The target age you mention is 40% of enrollees between 18-34, not 18-30. And the current rate in that demo is 24%, not 18% (you may have got 18% from thisarticle). And the current projection is that if it doesn’t improve insurers may be undercharging by about 2.5-3%.
Also, that is just an exchange problem - it has nothing to do with the rest of Obamacare or the Medicaid expansion.
And finally, there is very good reason to expect that the younger healthier population would be the last to sign up as they weigh their options and consider whether to pay the tax rather than buy insurance.
As for why the target population for 18-34 in the exchanges is higher than their share of the population, it is clearly because they are by far more likely to be uninsured than older people (obvious when you consider that anybody over 65 is by definition insured under Medicare). Whether they will enroll en masse remains to be seen, but the latest numbers are certainly much better than what we were seeing a month or two ago. I don’t see any signs of “death spiral”-level numbers.
Actually, they don’t need 40%. That’s the Obama administration’s goal, but the insurance companies counted on less youth participation.
The real question isn’t young vs. old, it’s sick vs. healthy. If the population enrolled is too sick, then the insurance companies will have to raise rates in October 2014.
Do you seriously doubt that the Republicans would not use the “nuclear option” to dismantle PPACA if they held the White House and a simple majority in the House and Senate?
Here’s the difference. If the GOP does pass their plan, and does promise that if you like your Obamacare, you can keep it, and you think they aren’t telling the truth, my response will be: Okay, that’s your opinion.
My opinion that the President wasn’t going to keep his promise was met with cries that I was “spreading misinformation”. At the very least, we’ll refrain from trying to discredit you for having a different opinion.
It’s a problem because it assumes that young people will be eager to pay more than they otherwise would so that older people can pay less.
I’m sure even the least informed young people notice the ads targeted at them are because the system needs them to work. If 60-year olds choose not to participate it makes no difference to the success of ACA. If 25-year olds don’t participate, it just won’t work.
The Senate, by its inherently undemocratic structure, has a fundamental tilt in favor of the GOP, a fact which also gives the party an unfair advantage with the filibuster. They’ll never remove the filibuster for legislation because it would enable the Democrats to pass a slew of progressive policies the moment that the latter party assumes total control of the government. Given that the GOP is disadvantaged in national elections, and hell, Senate elections to an extent, they’d be shooting themselves in the foot in a lot of ways.
But it’s an INFORMED opinion. It’s an opinion based on actually watching the Republicans make all sorts of promises, grand and small, and then throwing them all in the trash the minute they get into power.
That’s big of you. I don’t recall personally accusing you of spreading misinformation - in fact, I thought that particular promise was “highly aspirational” at best - but if you can cite me saying so in reference to that promise I’ll apologize.
That said, Obama has a better track record of either delivering or trying to deliver on his promises than the majority of politicians, so while I still take anything he promises with a “we’ll see” attitude, at least he hasn’t taken the “ha ha ha - fooled you, suckers!” attitude of the last administration or of many of the current members of Congress.
It a problem because the “invincibles” was assumed to have less interest in health insurance than the general population. Yet, the target was 40% participation. That assumes water will flow uphill. And when the reality is a much lower participation rate and that nitwit Emanuel defends the plan by pointing to a bright spot—invincibles in California participating at a rate equal to their share of the population:26%—which is still way short of the goal, yeah, that’s a problem.
On top of that, I just don’t get how people can out forth a plan that is largely dependent on the young participating at a disproportionately higher rate than their share in the population, then carving out a swath of 18-26 year-olds who can still be covered on their parents plan.
*Thanks to Jas09 for clarification on some of the numbers. But the ones I used are the ones I recall being used in the interview with Ezekiel Emanuel.
You are still missing the basic math point. That age demo is 26% of the total population. But is is a FAR larger share of the uninsured population eligible for insurance on the exchanges. In fact, I’d hazard that it’s at LEAST 50% of that population, if not more. For a host of reasons - they aren’t eligible for Medicare, they are more likely to be unemployed, etc. So it’s not a logical impossibility to expect a group that makes up 50+% of the uninsured to make up 40% of the people that buy insurance on the exchanges.
Now that’s not to say that Emanuel is correct in citing the numbers he is as a “bright spot” - in fact I’d guess he’s probably wrong. Almost all politicians are when they try to use statistics. But everything I’m hearing from actual health insurance industry folks is that things are looking “good enough” so far.
That is, perhaps, a legitimate issue. I really don’t think it will have much of an effect, if any, on the viability of Obamacare as a whole because the risk pools of exchange vs. non-exchange (read: parents) plans is typically shared by the same large insurance players. As long as the “invicibles” are covered and paying premiums (or there parents are) it will have the same effect on the overall risk pool.
They’ll pay according to their risk. That’s fair. What is unfair is making the young pay more than they should so the old can pay less. It’s regressive as well, since young people tend to be poorer than those in the 50-65 range.
So people with high risk and low income should just wait at home to die. I never heard a conservative admit that so brazenly, but at least you are honest.
If they have low income, they get subsidies. Middle class to upper middle class seniors are a very powerful group, much more powerful than the young politically. Like much of ACA’s structure, the decision to make the young subsidize the old was 100% political.
Does the GOP plan pay for those subsidies, like the Democratic plan? As far as I can tell, Republicans want to repeal the medical device tax, which is a major source of revenue to pay for subsidies. What sources of new revenue do the Republicans propose?
It’ll be paid for with the same Medicare cuts the Democrats used.
The main point of the GOP plan is deregulating the exchanges, which has merit. THe price of insurance on the exchanges is artificially high, in part due to what has to be covered and for some populations, because they are subsidizing other people’s risk.
And how are you going to replace the medical device tax revenue? According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax is expected to raise about $29 billion in the first 10 years. How does the GOP plan offset the loss of that revenue?
Doesn’t need to because it spends less. Give it up on the medical device tax, it’s getting repealed, the Democrats just don’t want to pull the trigger while Obama is in office because he threatened a veto. The next President will sign a repeal in the first 100 days regardless of party. No one likes this tax. It’s designed like crap and threatens tens of thousands of jobs, mostly in blue states. It’s a goner.