Yeah, government run healthcare has worked so great in this country, we should do more of it!
Those that do realize this are also those that want to see it fail so that it will bring in a single payer system.
Premiums for individual health-insurance plans in Washington will rise an average 13.6 percent next year, though rates within the state health exchange will jump about 8 percent for midlevel plans, far lower than national hikes of percent.
That makes zero sense. Employers are still able to bring the same grouped 'payers' to health care companies. The ACA actually added a small percentage of Americans to the overall market.
If you think the ACA has eroded large employer bargaining power please provide empirical research to that effect.
Very few people recognize this simple fact - it's fundamentally the exact same system we had before. Obamacare itself isn't a health care system, just a mandate that people purchase insurance with subsidies for some people.
HAHAHAH, lol empirical research on highly secretive trademark info. Good luck with that.
I'm as close as you are probably going to get to that.
I am currently doing software contract work for a large national health insurance company. Which includes healthcare.gov integration as well as creating a whole new product and backend suite for all parts of the business. I get to import all the sales data, underwriting figures, premiums, employee info, and what not. I know from my experience with this data that large business, even fortune 500 companies that aren't self insured (most of which are) have all lost huge bargaining power thanks to the ACA. Of uninsured people, the ACA had a ton of people sign up for health insurance. The few that haven't are doing the loophole healthcare "groups" like Christian Healthcare Ministries, homeless people, and a few stubborn holdouts that would rather pay the tax than pay for health insurance in any form.
The fact is the heatlhcare.gov put out a comparative price listing that anyone can look and compare against for full insurance and various levels. Couple that with more people having insurance, it has taken the wind out of collective bargaining for lower prices for most employers. Speaking of which, most of the very large companies tend to be self insured in the first place. Which means insurance companies are providing stop loss plans for those large companies. Which has completely different rates associated with it.
Yah a "subsidy" application that is flawed in itself. Subsidies are calculated based off the second cheapest silver plan on the healthcare.gov site nationally. Which doesn't take into consideration of regional figures and prices at all. Which some people that were getting a decent plan that was previously mostly subsidized are now finding out they aren't being subsidized at all for some massive rate increases in their area (if their area had a massive premium spike). Flat out stupid decision to do it that way.
Wait, you're trying to say what companies pay for health care premiums is highly secretive? It's publicly available information. I am very certain that you are not as close as I'm going to get, by the way, haha.
Also, who cares if you're doing back end data work? Do you have any experience or competence with data analysis, statistics, or empirical research? If so, what research did you conduct? What were your DVs and IVs? What statistical tests did you run and what were their outcomes?
LOL WHAT??? Do you not understand capitalism at all? Where is individual sales figures like this out for public consumption? Publicly traded health care insurance companies put out profit revenues for share holders, but you aren't going to find day to day and historical sales figures put put for public consumption. You are an idiot of the largest margin here. In this arena I AM THE EXPERT. You are literally arguing with the expert on this that has spent years doing this stuff and has the facts and figures at my finger tips. Yet you continue to shill as you usually do.
This is factually incorrect. Subsidies are calculated based on regional prices, not national ones. You should not talk about things you don't understand, much less criticize them for being 'stupid'.
http://whatifpost.com/how-your-obamacare-insurance-subsidy-is-calculated-an-advanced-lesson.htm
Here's the rub, a lot of those plans aren't always adjusted for regions as you might think they are. The plans are put there by any company that wants to register with healthcare.gov and put plans into the market place. As long as they have credentials for doing so, those plans go in. Which includes large health insurance and small health insurance companies. In many cases, those plans aren't exactly adjusted for region all the time. In many cases, and company will just set a plan the same for everywhere. Why? Because they can. It's easier I guess. While the subsidy is "supposed" to work against a silver plan in your state, there is no guarantee that plan is actually adjusted for your area. Only that it is the second cheapest plan. I hope you are catching the point here. There is nothing dictating by the government of what the health insurance have to charge or put in their plans. On what is considered to be called bronze, silver, gold, and platinum as "metal" plan levels.
Why was it harmful?
You shouldn't have to ask. Your question means you've continued to deny and reject the ample evidence of higher prices and less choice.
People cannot afford healthcare. That was the problem before Obamacare, and that remains the problem after Obamacare.
Some people cannot afford health care, that's true. That number is far smaller than it was before though. Doesn't that sound like success to you?
Companies can put any plan they want in any market they are capable of serving, but that in no way changes the fact that subsidies are calculated on a regional basis and not a national one as you claimed. The ACA in fact does EXACTLY what you complained it wasn't doing and what you claimed it was 'stupid' for not doing. I imagine areas with little or no exchange competition will have artificially high prices that may not be adjusted for region but competitive marketplaces will eliminate those through the basics of capitalism.
What you said was blatantly, obviously wrong. Just own up to the fact that you didn't know what you were talking about.
You must be kidding. Health care is a national crisis and has been for a long time now. Obamacare was a good first step but completely socialized medicine is where we need to be ASAP. Don't pull a GW Bush on us with his Mission Accomplished tripe.
LOL, it is still based off two figures. A plan level that is more than likely a national one, as most bronze and cheap silver plans are in many places. Also, the subsidy is based on the national federal poverty level. Which isn't adjust for regions at all. A single person only gets up a subsidy up to an income level that is 400% above the FPL which is currently at $46K a year. A single person making that much in rural Arkansas can live pretty damn well. Someone making that much in Manhattan is basically homeless. Only adjustments to the FPL is those living in Hawaii and Alaska.
I agree that it should be based on regional incomes and not FPL. That in no way changes the fact that the subsidy is also based on regional health care prices. I just did a quick check between Arkansas and Pennsylvania. Average silver plan prices are about 25% lower in Arkansas than Pennsylvania, so no they aren't both the same price. So... wrong again.
Can you just admit you were wrong?
LOL, even I agree with bshole on this statement.
Healthcare is a public needed utility at this point. It is something everyone needs and businesses looking to continue to rake in massive profits at the cost of the lives of others needs to be stopped. But ACA was NOT the way to do that at all.
Yay, two points, that can change at any moment. Again the plan that is the second cheapest silver can span across multiple states. The healthcare.gov system is still new as it only started 3 years ago. The first 2 years didn't have all that much to choose from. As time progressing that will change if the current system remains in place as is. When the calculations are done on a plan that spans the nation, then it is exactly as I said. Especially as part of the calculation is based on the FPL which even fubars the prices for many more as well.
I was neither completely right nor completely wrong with my statement.
Yah a "subsidy" application that is flawed in itself. Subsidies are calculated based off the second cheapest silver plan on the healthcare.gov site nationally. Which doesn't take into consideration of regional figures and prices at all. Which some people that were getting a decent plan that was previously mostly subsidized are now finding out they aren't being subsidized at all for some massive rate increases in their area (if their area had a massive premium spike). Flat out stupid decision to do it that way.
It seems like a no-brainer. I don't understand why Eski would argue that we have gone far enough and that the problem is fixed.
Actually I can make an argument that nobody would agree with. I would like to see all health care managed by the government. All the hospitals would be owned by the fed and all the doctors/nurses/etc would be federal employees. There would be no insurance, you would just go to the hospital when sick. Privatized care would cease to exist at all. It would be 100% socialist.
You said this:
Please explain to me how that is anything other than 100% wrong.
More importantly though, you said you knew that the ACA had destroyed the bargaining power of businesses. Can you tell me how you determined that?
When plans were first added they were generic plans as the market place was new. Health insurance carriers didn't care as much about the individual plans being purchased on the site and didn't differentiate between regions that much. So many plans were national based. This year has seen a bit more in the way of adjustments and variety.
Still in some places the second cheapest silver is a plan that spans multiple regions or in some cases the nation. It was more true the first and second year the website was working. So in those cases my statement is 100% right. If the subsidy calculation works on the second cheapest silver plan, and that plan is a nation plan... it is working exactly as I stated. Don't be obtuse.
Your inability to admit fault even when faced with direct, unequivocal evidence that you were wrong is truly amazing.
Not only was what you said wrong, your attempts to get out of it now are transparent lies. Your original post would be nonsensical using this logic as you claimed people would be screwed out of their subsidies when prices in their area went way up but didn't increase as much nationally. For the purpose of subsidies it doesn't matter if the plans listed are national or not as the subsidies are directly related to the price of the plans available to a customer regardless of if the plan is national or not.
I'm not sure if you even realize you're lying or not, but anyone who goes back and reads your posts can see that your two positions cannot be reconciled.
Nope, not a lie and not incorrect. I made a statement that is 100% factual in the right scenario. I did iterate after the fact that it was not always 100% nor is it always 100% wrong. That is also a correct statement. Had I been 100% wrong I would have stated as much. Which I have done in the past. You incessant need to try to disprove me at every turn is remarkable though. My statement earlier was meant as a reference to the fact that the system was working basically as I stated it was.