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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (307561)	8/9/2016 10:18:23 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 542009

I did find at last one additional hint as to the issue I've been hammering on. The following table is an estimate of ACA 2017 increases from this site: acasignups.net (A very good guy does this as a hobby, well worth bookmarking him!) The red underlines are the states which merged their small group and individual markets into a single risk pool. This is something the ACA allowed, but most states have not done this. What it does, is spread the risk of all those high risk people across approximately twice as many people (across the USA, the small group and individual markets are about equal in size). What one can see is that those three are asking for much smaller rate increases this next year. Of course, I would expect that in the prior or first years, they would have seen a bigger jump in their small group rates. But the point remains, that the ACA dumped this cost on the backs of those who happened to be in the individual markets, which has driven these huge increases as a result. No biggie, if you got subsidies, but a huge hit if you don't. Why was this relatively small group of people chosen as a target? The answer I think is they weren't in fact chosen as a target, because most those who voted for it were clueless that this was what would happen. I think Hillary is clueless that this is what she did, based on her response to questions during the campaign.