Why Rate Shock Is An Essential Part Of Health Care Reform

[Old Bookaroo]

Why 'Rate Shock' Is An Essential Part Of Health Care Reform

There have been quite a few comments here regarding the Affordable Health Care Act's minimum standards for insurance. People have mocked the idea that men are covered for pregnancy. While I don't necessarily agree the Act does that - what difference does it make? Insurance is priced on risk. The Act requires health insurance companies to repay eighty cents out of every premium dollar in claims. Since the risk is obviously zero what's the cost?

Meanwhile, a reasonable view of where we are today:

Why 'Rate Shock' Is An Essential Part Of Health Care Reform
By Josh Barro

Once Obamacare is implemented, America's health insurance system will be a thicket of subsidies
and transfers that benefit some people and harm others.

Critics of the law have seized on this observation, noting the existence of "rate shock": some people (especially young and healthy ones with moderate and high incomes who buy insurance in the individual market) will pay more than they used to, so others can pay less.
But here's the thing: Before Obamacare, our health insurance system was already a thicket of subsidies and transfers. The law doesn't simplify the system, but it does make the thicket of subsidies and transfers more sensible: directed more at people who have low incomes or high health needs, and greatly shrinking the share of the population that doesn't have health coverage at all.

Making the thicket more sensible will mean that some people's costs go up, producing "rate shock."…

Why 'Rate Shock' Is An Essential Part Of Health Care Reform - Yahoo Finance

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[packerbacker]

Translation.....................................SOCIALISM!

 

[packerbacker]

Next we'll get obamalife. Everyone that has a life insurance policy will pay more for less coverage so those that don't carry life insurance can get it cheap or free. No longer will anyone be denied life insurance based on lifestyle or pre-existing conditions. It's just not fair that, because you work and take responsibility for your family, you get the life insurance you work and pay for, and the rest of us don't get any!! What's with that?

 

[packerbacker]

QUOTE:"While I don't necessarily agree the Act does that - what difference does it make?"
I hear echoes of Hillary!

 

[Jim in Idaho]

Translation.....................................SOCIALISM!

The liberals completely misunderstand the constitution. The idea is that the government shouldn't be in the business of picking who gets punished, and who gets rewarded. That's the WHOLE point. That's why the amendment says "equal protection under the law". The ENTIRE idea of that is to stop the government from deciding who does well, and who doesn't. If the outcome of ANY law is that some people are helped, and others hurt, it's a bad law. Laws like that are the reason we no longer are a land of opportunity. Obamacare is no different than the government bailing out some companies, and allowing others to go under. That is a violation of the constitution...plain and simple.
Jim

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Jim in Idaho:

Your post got me to thinking - what laws are so written that they impact everyone in precisely the same manner?

Clearly we throw out the entire tax code - including the home mortgage interest and charitable contributions deductions.

Everything else as well?

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

 

[SoCalBeachScanner]

Jim in Idaho:

Your post got me to thinking - what laws are so written that they impact everyone in precisely the same manner?

Clearly we throw out the entire tax code - including the home mortgage interest and charitable contributions deductions.

Everything else as well?

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

The law makers write the laws to either benefit themselves or to benefit most of their constituents to get reelected ... PERIOD!

 

[Old Bookaroo]

SoCalBeachScanner:

There have been a number of pieces out there about the National Football League being a billion dollar "non-profit." Turns out the IRS Code has a specific exemption in the non-profit regs for a professional football league...

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

 

[packerbacker]

that IS odd ob, wonder how that came about.
gov brown here in ca signed a bill that will speed up the process of taking private property from citizens so the building of the new sports arena for the sacramento kings will be expedited. Eminent Domain they call it.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

packerbacker:

That's how the Texas Rangers got their new baseball park built. I believe George Bush (43) was their president at the time.

Under California law, eminent domain can be used to seize private land for a private purpose. I think that is an extraordinarily bad idea. Just plain wrong. The US Supreme Court (Kelo) ruled that was legal - the states are the best judges of how eminent domain should be used.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Translation.....................................SOCIALISM!

BULLSEYE! Hit the nail right on the head there PB...

Sent from my new Galaxy Note3
now Free

 

[Jim in Idaho]

Jim in Idaho:

Your post got me to thinking - what laws are so written that they impact everyone in precisely the same manner?

Clearly we throw out the entire tax code - including the home mortgage interest and charitable contributions deductions.

Everything else as well?

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

In a word...YES. Same goes for business deductions. You want to go in business, why should it involve tax deductions? I can speak of this, because I've been self-employed my entire adult life....other than my military years. The slippery slope of government intervention has brought us to where we are today...a mess. That's why the founding fathers wanted to limit government...the very mess we are now in. Government should do nothing more than protect our rights...the rest should be up to us.
Jim

 

[Unclebuck257]

packerbacker:

That's how the Texas Rangers got their new baseball park built. I believe George Bush (43) was their president at the time.

Under California law, eminent domain can be used to seize private land for a private purpose. I think that is an extraordinarily bad idea. Just plain wrong. The US Supreme Court (Kelo) ruled that was legal - the states are the best judges of how eminent domain should be used.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

Oldbookaroo,

Wrong my friend!! Bush divested himself of all his holdings in The Ranger Baseball team when he was elected POTUS!! He had no interest when the new stadium was built or the land purchased! Believe me, I wasn't in favor of how they got that land and wasn't in favor of how Jerry Jones got the land for his new palace the same way, but they did it all through eminant domain and Bush had no interest in any of the two teams at the time.

 

[Unclebuck257]

packerbacker and your SOCIALISM post!! AMEN and AMEN!! And that is what Obammy and his minions are all about and are trying their best to change this country into!!

 

[Dave44]

About That, From the socialist papers.
Pittsburgh Steelers Owner, Former Players To Help Promote Obamacare | ThinkProgress

NFL Wavers, But Baltimore Ravens Will Promote Obamacare


But BOcare is so great! Why would anyone have to promote such a thing? People should be running to Washington to sign up if the site doesn't work! Instead of signing up by the 10s.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Unclebuck247:

I believe you are confusing the baseball park built by the Texas Rangers when George Bush was its President and the football stadium built for the Dallas Cowboys when Jerry Jones was in charge.

Interesting, however, to look at the tax breaks given the Cowboys. One figure I've seen is they don't pay $1,000,000 a year in the property taxes another corporation would owe.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

 

[Dave44]

Book,, Are you now into the crony capitalism aspect? I don't think ANY public funds should go to sports teams and stadiums. The owners should support the whole program, if it floats that would be great. Of course, the players may take a pay cut. But tax "breaks" are not necessarily the same as funding.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Dave44:

You wrote "But tax 'breaks' are not necessarily the same as funding." Tax breaks can readily be converted into upfront cash. Look at how many housing developments are funded.

The NFL is the largest socialistic enterprise in the United States.


Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

 

[UncleMatt]

The liberals completely misunderstand the constitution.

This kind of stereotypical perspective always makes me shake my head.

 

[Dave44]

Dave44:

You wrote "But tax 'breaks' are not necessarily the same as funding." Tax breaks can readily be converted into upfront cash. Look at how many housing developments are funded.

The NFL is the largest socialistic enterprise in the United States.

That is not true.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

Huh