• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The unofficial Obamacare thread...

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Entrepreneurs #PublicHealth
Robb Mandelbaum, CONTRIBUTOR
Feb 24, 2017 12:00 PM 2,839
Since the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010, health [+]
Can we all agree on one thing, that the Affordable Care Act is forcing small business owners to pay ever-higher costs for their employees’ health insurance? Right? Can’t we?

Certainly, Obamacare’s most ardent opponents have no trouble deploying a business owner devastated by premiums increases, usually described as “skyrocketing,” for an appearance in a news story or at a Congressional hearing. But even among people who are not dogmatically hostile to the health reform law, there is a widespread sense that it has made insurance plans for small businesses more expensive. The main argument is that the law’s requirements to cover certain “essential health benefits,” including some preventive care, as well as others to insure people with pre-existing conditions and abolish yearly or lifetime caps on benefits, are forcing many employers to buy insurance plans that are too generous for their employees, and therefore costlier.

Except that it doesn’t seem to be true. Health insurance premiums have been rising for decades, almost (though not quite) as stubbornly reliable as an eastern sunrise. And it turns out that these increases actually slowed after the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010. That’s according to data collected by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which tracks a range of topics around spending on health care in its Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The survey tracks the health insurance offered by private firms big and small, and in all cases, the average rate of premium growth from the time the law passed in 2010 through 2015 was actually lower than from 2004 to 2010. And premium growth was lowest for firms with fewer than 50 employees.

A similar study, prepared every year by the Kaiser Family Foundation, shows a similar trajectory for premiums, and it continues into 2016. “Everything’s been slower because we had the recession and health care costs just haven’t been going up that much,” says Gary Claxton, who directs the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Health Care Marketplace Project. “That’s still true, though it’s wearing off a bit now.”



This stands in sharp contrast to the individual insurance market, where the requirements imposed by Obamacare are similar. There, premiums have gone up significantly in the last year, because it appears that initially, insurers misjudged the population who would buy individual insurance, says Sabrina Corlette, a professor who researches health insurance at Georgetown University. “In the individual market there is evidence emerging there was serious under-pricing in the first few years,” she says. The correction that began last year continued with steep premium hikes for 2017. According to the National Federation of Independent Business (which opposes Obamacare). 41 percent of business owners buy their own insurance rather than get coverage through a group policy they buy for their employees.

Meanwhile, back in the small group market, depending on the type of insurance plan, small firms have managed to hold steady, or even lower, employees’ contributions toward premiums. And among the smallest firms — those with fewer than ten workers — a majority of employees still pay no premium at all. In fact, the share of employees paying no premium at all for individual coverage has held steady at about 60 percent since 2009. (Incidentally, a secondary argument that the law increases compliance costs for even the smallest business owners is plainly not true. Businesses with fewer than 50 employees have almost no obligations under the law.)

Early on, Obama administration officials liked to suggest that reforms in the Affordable Care Act were responsible for the slower premium growth — average premiums for family coverage actually fell for larger small firms in 2013 — but Claxton says there is no evidence of that. But all this raises an interesting question: why haven’t all those rules in the Affordable Care Act raised premiums for the average small business? Why aren’t these rich plans full of gratuitous benefits digging deeper into owners’ pockets?

There are a couple reasons. First, all those mandated benefits are actually pretty standard for small business insurance plans. “The Affordable Care Act’s essential health benefits are modeled after the most popular small group plans,” says Claxton. And he said that the law allows for cheaper plans where employers can push more out-of-pocket costs to employees. “A wide range of cost-sharing practices were allowed — there’s a lot of difference between bronze and platinum plans,” he says. In general, deductibles are rising faster than premiums, though that was true in the years before the Affordable Care Act became law, too.

Overall, says Claxton, “changes to the group market were just not very big. Even the rating rules” — requirements that coverage be priced based not on a person’s health status but on age, gender, a couple other factors — “just moved groups around the average. Going from health status ratings to community ratings — some groups go up and some groups go down, but the average cost of heath insurance doesn’t change.”

But there’s something else: despite all the handwringing, many small business groups, perhaps most of them, have managed to cover their employees and still avoid most of those onerous benefit and coverage regulations.

First, it is true that for a lot of small business, the premiums would not have changed very much. That doesn't mean that there aren't other small businesses for which it really was a big deal. I've seen that first-hand. It most heavily impacts businesses that are labor-intensive, and have a lot of low-skilled workers.

Second, premiums are related to copays and deductibles. So sure, businesses and their employees might have no real change in premiums, but if the out of pocket costs go up for employees, that's a major problem.
 
Who is that?



I can't -- I wasn't there. That was Rowland's job, which he clearly did not even attempt to perform. I'd point out that the whole ACA "death panel" debate (which I thought was dumb) was responded to by Democrats with essentially the argument that Duffey may have been making right here (although Rowland didn't give us the context) - all health care systems have to make decisions about cost versus care, and in some cases, there will be care that is simply too expensive to justify. Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance all do that right now.

Therefore, opposing a plan by saying "someone will die" is generic, and meaningless.

Get a grip, we are talking about gutting medicaid. Cavman has described in detail what his experience has been with medicaid. This is a cash grab, everyone knows it. We want to take money from the disabled. Pat yourself on your pro-life back for it. Please just be honest about it.
 
Get a grip, we are talking about gutting medicaid. Cavman has described in detail what his experience has been with medicaid. This is a cash grab, everyone knows it. We want to take money from the disabled. Pat yourself on your pro-life back for it. Please just be honest about it.

Agreed.. The AHCA is essentially just a tax cut. People should just say that they don't mind if lots of people got sick, or died, so that they could pay a bit less in taxes.
 
Get a grip, we are talking about gutting medicaid. Cavman has described in detail what his experience has been with medicaid. This is a cash grab, everyone knows it. We want to take money from the disabled. Pat yourself on your pro-life back for it. Please just be honest about it.


Wait a minute. This is an action by the state legislature in Ohio because the current Medicaid funding projections fall short. And it doesn't eliminate Medicaid. It prevents new enrollments into expanded Medicaid beginning in one year.

Anyway, this kind of illustrates the whole reason why I end up opposing these kind of entitlement programs. The second you try to ensure that the budget is balanced through limiting them in any way, it becomes all about Republicans wanting to kill people. That's why we are spending irresponsibly at the federal level.
 
Wait a minute. This is an action by the state legislature in Ohio because the current Medicaid funding projections fall short. And it doesn't eliminate Medicaid. It prevents new enrollments into expanded Medicaid beginning in one year.

Anyway, this kind of illustrates the whole reason why I end up opposing these kind of entitlement programs. The second you try to ensure that the budget is balanced through limiting them in any way, it becomes all about Republicans wanting to kill people. That's why we are spending irresponsibly at the federal level.

What do you think of adding the ability for the disabled or even the family of the disabled being able to buy into a medicaid policy? I just never understood all this red tape in my way about me making money. My current social worker stresses the importance of working under the table if I have to work at all. Shit, take 30% of my income in premiums and add a copay if you want. I would say there are at least 10 months on average I could pay into the system per year, and maybe even more down the road when I'm better health wise.

Would something like that help in keeping the program alive or even make it better for everyone who needs it? Can anyone do the math on that?
 
What do you think of adding the ability for the disabled or even the family of the disabled being able to buy into a medicaid policy?

I think you mean Medicare, not Medicaid right?

I see no reason people shouldn't be able to buy-in to Medicare -- but the disabled should have free Medicare paid for by the Social Security program since it was always intended to provide for insurance against old age and disability.
 
I think you mean Medicare, not Medicaid right?

I see no reason people shouldn't be able to buy-in to Medicare -- but the disabled should have free Medicare paid for by the Social Security program since it was always intended to provide for insurance against old age and disability.

Yeah, I did mean medicare.
 
so lets say they eliminated ESI and converted it into something else that went into a insurance exchange or a program already in place like medicare.

How do you insure that those funds are passed on to the employees and stay in the health care biz.

.. lets say every employee with an income of less than 200k . the employer gets charged a 2-5k health insurance tax for each employee. then each employee gets a pre taxed deduction based on their salary.

would this fund a nationwide healthcare plan?
 
I think you mean Medicare, not Medicaid right?

I see no reason people shouldn't be able to buy-in to Medicare -- but the disabled should have free Medicare paid for by the Social Security program since it was always intended to provide for insurance against old age and disability.
This circles around to proposal I made a long time ago that received little comment except from Q-Tip.

Basically I proposed that there be something that should be amenable to both sides of the debate. For the conservatives I would let Rand Paul write up his version of free market reforms complete with deregulation and allowance for formation of buying groups, add in whatever else (portability, whatever). Allow that side to come up with the most free market system possible.

But then on the other side there should be a public option in the form of the ability to buy into medicare or something similar. Maybe allow a buy-in to a lower cost version more similar to medicaid as well to add some options and flexibility for potential buyers. Tell the administrators of these systems to maximize efficiency, bargain for lowest prices from providers, etc. to compete with the private insurers. Then from there set the pricing so the system is paid for by people subscribing to the public option(s) and maybe allow people to have the premiums deducted in the form of their personal payroll taxes. Maybe put Bernie in charge of this since he's the biggest public option proponent, with the caveat that the rates must sustain the system and be paid by those buying the insurance and not by any kind of deficit spending.

Whatever subsidies there are would be equally available to private and public insurance options alike. Subsidies would be a separate matter that can be set depending on election results, making elected officials accountable to voters on this issue.

To me that would be a truly open market place, with both private insurers and a public option competing for enrollment. I would assume whoever had the largest and most diverse groups would be able to give the most competitive pricing to people buying the insurance.
 
This circles around to proposal I made a long time ago that received little comment except from Q-Tip.

Basically I proposed that there be something that should be amenable to both sides of the debate. For the conservatives I would let Rand Paul write up his version of free market reforms complete with deregulation and allowance for formation of buying groups, add in whatever else (portability, whatever). Allow that side to come up with the most free market system possible.

But then on the other side there should be a public option in the form of the ability to buy into medicare or something similar. Maybe allow a buy-in to a lower cost version more similar to medicaid. Tell the administrators of these systems to maximize efficiency, bargain for lowest prices from providers, etc. to compete with the private insurers. Then from there set the pricing so the system is paid for by people subscribing to the public option(s) and maybe allow people to have the premiums deducted in the form of their personal payroll taxes. Maybe put Bernie in charge of this since he's the biggest public option proponent, with the caveat that the rates must sustain the system and be paid by those buying the insurance and not by any kind of deficit spending.

Whatever subsidies there are would be equally available to private and public insurance options alike. Subsidies would be a separate matter that can be set depending on election results, making elected officials accountable to voters on this issue.

To me that would be a truly open market place, with both private insurers and a public option competing for enrollment. I would assume whoever had the largest and most diverse groups would be able to give the most competitive pricing to people buying the insurance.

So that I understand you, are you essentially saying the country would have a Medicare-for-All opt-in based public insurance program, and if people opted out, they could essentially just .. do their own thing .. Rand Paul style but in a completely separate market? Is that right?
 
From what I've seen neither side provides a suitable solution as good as what I propose above.

There needs to be other reforms as well. One of the biggest reforms needs to be to provide pricing transparency, and eliminate opaque back room pricing. Prices may vary due to honest logistical and geographical concerns but otherwise they should be set to allow decent profits without gouging by big pharma.

I liked something Rand Paul mentioned about automatic enrollment to the baseline medicaid safety net which would be a big help to healthcare providers who care for indigent, homeless, drug addicted and mentally ill patients. That would get us as close as possible to universal enrollment which would ease the burden of uncompensated care that gets passed on to insurers and patients who do pay for services. This would be tracked and quantified to be picked up by tax payers as a part of the safety net. Hopefully this would lead to pro-active measures to help such people once they are identified rather than purely reactive (emergency room) measures.

All of this would help reduce the invisible and opaque costs that drive up the cost of health care for everyone. Health care costs need to be transparent, safety net costs need to be quantifiable, and effort should be made to provide pro-active health care wherever possible.

I don't hear anyone, anywhere actually working towards this type of reform.
 
So that I understand you, are you essentially saying the country would have a Medicare-for-All opt-in based public insurance program, and if people opted out, they could essentially just .. do their own thing .. Rand Paul style but in a completely separate market? Is that right?
I propose private, free market systems being fully available to everyone in whatever fashion the conservatives advocate will be the most efficient in a free market way.

At the same time I think there should be the ability for people to buy into Medicare, and maybe Medicaid as a cheaper option, completely out of their own pockets at rates set to sustain their use of those systems.

Then any subsidies, including Social Security or any other kind of low income assistance, would be a separate issue available to people who qualify, to be used either for public insurance or private insurance.

To me this would be completely open market competition where the public option would compete on an even playing field with private insurance.

I wonder why this couldn't be a bipartisan thing? Seems to me both sides get what they want and potentially the better system would eventually become dominant. Free market all the way, but with the public option competing.
 
I propose private, free market systems being fully available to everyone in whatever fashion the conservatives advocate will be the most efficient in a free market way.

At the same time I think there should be the ability for people to buy into Medicare, and maybe Medicaid as a cheaper option, completely out of their own pockets at rates set to sustain their use of those systems.

Then any subsidies, including Social Security or any other kind of low income assistance, would be a separate issue available to people who qualify, to be used either for public insurance or private insurance.

To me this would be completely open market competition where the public option would compete on an even playing field with private insurance.

I wonder why this couldn't be a bipartisan thing? Seems to me both sides get what they want and potentially the better system would eventually become dominant. Free market all the way, but with the public option competing.

You're essentially describing a Medicare buy-in (opt-in) program...

Essentially, you repeal Obamacare; establish some ground-work for a private insurance system, then open up Medicare at a subsidized rate; i.e., a public-option.

I'm all for it!

But the Republicans (and some Democrats) have generally opposed such an idea... The closest we've come was actually under Richard Nixon, but the idea was floated as recently as 2013 in HR 676. But the opposition's reasoning is based on the belief that insurance companies cannot compete with Medicare; so, as more people buy into Medicare, the insurance industry loses more and more customers, revenue, and insurance pools gradually shrink rising costs and having a feedback effect.

While wealthier Americans might choose to buy their own insurance, that insurance will cost more and more as private pools decrease in size. Meaning only the wealthiest of Americans (by some estimates only the top 5%) would be better off in a private system than the public one.

So, essentially, as Republicans and conservative Democrats have stated; a Medicare buy-in simply means the slow death of the private health insurance industry -- since 90%+ of Americans would prefer Medicare to private/employer-based insurance.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top