Obamacare Sucker Punches Middle Class

Here's some of the effects of the ACA on the "middle class":

All the focus on the website problems obscured those benefits the ACA has already created since its passage in 2010.
More than 3 million young adults have gained insurance coverage after family coverage was extended through age 26. Since the law passed, closing Medicare's "doughnut hole" allowed more than 7 million seniors and disabled people to save an average of $1,200 per person on prescription drugs.
Consumers have saved about $5 billion over the past two years through requirements that insurers spend at least 80% of the premium dollar on care for patients. And 71 million Americans with private insurance, as well as 25 million enrollees in Medicare, have gained coverage for at least one free preventive service.
The years since the ACA was passed have been marked by the slowest three-year period of health care cost growth on record. The ACA doesn't bear full credit for this slowdown, particularly given the weak economy. But the fact that the slowdown has persisted even as the economy has improved, and the fact that costs have grown more slowly even within the Medicare program whose enrollees are largely protected from economic shocks, suggests that the ACA is playing some role in this historic slowdown.
The early success stories have been ignored in all the attention paid to the implementation problems. The premiums offered on the exchanges cost 16% less than what the Congressional Budget Office projected them to be. This results in significantly lower costs to people and saves almost $200 billion in the federal government budget.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/02/opinion/gruber-aca-success/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

Against that, some small percentage of individuals with above average income have had to pay more for better insurance. All legislation implies some sort of trade off; this one certainly seems a good one.

Originally posted by no1marauder
People who brought those cheap plans also knew that if it didn't wind up covering all their health care costs, the government would eventually bail them out. Thus the rest of society was, in effect, subsidizing the cheap plans. These people really don't have much cause to complain; the government has decided to regulate the market in a manner that increa ...[text shortened]... s must meet minimum standards that make the system more efficient really doesn't offend me much.

It's central planning at its worst. A 55-year-old woman being forced to purchase neonatal coverage is indefensible from an economic standpoint. Belief in the concept that healthy 27-year-olds trying to start their lives and maybe their families will take one for the team and pony up inflated premiums so that other people can get subsidies requires a detachment from reality bordering on psychosis.

I say, let's all come together. The price for Republican cooperation is Obama's scalp. What does that look like? Not sure. Not removal, because Biden's a horse's ass as well, just a lot dumber. Complete marginalization of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. And then we can star talking. Honestly, there's so much media coverage about how bad and obstructionist Republicans are, but that coverage is coming from a flamingly liberal perspective. If there are parts of the Republican Party that don't resonate with parts of America, it is sure as hell about time to acknowledge that the same can be said about POR Inc.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
It's central planning at its worst. A 55-year-old woman being forced to purchase neonatal coverage is indefensible from an economic standpoint. Belief in the concept that healthy 27-year-olds trying to start their lives and maybe their families will take one for the team and pony up inflated premiums so that other people can get subsidies requires a d ...[text shortened]... f America, it is sure as hell about time to acknowledge that the same can be said about POR Inc.

Insurance is pooling of risk. Some, perhaps most, of the people who pay for health insurance are never going to need it for some specific conditions that are extremely costly for those who have it. It makes plenty of economic sense to spread the costs throughout the entire pool.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
It's central planning at its worst. A 55-year-old woman being forced to purchase neonatal coverage is indefensible from an economic standpoint.

That's how it works in most of the western world, resulting in lower overall health care costs.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Insurance is pooling of risk. Some, perhaps most, of the people who pay for health insurance are never going to need it for some specific conditions that are extremely costly for those who have it. It makes plenty of economic sense to spread the costs throughout the entire pool.

I'm not debating the merits or business model of insurance. And I am no defender of the insurance industry. I have horror stories.

It does not make sense to make someone buy something they will not use. You yourself have acknowledging that compelling economic activity is a gross usurpation of individual rights.

Making the world a better place is an admirable goal. And health care reform is admirable. But there's a reason that this bill didn't get even one Republican vote, and it's not because Republicans are just mean-spirited Scrooges.

Peggy Noonan wrote last week that liberals had won the argument that something must be done about health care. I agree; I find it extremely distressing that most of the homeless population in this country is made up of my brothers-in-arms. So, I have a thought experiment for you to consider: hypothetically, a bipartisan, market-based, workable, economically viable solution to health care is reachable, but the Republican price is the complete marginalization and public rebuke and humiliation of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. Do you take it?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I'm not debating the merits or business model of insurance. And I am no defender of the insurance industry. I have horror stories.

It does not make sense to make someone buy something they will not use. You yourself have acknowledging that compelling economic activity is a gross usurpation of individual rights.

Making the world a better place ...[text shortened]... e marginalization and public rebuke and humiliation of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. Do you take it?

I've never made any such acknowledgement. I think the individual mandate is unwise and unnecessary, but not a "gross usurpation of individual rights".

Republicans have no interest in "reforming" health care just as they have no interest in "reforming" immigration. For political reasons they'll talk like they have but no substantive proposal can be expected. The ACA is here to stay; get over it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I've never made any such acknowledgement. I think the individual mandate is unwise and unnecessary, but not a "gross usurpation of individual rights".

Republicans have no interest in "reforming" health care just as they have no interest in "reforming" immigration. For political reasons they'll talk like they have but no substantive proposal can be expected. The ACA is here to stay; get over it.

I doubt it. We've already beholden the spectacle of Obama repealing Obamacare (or parts of it). Wait until the effects of the law are actually felt. My goodness.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I doubt it. We've already beholden the spectacle of Obama repealing Obamacare (or parts of it). Wait until the effects of the law are actually felt. My goodness.

I mentioned some of the effects in the first post on this page. In the long run, Republicans will have no more success opposing the ACA then they did in opposing Social Security or Medicare.

Originally posted by no1marauder
People who brought those cheap plans also knew that if it didn't wind up covering all their health care costs, the government would eventually bail them out. Thus the rest of society was, in effect, subsidizing the cheap plans. These people really don't have much cause to complain; the government has decided to regulate the market in a manner that increa ...[text shortened]... s must meet minimum standards that make the system more efficient really doesn't offend me much.

Well, first, I don't think the people buying the cheap plans were necessarily relying on the government. They decided that they're willing to risk an enormous bill in the event of an unlikely catastrophe, which they'd either pay, negotiate with the hospital or declare bankruptcy. They didn't have to be anticipating a government bailout.

Second, perhaps this would justify a requirement that plans cover emergency medicine. It hardly justifies the requirement that plans cover 25 years old and contraception.

Originally posted by sh76
Well, first, I don't think the people buying the cheap plans were necessarily relying on the government. They decided that they're willing to risk an enormous bill in the event of an unlikely catastrophe, which they'd either pay, negotiate with the hospital or declare bankruptcy. They didn't have to be anticipating a government bailout.

Second, perhaps this ...[text shortened]... y medicine. It hardly justifies the requirement that plans cover 25 years old and contraception.

Who pays the unpaid bills in case of a personal bankruptcy? It's not necessarily "the government", but it certainly is the taxpayer.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Who pays the unpaid bills in case of a personal bankruptcy? It's not necessarily "the government", but it certainly is the taxpayer.

The hospital eats it. I suppose you can argue that the cost gets passed on to the consumer eventually, but that's quite indirect. Perhaps the provider simply makes a little less money.

Originally posted by sh76
The hospital eats it. I suppose you can argue that the cost gets passed on to the consumer eventually, but that's quite indirect. Perhaps the provider simply makes a little less money.

It's indirect, but real nonetheless.

Originally posted by sh76
Well, first, I don't think the people buying the cheap plans were necessarily relying on the government. They decided that they're willing to risk an enormous bill in the event of an unlikely catastrophe, which they'd either pay, negotiate with the hospital or declare bankruptcy. They didn't have to be anticipating a government bailout.

Second, perhaps this ...[text shortened]... y medicine. It hardly justifies the requirement that plans cover 25 years old and contraception.

"Indirect costs" are real. Bankruptcy IS a government bailout; it's the government saying you don't have to pay your bills. That's just as advantageous to you as if they handed you over sufficient cash to pay your bills.

The system was unsustainable with rising costs (premiums increased in the 10 years preceding the ACA at 2 1/2 times the rate of inflation and overall health care costs rose to 19% of the total economy and were on pace to hit 30% in another 10 or so years) and many being totally priced out of the market. It's "insurance"; that implies spreading risk across the entire pool. Economically requiring "one size fits all" makes sense.

Originally posted by no1marauder
"Indirect costs" are real. Bankruptcy IS a government bailout; it's the government saying you don't have to pay your bills. That's just as advantageous to you as if they handed you over sufficient cash to pay your bills.

The system was unsustainable with rising costs (premiums increased in the 10 years preceding the ACA at 2 1/2 times the ra ...[text shortened]... s spreading risk across the entire pool. Economically requiring "one size fits all" makes sense.

So sayeth the most extreme left-wing American on the site.

Originally posted by no1marauder
"Indirect costs" are real. Bankruptcy IS a government bailout; it's the government saying you don't have to pay your bills. That's just as advantageous to you as if they handed you over sufficient cash to pay your bills.

The system was unsustainable with rising costs (premiums increased in the 10 years preceding the ACA at 2 1/2 times the ra ...[text shortened]... s spreading risk across the entire pool. Economically requiring "one size fits all" makes sense.

===The system was unsustainable with rising costs (premiums increased in the 10 years preceding the ACA at 2 1/2 times the rate of inflation and overall health care costs rose to 19% of the total economy and were on pace to hit 30% in another 10 or so years)===

Agreed, certainly. The problem is that under the ACA premiums are rising even faster.