Pilot2013
Full time employment: Posting here.
I won't engage. You got the last thread shut down.
And you came in and started working on this one with the same drivel.
I won't engage. You got the last thread shut down.
You won't have to worry anymore, I've added you to my ignore list.And you came in and started working on this one with the same drivel.
You won't have to worry anymore, I've added you to my ignore list.
Great! I love how it's ok to state a negative to the side you have a problem with, but you throw a tantrum when it goes the other way. Have a good life/retirement!
I suggest that you learn about the ignore feature as well, or take it offline.
How did you arrive at that belief?
The CBO only had a short time to crunch the numbers, the authors of the bill, however, have had 8 years to crunch the numbers. I'd love to see those calculations.
The law of supply and demand. The ACA artificially increased the demand.
But the way the bill achieves those lower average premiums has little to do with increased choice and competition. It depends, rather, on penalizing older patients and rewarding younger ones. According to the C.B.O. report, the bill would make health insurance so unaffordable for many older Americans that they would simply leave the market and join the ranks of the uninsured.
The remaining pool of people would be comparatively younger and healthier and, thus, less expensive to cover. Other changes would help make health insurance skimpier — cheaper, but with deductibles that are higher than those criticized by Republicans under Obamacare.
Under the G.O.P. bill, the C.B.O. finds that insurance premiums would first spike, by 15 percent to 20 percent more than under Obamacare over the next two years. But by the end of a decade, the average plan would cost 10 percent less than it would under the Affordable Care Act. (Over all, though, 24 million fewer people would have insurance, it found.)
Insurers price their products by spreading out the cost of care for their customers. In general, older customers cost substantially more to cover than younger ones because they have more health needs and use their insurance more. By discouraging older people from buying insurance, the plan will lower the average sticker price of care. But that doesn’t mean prices will get lower for everyone.
Currently, the subsidies under Obamacare are devised to help limit how much low- and middle-income Americans can be asked to pay for health insurance. The Republican plan works differently. It increases the amount that insurers can charge older customers, and it awards flat subsidies by age, up to an income of $75,000.
On premiums alone, prices would rise by more than 20 percent for the oldest group of customers. By 2026, the budget office projected, “premiums in the nongroup market would be 20 percent to 25 percent lower for a 21-year-old and 8 percent to 10 percent lower for a 40-year-old — but 20 percent to 25 percent higher for a 64-year-old.”
But the change in tax credits matters more. The combined difference in how much extra the older customer would have to pay for health insurance is enormous. The C.B.O. estimates that the price an average 64-year-old earning $26,500 would need to pay after using a subsidy would increase from $1,700 under Obamacare to $14,600 under the Republican plan.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the C.B.O. concludes that many, many fewer 64-year-olds will continue buying insurance in this market. By 2026, the uninsured rate for those 50 to 64 earning less than about $30,000 would more than double, from around 12 percent to around 30 percent. Those older customers who would lose out on insurance coverage are more likely than the young customers who would buy it to need help paying big medical bills.
-
- No reason for young-uns to subsidize olders. Olders are the ones with $$$ by & large.
There's not much in this present, Phase-1-of-3, proposal that does or can address the underlying problem, which is the cost of medical care (not the cost of insurance--which largely is a result of the cost of the care). That's just the way it is.
"What are you doing?"
"Jacking up my car to change the flat tire."
"The tire still looks flat. I don't think you are making things better. This isn't working."
+1
Agree very much. It's really time for FIRE'd folks and FIRE'd folk wannabees to think in terms of hitching up their pants and paying their own way.
It allows them to move the bill forward. But I'm refraining from making any more comment on this before I go out political. So help me G.Saving money is easy. Just eliminate Medicaid altogether and they will save even more money.
How about making healthcare more affordable for *more* people while saving money?
+1
Agree very much. It's really time for FIRE'd folks and FIRE'd folk wannabees to think in terms of hitching up their pants and paying their own way.
Everybody in my family has to work until 65 for healthcare. One brother will have to work until 70 because his wife is 4-5 years younger. If he gets Medicare and she doesn't have insurance, its will be worse off for them. Some got laid off along the way, not just one time but multiple times.What about people who are fired or laid off in their late '40s or 50s, can't easily find jobs with benefits and do not have the means to RE?
What about people who are fired or laid off in their late '40s or 50s, can't easily find jobs with benefits and do not have the means to RE?
+1
Agree very much. It's really time for FIRE'd folks and FIRE'd folk wannabees to think in terms of hitching up their pants and paying their own way.
How about making healthcare more affordable for *more* people while saving money?
My kid paid $253. I'm hoping with the new health plan she can go down to $150.My 25yo's catastrophic medical plan thru his employer was $1.49/month. I don't remember the specifics.
If 20-29 year olds can buy that on the open market then the refundable tax credit will benefit them greatly.
+1
Agree very much. It's really time for FIRE'd folks and FIRE'd folk wannabees to think in terms of hitching up their pants and paying their own way.