Obamacare enters Death Spiral

[BvBPL]

When the discussion starts with the assertion that people should be beaten for smoking in public then any semblance of reasonable discourse is stillborn.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

When the discussion starts with the assertion that people should be beaten for smoking in public then any semblance of reasonable discourse is stillborn.

I don't recall making such an assertion. I think I just defended the idea that government intervention in the form of laws protecting the rights of people to take their lungs into public places without having other people blow smoke into them is justified.

 

[mrt144]

This is pretty much the equivalent of a racist saying "I don't hate (insert race)! My best friend is (insert race)!"

My wife is a smoker and I'm a vaper. We both agree that the limit on public smoking serves a greater public good than allowing us to wantonly blow smoke anywhere we want, even if we miss indoor smoking.

Where's the public good in racism?

 

[mrt144]

I live with a smoker, so you are clearly assigning me a dislike I don't have.

People who don't want to suck other people's smoke in public places shouldn't be forced to by smokers. That seems pretty simple.

Since we have opted not to let them defend themselves we have laws to defend them. That seems reasonable.

If we remove the laws that defend them I believe we should also remove the laws that restrain them from defending themselves. That seems reasonable...and is what I said.

Nah, that's stupid since you've opened the door to idiotic uses of force that would not have existed prior to state sanctioned violence. We don't need more 'stand your ground' type laws.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Nah, that's stupid since you've opened the door to idiotic uses of force that would not have existed prior to state sanctioned violence. We don't need more 'stand your ground' type laws.

Note that I did say "if." I'm fully in accord with providing people freedom of lungs through rule of law rather than might makes right.

 

[BvBPL]

Even as the cracks in Romneycare are showing, a small band of stalwarts are using Clinton’s weakness in the election to push health care reform forward.

 

[Kaitzilla]

The weighted average 2017 premium price increase is now coming in around +25%.
http://acasignups.net/16/10/19/avg-unsubsidized-indy-mkt-rate-hikes-25-41-states

The top rate increases are:
1) Oklahoma +76%
2) Arizona +57%
3) Minnesota +56.6%
4) Tennessee +56.1%
5) Montana +47.6%
6) Illinois +45.1%
7) South Dakota +37.9%
8) Kansas +36.6%
9) Alabama +36.1%
10) Nebraska +34.8%

Hopefully any forum members in those 10 states are getting a fair amount of subsidies to offset the coming price increases!


The two biggest states with by far the most enrollees (California and Florida) have approved rate hikes of +13.2% and +19.1% respectively.

Amongst the 10 states that haven't approved their price increases yet, Texas insurers are requesting +38.1% price increases and West Virginia +45.6%.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, hmmmn. I wonder if getting those numbers weighted in with subsidies is possible. That's the number people really care about. Don't get me wrong, pre-subsidy is a great number (we so often don't include subsidies when we look at consumption goods). But it requires a little more information.

 

[Zkribbler]

The weighted average 2017 premium price increase is now coming in around +25%..

I'm sure you meant to say the REQUESTS for premium increases. Moreover, only requests of more than 10% need be listed. For example, in California, Kaiser is seeking a 6% increase. I'm not saying you're wrong in pointing out large rate jumps after two years of relatively small increases. I'm just saying your figures are designed to give the worst possible numbers.

I'm more concerned by the trend of insurers in bailing from the exchanges, often leaving only one choice for people seeking insurance. One key feature of Obamacare was competition, which is supposed to keep prices down. When there is no competition, there will be pressure to raise premiums. I'm sure there will be talk in Congress of resurrecting the public option, whereby the government could offer its own policies when insurers' policies were unreasonably expenses. However, I'm also sure that the Republican House will bow to the will of their plutocratic masters and will block anything which would grant average citizen a bit of fairness.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I'm sure you meant to say the REQUESTS for premium increases. Moreover, only requests of more than 10% need be listed. For example, in California, Kaiser is seeking a 6% increase. I'm not saying you're wrong in pointing out large rate jumps after two years of relatively small increases. I'm just saying your figures are designed to give the worst possible numbers.

No, I'm sure I meant approved premium increases.

Avg. UNSUBSIDIZED Indy Mkt Rate Hikes: 25% (41 states)

UPDATE 10/19/16: As you can see, I've locked in the approved weighted average rate hikes for 40 states plus DC, leaving 10 states to go. I do plan on filling in the remaining approved rate hikes as the data for those 10 states comes in, but at this point it's quite clear that 25% is the magic number. The weighted average has been hovering between the 23-26% range since the first few approvals started being publicized in mid-August, and has stabilized in the 24-25% range for the past month. Over 77% of the total U.S. population is represented by these 40 states (+DC); unless there's some dramatic final rate changes in the remaining 10 states, that national 25% average isn't likely to budge by more than a rounding error.

Hmm, maybe I'm not reading things right.
Are you saying the weighted averages in the link are only counting approved rate hikes greater than 10% because rate hikes between 1% to 9% don't need state approval and aren't being counted?
If so, these numbers would indeed be higher than the reality!

I'm more concerned by the trend of insurers in bailing from the exchanges, often leaving only one choice for people seeking insurance. One key feature of Obamacare was competition, which is supposed to keep prices down. When there is no competition, there will be pressure to raise premiums. I'm sure there will be talk in Congress of resurrecting the public option, whereby the government could offer its own policies when insurers' policies were unreasonably expenses. However, I'm also sure that the Republican House will bow to the will of their plutocratic masters and will block anything which would grant average citizen a bit of fairness.

Ya, in 2016 only 4% of Ratings Regions had 1 choice.
In 2017, it will rise to 33%!
http://avalere.com/expertise/life-s...cline-in-competition-across-the-aca-exchanges

The Republican House's "drop dead" response to ACA reform is not very helpful.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Oh, hmmmn. I wonder if getting those numbers weighted in with subsidies is possible. That's the number people really care about. Don't get me wrong, pre-subsidy is a great number (we so often don't include subsidies when we look at consumption goods). But it requires a little more information.

That is a fine question!
This is the best info I can find:
https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/subsidy-calculator/

• The subsidies are tax credits, which means you can opt to pay full price for your coverage (purchased through the exchange) each month, and then get your tax credit when you file your tax return. But unlike other tax credits, the subsidies can be taken throughout the year, paid directly to your health insurer to offset the cost of your coverage.

• Nearly 85 percent of people enrolled in exchange plans in 2016 are receiving subsidies that average $291 per month.

• Subsidies can lower your premium significantly, but the law also provides subsidies that can reduce your cost sharing.

• The average after-subsidy premium paid by the millions of enrollees who got premium subsidies in 2016 through Healthcare.gov is only $106 per month. For these enrollees, premium subsidies are covering an average of 73 percent of their total premiums.

So your average subsidized Obamacare enrollee is only paying 27% of the total cost.
A +25% across the board rate increase would only feel like +6.75% to them.

 

[El_Machinae]

So your average subsidized Obamacare enrollee is only paying 27% of the total cost.
A +25% across the board rate increase would only feel like +6.75% to them.

That's better than the 8% average that is the 'expected normal' in the counter-factual. That's entirely not sustainable though, for the consumer or for the pressure put on subsidies. It's so hard getting from the conversations about structural fixes to the regulations that allow those fixes to be dropped in as one-time discounts. And triggering deflation in medical care is hella hard in today's research environment.

 

[Cutlass]

This is the price you pay for not having the public option in it. Obamacare has done a lot of what it's main intent is, which is to reduce the number of uninsured people. But the law had little teeth for cost controls.

 

[Lexicus]

I just can't understand why people insist that their insurance be run for-profit and then complain about the price of that insurance.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I just can't understand why people insist that their insurance be run for-profit and then complain about the price of that insurance.

Haven't you heard? The free market is a magical system that automatically spits out better and better goods at lower and lower prices. By now good health insurance should be available as the prize in cereal boxes. Ask any true believer in the free market to show you their tattoo.

 

[Zelig]

I love the free market, I think we've got far too little of it, but I'm under no illusion that health insurance is an appropriate place to apply it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I love the free market, I think we've got far too little of it, but I'm under no illusion that health insurance is an appropriate place to apply it.

I love a well regulated market. The free market has demonstrated that the forces pushing towards monopolization are far too powerful. Almost every good or service in the US economy has far too few providers for any sort of "competition leads to product improvement and lower price" to work at all. The only ones that aren't suffering yet are new innovations and they will be there in a blink.

 

[BvBPL]

I just can't understand why people insist that their insurance be run for-profit and then complain about the price of that insurance.

Who does that?

 

[tetley]

Obama's position was that we should usually have a free market, but health care is not one of those things that needs to be free market. Fair enough.

But now it doesn't matter much, because starting in January there will be progressively less-and-less Obama in Obamacare.

 

[metalhead]

The problems with Obamacare are easy to fix. Just increase the penalties until all the healthy people decide to sign up. Or make the penalty be about the average cost of a bronze plan and then buy them the plan. In the long run it likely wouldn't be more expensive than subsidizing ever-rising premiums.

Or simply make it so that health insurance companies have to take losses on Obamacare to keep premiums down. It's not like they lose money overall, Obamacare typically shakes out to a relatively small portion of their business.