What really happens if the youth dont show up for Obamacare?

[mirage62 0]

I keep hearing how cost will go through the roof.

Ok.

But the program won't go away. The cost just go up and we the tax payers will somehow get stuck paying more.

Thoughts?

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[lawrocket 3]

mirage62

I keep hearing how cost will go through the roof.

Ok.

But the program won't go away. The cost just go up and we the tax payers will somehow get stuck paying more.

Thoughts?

Either: (1) costs are going to increase (the government will do what it can to prevent the premiums from increasing by subsidizing it. So tax load (or borrowing) will increase, thus to make healthcare premiums look less expensive); (2) Access will be rationed (increased wait times); or (3) quality will decrease (procedures no longer available, nurses doing procedures and prescribing, etc.).

A combination of the three or two of the three is likely. This is regardless of whether everyone signs up or not.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[regulator 0]

As a single man for my first 40 years I never got healthcare insurance until after I got married. I never got sick so...never used it and it was money I probably spent on strippers. Now since I've had health insurance I've probably been to the Dr. 6 times total in the past 4 years...and that's because I've had my first kidney stone. If it wasn't for that then the only visits I would have made were for physicals and check-ups. I see alot of other young people who probably think the same. If that is the case for many other young people obamacare will be going down in flames. After all obama is hedging all his bets on the youth of america to pay for the people with pre-existing conditions. Personally, I knew this bill was doomed from the start. It's only going to get worse from here. If that's even possible.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Either: (1) costs are going to increase (the government will do what it can to prevent the premiums from increasing by subsidizing it. So tax load (or borrowing) will increase, thus to make healthcare premiums look less expensive); (2) Access will be rationed (increased wait times); or (3) quality will decrease (procedures no longer available, nurses doing procedures and prescribing, etc.).

Assuming that the healthcare system is completely static, #2 and #3 will happen regardless of whether people have to sign up for health insurance or not. In fact, they are completely independent of health insurance.

#1 assumes that healthcare costs can't be reigned in. The ACA includes numerous best practices experiements on reducing healthcare costs. If any of them show promise, we might be able to reverse the skyrocketing trend of healthcare spending.

- Dan G

[Boogers 0]

Cost will go up. People won't buy it. More people therefore uninsured. Insurance companies will go out of business. Therefore, even more people uninsured. All the exact opposite of what the idea is supposed to accomplish. It will make things worse.

And for the bailout, the government will end up paying for the increased costs to subsidize coverage, thereby driving up taxes.

And so it goes...

[JohnnyMarko 1]

I've talked about it before and I'll restate my thoughts from a 23 year old...

I'm a contracted employee so employer coverage is not available. I recently moved on my own and so all bills are not longer taken care of by mommy and daddy. I COULD stay on my parents plan for a few more years, but they're coverage is only in the midwest and where I live now, there are no in-network providers, and out of network costs are through the roof...so right now, I do not have health insurance.....and I'm in no rush to sign up through the Colorado exchange anytime soon....

I would say I'm sorry, but interwebz words don't mean a lot.

[davjohns 1]

Why are you sorry? You're taking a calculated risk. It used to be part of the equation for success.

I've said before...if the people who founded this country had to contend with the government we have now, they would have never made it.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[wmw999 2,534]

The one thing is that with EMTALA, we're the ones who are likely to cover his calculated risk, not him.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[davjohns 1]

No doubt. And that's one of the arguments for universal healthcare (or whatever we now have).

The problem is that the healthy are not being charged according to their risk level. They are being charged to provide for people with greater risks. That could dissuade young people from getting insurance. From a pure financial standpoint, it is cheaper to pay the tax for not having insurance.

I'm not arguing for or against universal coverage. I just think we went about it wrong. A flat tax to cover healthcare would have made more sense to me. The government running it, but leaving corporations in the middle just adds a layer of expense in my mind. Either make it public or keep it private. This hybrid monster seems fraught with peril to me. But it has the lovely benefit of allowing the politicians who screw it up to pretend its really the health insurance industry that's to blame...oh wait...I guess that was intentional, huh?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[kallend 2,106]

lawrocket

quality will decrease (procedures no longer available, nurses doing procedures and prescribing, etc.).

.

Non sequitur. Nurses are already doing procedures and prescribing, and there's NO evidence of decline in quality. In addition, many procedures have been found to be unnecessary or even counterproductive and should be discontinued.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

mirage62

I keep hearing how cost will go through the roof.

The US cost per citizen on healthcare is much higher than any nation with a single payer system, and the outcomes are poorer than almost all of them.

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/06/06/business/metrics-health-care-outlier.html

And especially
cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/img/posts/LifeExpectancy.png

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shropshire 0]

If you want the youth to show up ... make it an afternoon visit

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 2,106]

wmw999

The one thing is that with EMTALA, we're the ones who are likely to cover his calculated risk, not him.

Wendy P.

That pesky EMTALA (aka ReaganCare). In 2004 it was estimated to cost $40.7 billion (I can't find any later numbers) in unpaid costs shifted ultimately to those of us having insurance and/or to taxpayers.

Mary Brown, the GOP's poster girl in its failed lawsuit against ACA, ended up stiffing her medical provider for $thousands because she didn't think she should have health insurance.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Something else many here do not realize is those states that set up exchanges are being compensated to (for now) to provide the websites for obamacare

In CO, a new reported estimated that the cost of the site in CO would be $52 M per year
Those costs were to be covered by fees generated by those who use the sight
They are estimated to generate less than a third of those dollars next year at current rates
So the state will have to come up with those dollars

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnnyMarko 1]

Bump...

Guess who finally showed up and signed up through the CO state exchange
<--------------

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

The ACA includes numerous best practices experiements on reducing healthcare costs. If any of them show promise, we might be able to reverse the skyrocketing trend of healthcare spending.

I'll revisit this.

I've commented on "best practices" before. First, ask the question, "best for whom?" Seriously - what is the metric for "best?" Best for whom? For what? Is it "best for the patient?" I always thought that was the patient's decision.

Next, "best practices" are "standardized procedures." A cadre of doctors, lawyers, bureaucrats and economists deciding what doctors should and shouldn't do. "Best practices" eliminate medical judgment and patient choice.

Note to kallend: you wrote "Nurses are already doing procedures and prescribing, and there's NO evidence of decline in quality."

Again, by what metric. I've been asked about this many times, and usually it's on the basis of lawsuits filed against nurses. Guess what -physicians are ALWAYS ultimately responsible for what a nurse practitioner does. We lawyers don't go after nurses. We go after their bosses.

Need a stent placed? How about getting a nurse to do it? There is even a movement for psychologists to prescribe psychotropic medications. People with no training in physiology, pharmacology or medical diagnosis and can't read labs, much less know what labs to run. SO someone starts exhibiting signs of decreased mental function and depression. Psychologist prescribes antidepressants. Person isn't depressed by moves towards paranoia and dementia.

Sure, a psychiatrist would have run labs and figure out, "This person's thyroid ain't working." So the thyroid would be treated and the psychosis would be treated, too. But a psychologist, well, they sure can treat that depression.

This is where we're going. To save money.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[normiss 851]

Mind if I ask what you pay a month?
Deductible for the year and max out of pocket?

Fully understand if you don't want to share, I'm very curious what folks are paying.

[JohnnyMarko 1]

normiss

Mind if I ask what you pay a month?
Deductible for the year and max out of pocket?

Fully understand if you don't want to share, I'm very curious what folks are paying.

$145.70 a month
$5000 yearly deductible
$6350 Max OOP

[normiss 851]

Thanks for sharing.

[JohnnyMarko 1]

normiss

Thanks for sharing.

No problemo