Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (750199)	10/29/2013 4:35:33 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575327

>The primary reason for those 0.5% losing their existing plans is that they aren't comprehensive (i.e. expensive) enough to meet the ObamaCare requirements (and of course don't meet the grandfathering requirement). Their costs are going up. Right, but a large portion of even that .5% is getting subsidized. There are some people getting caught in the middle, but even the nightmare anecdote from the story you posted a few days ago was an increase of that couple's insurance from about 2 percent of their income to 4 percent of their income, and likely will save them some of the difference through lower co-pays, etc. And it's really only a sliver of people who have really shitty insurance among those making in the high five figures that will even see a jump that large. In the meantime, I've been seeing people who make $30K and pay a third of that a year in premiums have that cut in half or further. >Meanwhile, the sudden increase in demand for health services will obviously cause prices to go up. I vaguely remember some provisions in ObamaCare to try and control those prices, but I think they will be woefully inadequate, especially since the whole health care structure in America is incredibly complex. Once again, we will see. >That means we all will end up paying more for ObamaCare. And again, we'll see. >Answer this for me. Why else do you think a primary goal is to try and get the so-called "Young Invincibles" to sign up for health insurance that most of them feel they won't need? It's to offset the costs of the less-than-healthy new patients coming into the system. Right. But they also do have health insurance, which will help them. I mean, I'm young and pretty darned healthy, and yet, insurance certainly helps me. I wouldn't have known that in advance, but you can't predict when something will go wrong. >I've already posted one example of this assumption not holding in a California-based experiment. Kind of silly to ignore that lesson and believe that health care costs will simply go down thanks to the ObamaCare mandate. You've posted it not holding for a very small, very specific segment of the population. -Z