Nope. I was right. The Congressional Budget Office support my numbers. 24 million Americans will not have insurance because they simply cannot afford it. The CBO study proves you are wrong. I don't know why you are even discussing car insurance. The rate of inflation in medical insurance and rising cost of healthcare is very different from auto insurance. Sure, I can easily find a cheaper auto insurance - everyone knows that.
CBO report: 24 million fewer insured by 2026 under GOP health care bill - CNNPolitics.com
Wrong again. First, I was explaining how revenue-neutral rule changes are filed and approved with state insurance departments using actuarially sound principles. It makes no difference which line of insurance it is. The actuarially sound principle of revenue-neutrality remains. In an earlier post, I explained how a change from 3:1 to 5:1 for age rating is done on a revenue-neutral basis and how that can reduce rates for younger people while raising rates for older people. Why you can sit there and tell me that what I did in my 23 years working in the insurance industry was false or wrong or whatever is simply baffling, if not arrogant. I was THERE, making those filings with state insurance departments, and seeing the approval letters in response. YOU were not there.
And here is a little gem from the CBO report which is consistent with my revenue-neutral offsets explanation.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52486
"Although average premiums would increase prior to 2020 and decrease starting in 2020, CBO and JCT estimate that
changes in premiums relative to those under current law would differ significantly for people of different ages because of a change in age-rating rules. Under the legislation, insurers would be allowed to generally charge five times more for older enrollees than younger ones rather than three times more as under current law,
substantially reducing premiums for young adults and substantially raising premiums for older people."
In my example, I chose a 50-50 mix of people just to make the algebra easier to demonstrate. To preserve revenue-neutrality, the rates in my example rose 11% for older people while dropping 33% for younger people. I was refuting your claim that rates would only rise for one group while being unchanged for the other.
While auto insurance is not a perfect comparison to health insurance, remember that a good part of auto insurance covers medical losses from auto accidents. During the 1990s, when HMOs became more widely used, the auto insurance coverages which included medical losses (No-fault, Liability, Medical Payments, Uninsured Motorists) saw declines in their rates. In the many rate filings I oversaw during my long career, there were some increases, some decreases, and some mixes of increases and decreases based on loss experience.
I am sure more then 2.8% of Swedish families can afford 600 USD per year.
