bring, you just don’t know the interest rate it will bring.
For someone who complains about this board’s ignorance of financial markets, you seem pretty ignorant about the financial markets. I’m just a lawyer and even I knew this stuff.
Thats what I heard on NPR. The purpose of the delay on the mandate is that it will collapse Obamacare entirely. If you delay the mandate, you would be better off delaying all of Obamcare.
When other countries default, its not because they can’t pay the interest, its that they can’t pay the interest after they pay their pensioners and soldiers.
The employer mandate does not get everyone into the system, the individual mandate does. The individual mandate is the pin that holds it together (Obamacare collapses without it), the employer mandate just helps to fund some of the subsidies on the individual mandates.
I think he might be confusing the cost of the plans to the individuals to the cost of the plan to the government. The cost of the plans to the government has been rising (e.g. see post above about employer mandate funding the subsidies, now that subsidy is gone for the next year and more people are poor and unemployed that we thought back in 2010).
The problem is that the individual mandate at today’s penalty rate doesn’t either. In my opinion, leaving the exchanges open and delaying the individual mandate for a year would likely have the same exact subscription effect as leaving the mandate in, just the government doesn’t get some kickbacks from those without insurance. When the mandate penalty goes up over the years, it’ll be more effective, of course.
It’s a fairly large flaw in the ACA to assume that the 30 million underinsured it targeted at it’s inception was primarily due to insurance company tiddlywinks. A lot of that underinsured group of people are because of cost. You certainly have the cast-outs that the ACA attempts to remedy, but if you are 27 and making $25,000 a year (one of the emerging ACA benchmarks) it’s more likely that paying 250+ a month is untenable than that you have an pre-existing condition. Paying $147 a month is also untenable, and it’s all-but useless when you also have to pay 30% (i think the silver plans are 70/30) of your medical costs on top of that. So even if you get insurance, you are still avoiding going to the doctor outside of the free preventative checkups.
I’m thinking that until the individual mandate becomes in parity to (or more than) the cost of the insurance, you’ll still have a lot of cost-conscious people doing a quick “147*12 > $250 (1% of income)” and then deciding against it anyway. Especially if they will get returns by default so it’ll just be $250 taken out of a refund check instead of them having to actually pay that.
I’m not sure that the government subsidy costs per plan would be less than the average cell bill until you get into the not-poor segment of the population, though.
If you are right, the reinsurance companies might have to pay out some claims because of premiums being set too low during the year or two while the individual mandate ramps up. But it isn’t much concern of ours.
Ah. So you are worried about the reinsurance losses in 2014 and/or 2015. That’s why the government should be shut down?
One problem not often mentioned with a one year delay is that it was hard to interest insurance companies in the exchanges as it is. Some big ones like Cigna and Aetna are not participating. Right now, I am afraid that it looks like those who are participating may have underestimated the political risk. If forced to wait another year, many of those now participating might reasonably decide that it is not worth their time to make another major planning and rate-setting effort only to have that blown up by GOP politicians.
I was discussing the point that it would cripple the ACAs implementation to stop the individual mandate. I disagree with that assertion because it’s not yet driving anything, and until the cost concern of the penalty becomes more of an issue it won’t drive what it’s meant to: People to the insurance companies.
I don’t care about that in any way shape or form.
When did I advocate for the government to shut down? Perhaps you should argue my points instead of attributing statements to me that aren’t true. I’ve specifically stated in Great Debates somewhere (if not in this thread) that the shut down is ridiculous.
It wasn’t “hard,” the insurance companies complained. They don’t like direct competition. They never have. They have spent their corporate lives doing nothing to encourage competition because it would hurt their bottom line. As for Cigna and Aetna, before any of this went down they were almost exclusively in the business provision markets. It’s no surprise that they didn’t participate because they don’t care about the individual market. They have never cared much for the individual plan market and even their small business options are expensive in comparison to other companies.
They wouldn’t be very good at managing risk if they didn’t look at the political landscape and go “The GOP wants it gone. They may get their way.”
I would be more concerned with the enrollment numbers than “political risk.” Let’s say that the planned 5-7 million sign up for next year? The individual and subsidy rates paid to the insurance companies would be very nice profit drivers assuming that those 7 million aren’t all horribly diseased and/or dying. The companies would likely stay on despite “political risk”.
The problem is that despite the public trying their best to flood the ACA websites off the internet, actual signup has been incredibly low. It’s true that it’s early, but if 8 million people have visited the servers and not that many have signed up it doesn’t bode well. It could also be that people are waiting for how the GOP fight plays out, it could also be that the websites are too screwed up for most people to get to them (if that “8 million” visitors tag is just people trying to load the site, for instance).
The public not participating would be far more of a detriment to the ACA’s exchanges than the individual mandate being delayed. And not penalizing people for an extra year may contribute to that, but as I said, a person not making a lot of money having to pay $250 a YEAR versus $147 a MONTH is going to just take the cheaper option, whether that’s the penalty or the $0 no penalty that’s in effect for next year.
If all that is necessary to get a delay is for the assclowns you vote for to throw a tantrum and threaten the world economy, of course they’ll do it again.
The slippery slope is a fallacy when you assume that any change leads to a ridiculous result. Having people do the same thing again when they get everything they want isn’t fallacious.
Its kind of a death spiral. The lack of a mandate means that the pool of insured under Obamacare self selects and is sicker than the general population, which leads to higher premiums which leads to even more self selection and even higher premiums and before you know it, Obamacare becomes a plan for people who already have cancer. Its not a slippery slope argument, its a vicious cycle.
Obamacare is already a half-assed attempt at universal healthcare, if you half-assed it any more, its would simply implode. No negotiation or concession is possible. Obama negotiated away anything that could be negotiated away when he negotiated with himself.
You’re ignoring that it is not “the lack of a mandate”. It is “the lack of a mandate for one year”. Do you really think that $95 annual fine during that year will make the young and healthy run to get insurance at $100-$200 a month?
BTW here is an interesting new lawsuit against Obamacare:
Apparently the law states that the tax credit for Obamacare premiums can be received only if “the taxpayer is covered by a qualified health plan … that was enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” That’s the language of the law.
Which makes all the people who would go through federal exchange in those 30+ states that didn’t establish their State exchanges ineligible for the tax credit.
“The Oklahoma suit has survived a motion to dismiss and its standing to bring the suit has been affirmed by the District Court. Pruitt hopes for a judgment later this year and feels the case might reach the Supreme Court by late next year.”
It is the lack of a mandate for a year. It only takes a year of skyrocketing premiums in the exchanges for people to conclude that Obamacare doesn’t really work.
$100-$200/month is the retail price without any subsidies. And if its not such a big deal then why fucking shut down government and threaten to default on the national debt over it?
Look, if it makes sense, people will buy it with or without the $95 fine. If it doesn’t, they won’t. The fine is an insult - it’s the “we know better than you what’s good for you” principle.
Who is “you”? What makes you think I personally want it “so bad”?
I am against taxes. Period. Any tax removed/reduced is good. Any time there is a method to reduce/eliminate money paid to the government or to claw back anything from it is good.
I am also not a Republican. Or a member of Congress.
You are aware that every time an uninsured patient (or as it stands with many policies in place before the ACA, even an insured patient) is admitted into a hospital, emergency room, urgent care office, or receives almost any medical care from almost any medical provider without any mechanism in place to ensure those services are paid for that the tax payer (and those of us who do have insurance) are paying considerably more.
Either you do not acknowledge that this is a problem or you feel that this solution is far worse than the problem. It would be nice to see justification for either position.
Ah yes. Good to see that the Fark Independent™ is not a regional phenomenon.
I’m right with you on taxes - anything that lowers or removes taxes is a good unto itself. However with the case of health care costs I think it’s a question of what is worse - paying for uninsured as they get hurt and can’t pay themselves, or pay for Obamacare or some equivalent at arguably a cheaper rate. It’s not an option that people will stop getting hurt and needing medical services.
The reality is if we as a country have decided that turning people away from medical care who are unable or unwilling to pay is a bad thing, then we should find the most efficient and effective way to treat those people. ACA is one way to do that (supposedly)
Supporters generally don’t buy the right-wing line about “moochers” and being “addicted to the government”- pretty much the only people who don’t get government assistance (like the GI Bill, for example, or other forms of education aid) at some point in their lives are those who are born rich.