You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 08, 2016, 10:09:17 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: ACA  (Read 8941 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: ACA
« Reply #100 on: November 06, 2013, 08:36:02 AM »
The lack of stable families is the number one predictor of poverty in the United States.  There isn't any way to legislate that men must be actively involved in the lives of their children - other than taxing them to contribute monetarily, alimony, etc.  If you can describe how legislation could enforce male involvement in their kids lives, I'd like to hear it.

The reality though, is that most of the young, single mothers you are describing, had their children fathered by men who are already low-wage, or unemployed.  As a result, you have many men sitting in jail right now because they can't make their payments for taking care of the kid - I am not joking.  This is only furthering this problem.

You're describing some very relevant problems, but not providing any solutions.  Many men are simply opting out of stable relationships, because they're realizing that the government is moving towards fulfilling their role in a way.  If you father a kid when you're 18, what's the point in taking care of your kid and girlfriend, if the government already has very clear cut protocol in place in providing them healthcare, food, etc.

Now if that wasn't a bit patronizing both towards me and at women in general...

I never said there is a need to use laws aimed directly at men to push them to engage more closely with bringing up their kids. I believe that's something that shouldn't be forced on a couple that way, and laws are going to be ineffective for this anyway. What I did say was that women are often compelled to take on most of the home chores, bringing up the kids, cleaning, cooking, keeping the home in shape (at least the interior) and at the same time taking on jobs that are irregular, low on wages, sometimes lower paid than the same kind of jobs done by men, and having the extra, biological, mission of giving birth to kids and often holding the family together, more or less. The combined weight of those isn't something most women have chosen out of good free will, it's both expected and often forced on them by the power of habit and how society works. And this puts women in a bad and sometimes exhausting position. Kylie used the word "explöited", that's heavy but sometimes it's a justified one.

On one count, sometimes this disjointed, busy and thankless state can make women more prone to illness than men, and more likely to have to take a few days off work due to real sickness - or to go to work while feeling seriously crappy. On the other, women often seem to be the group that gets classed as too expensive, "why can't they chip down their health care needs?" and so on. Although they do lots of work that takes both skill, intelligence and gritty endurance - without getting any serious pay for it.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2013, 08:51:22 AM by gaggedLouise »

Offline RetributionTopic starter

  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: First star to the right straight on till morning
  • Gender: Male
  • When I'm good I'm good when I'm bad I'm better
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: ACA
« Reply #101 on: November 06, 2013, 08:41:12 AM »
Oi!! Take a number. You can have your benevolent dictatorship after I've had mine.

Oh alright you can be first but I want to be first lackey!

Louise -> Women's issues are indeed an issue with such things. People say it does not happen, discrimination in wages so on, but it does.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2013, 08:42:58 AM by Retribution »

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: ACA
« Reply #102 on: November 06, 2013, 08:59:10 AM »
Now if that wasn't a bit patronizing both towards me and at women in general...

How is it patronizing?  I already said in my post we need to support single mothers - only that we need to be aware of the positive and negative consequences of such policy.  In other words, ideal policy should both provide support for single mothers, as well as create incentive for stable relationships that are mutually beneficial.

I completely agree with you that women are often compelled to take on work outside the home, as well as domestic work.  But what's the solution to this?  Do we just accept that this is "okay" or do we try to figure out why this may be the case, and try to develop a more equal balance?

So in the short-run, I can certainly understand the need for ameliorating the symptoms, but we need a more sustainable solution.  What really needs to occur is a solution for the problem - which is, the lack of male involvement in stable relationships, especially in the urban poor.  My only argument is that while support for single mothers is important, we don't know what the result will be on the role of men in relationships.  In other words, unless a more strategic solution is developed in providing care for single mothers, as well as incentivizing male decision making, it may end up drastically exacerbating the problem.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2013, 09:01:47 AM by ValthazarElite »

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: ACA
« Reply #103 on: November 06, 2013, 09:01:48 AM »
Oh, come on, Val!

*clenches her fist and considers using "us" instead of "them" next time she needs to reference the female gender as a group in this thread*

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: ACA
« Reply #104 on: November 06, 2013, 01:08:20 PM »
When I become emperor of the world in a benevolent dictatorship what I would like to see is a Medicare like system. Maybe we should call it Retricare? Medicare works reasonably well and most carry supplemental insurance to help off set the costs. It is not perfect, but it is about as good as I have seen in this country. My real issue with ACA is that I am skeptical that it will fix what it was supposed to fix. For each problem it repairs such as coverage for birth control I see it making another Phila's situation for example. I am not anti ACA, but I am getting a feeling of zero sum gain. Yes, my position is changing and evolving, but right now I feel like there is a lot of noise for not much ground gained.

I'm a little pressed for time, but I believe Robert Reich suggested something along the lines of expanding Medicare.

Offline mia h

Re: ACA
« Reply #105 on: November 06, 2013, 01:20:34 PM »
Yes, my position is changing and evolving, but right now I feel like there is a lot of noise for not much ground gained.

Quote from:  Max Weber
Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards
The ACA might not be a 'perfect' solution but if it's the best deal they could get then it's better than doing nothing.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: ACA
« Reply #106 on: November 06, 2013, 01:22:14 PM »
Taking a voluntary time-out from this thread. See you later, perhaps somewhere else.

Offline RetributionTopic starter

  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: First star to the right straight on till morning
  • Gender: Male
  • When I'm good I'm good when I'm bad I'm better
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: ACA
« Reply #107 on: November 06, 2013, 01:42:49 PM »
I'm a little pressed for time, but I believe Robert Reich suggested something along the lines of expanding Medicare.

I think it has been proposed by several and sadly I do not think it would ever pass. The Tea Party sadly listens to the voices in their head as opposed to reason. I mean hell, there are the glitches with ACA, the wire tapping scandal, IRS scandal, so on and the Tea Party backed cannot make political hay? Really? No wonder government is broken.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: ACA
« Reply #108 on: November 06, 2013, 03:49:27 PM »
There isn't any way to legislate that men must be actively involved in the lives of their children - other than taxing them to contribute monetarily, alimony, etc.  If you can describe how legislation could enforce male involvement in their kids lives, I'd like to hear it.-
          I think it does come off as rather patronizing when you take women, who I believe are over half the population, and say in effect their needs are just 'extra,' or too expensive for men to be required to deal with financially and as a group sharing any common interest...  And I know Louise mentioned child care and I mentioned nurturing (though I meant more generally), but that's really just one part of it.  "Fathering" as such (at least in the sense that we traditionally limit it to bread winning) is not the part that I think of first -- perhaps because I managed to grow up without a father in two very different families over at least eight years, thank you very much?...  So please bear with me if I'm still more concerned with a wider range of problems here, than just the exact approach you meant to ask about on that.  Though I think many similar arguments could probably be applied to it. 

           To make a quick rhetorical analogy:  There isn't any way to "legislate" that men won't commit sexual assault or rape against a good fraction of women in the society, either.  You can even use the same basic structure and say, 'except to throw them in jail afterwards'.  Well if this is true for women in the economy, then there instead of "boys just will be boys and they must rape, so give them a break..."  For the political economy, it means the same "boys must be boys" and thus there's no possible way men can be convinced to do certain tasks for the good of their society up front -- so "obviously" those are tasks that have to fall to women.  Presumably just because they all traditionally have, and traditionally the economic "answer" has been to force women to work more, marry men of a higher class with more money if they can -- or try to attach themselves to just about any available man, however temporarily and messily, with some means to add some serious income, otherwise. 

           You are suggesting that the only policy of consequence regarding unpaid alimony (and by proxy, broader child support issues?) seems to be , throwing recalcitrant people in jail after the fact.  Well, try and seriously focus on that then.  What about education in these things that are now relegated to "women's issues" (typically in college), in high school, for everyone, with some serious time?  How about a choice of community service instead of jail for some of these men -- in a food bank, or working in textiles, or maybe a nursery if they aren't violent offenders -- doing something that usually gets stuck on women?  Who knows, maybe even a mandatory parenting course?  And don't make it a matter of temporarily 'humiliating' the criminal -- say it's a an honorable, fine thing to be doing because it is.  "Look, here's how to change the diaper.  Yes, men can do this too and [if necessary!] it's perfectly dashing and macho when they do.  You can even say 'grrr' and watch the baby smile if you like."  Whatever it takes. 

           But instead, what actually happens?  Many of the people in politics today who use the same kind of arguments you're making about healthcare costs in general, have made a whole "socially conservative" movement centered around precisely, doing nothing of the kind.  Keeping women 'in their place.'  (You can look at things like marriage and divorce laws, particularly in the South, and now even the "unconsidered" effects of requiring certain ID for women trying to vote after separation or divorce.)  Making 'maintaining' or 'defending' women a problem for how men prove themselves in other parts of society (whether they go to war in Afghanistan, whether they marry and go to work in a "good" industry or not -- that is, if they really have some opportunity to begin with).  But not much a question of what they actually do directly for women, and not a question of whether people in general really learn or care about what women themselves face in terms of segregated roles.  And when it does come down to people who seem not to care, people who end up in jail, the right has also been keen on making jails more a place of punishment or cheap labor, or perhaps simply corporate hoarding of people (often soon recycled back into the system) than places of reeducation or parole or serious education -- more like they were toward I think the 70's.

When rape happens, they say oh what did she do to "bring it on" and didn't she enjoy it anyway?  Doesn't she know that this is how men are, and what was she doing outside alone after dark?  Oh look, she went to a party even!  Was it "legitimate"?  (For fuck's sake, but people on the right have been known to say this as a public line.)  When the question is abortion, oh no women can't do that and we're going to legislate that right away. 

When the question is sex education, you have those Texas school boards pushing it practically out of mind -- and they may be a "worst" sort of example, but there I do think much of the country has got itself in a sexually repressive funk of not seriously working on things like abortion, contraception, or even basic sex ed in high schools.  Maybe that has improved more than I know in the last few years, but even if so, I would say women actually need more done.  People need serious talk about relationships -- what is consent, and why is it important.  Not the bland "no is no" sloganing that no one follows anyway half the time, but real talk about nonverbal cues, the medieval cultural "rules" of traditional Western romance muddling the waters, and what about basically polyamorous trends where people may have multiple lovers or not assign all roles under the sun in the way of care and money and sex to just one person?  This stuff can be explained at easier levels if people don't treat it like it was esoteric Satanic literature suited only for grad schools.  I dare say there is a fair bit of good old boy, Southern Christian conservative moralizing playing a big part in that problem.  Often many of the same people actually in government who are now fawning over the "needs of business" constantly.

And when it comes to funding much of anything that appears to help urban, particularly Black but now also often, Latino areas where the government has basically been pulling out education, child care, police, firefighters, city lighting, and heaven knows what else...  It's the same people now generally on the right, the ones who are "pro business," the ones who care if we "can afford" any proposal to help the people in general -- and particularly the ones in these very areas who need it most, who are often caught saying "Oh, how dare they feel so entitled...  Oh, are they "abusing" what few sustenance programs they currently have left with all the restrictions and humiliations we've already imposed upon those...  Oh, aren't they just lazy.  And how dare they have had children in the first place.  Why in the world, in this place where we have long insisted there can be no abortion and we have supported companies that do not go in for things like supporting contraception, do they have so many kids...  On and on and on.

Quote
You're describing some very relevant problems, but not providing any solutions.
          Solutions would be, deal with all that.  But I think it's very telling that, in the US, the political wing that opposes those things is largely the same one that keeps using the arguments you use about the "untenable" expense of women for healthcare, as if it were something that existed in a vacuum.  As if society had never been sticking women at large with all sorts of hidden expenses and insisting they grin and bear it, cause after all they are given less money at work and more unpaid work at home and men are busy laughing about what sluts they must be and who is getting "raped" today whether it's at a frat party (where only women who "deserve" it supposedly go) or metaphorically as in, oh who can I beat up in the oh-so-masculinist business world to prove I am "more manly" today and thus "dominate the market, because we all know someone has to.  That's capitalism, right?" 

You should understand, if it isn't really obvious by now, that when you come along saying women are just more expensive and they should have to shoulder that -- I find it near impossible to believe that you don't think about how society "should" be...   Well, in some ways much like the Tea Party you claim not to have so much in common with.  'Can't do it any other way...  Better get out, leave it alone.'  You don't quite recommend that, but it's the sort of conclusion they draw while showcasing almost the same supporting materials.  And then you do very positively go on about how business needs to be saved first in order to (supposedly) save everyone else, but that's more or less what is left if the Tea Party has its way with things... like health care.  (All these "mainstream" Republicans have not put up with the Tea Party this long because they have simply nothing in common, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.)  If we just toss ACA, if we don't try to improve now, then what's left are the big companies having their way.  You may say they are anyway, but saying we can't afford whole classes of people covering stuff here, there, who knows how often...  Leads to the same place.

Quote
Many men are simply opting out of stable relationships, because they're realizing that the government is moving towards fulfilling their role in a way.  If you father a kid when you're 18, what's the point in taking care of your kid and girlfriend, if the government already has very clear cut protocol in place in providing them healthcare, food, etc.
          You may not say this, but there are people who are very happy to take just what you said, with as little context or direction as it has, and use that to go on about this being terrible because well, men might just feel left out.  Never mind that what they'd then be cut loose from, is patently unequal.  Decay of traditional family and all that.  But it already has pretty much decayed.  We're not going back there, not in an economy anything like this.  And it wasn't an egalitarian system anyway, so why want to?  Unless you believe the only way to economic stability is blatant chauvinism. 

           But I believe you're actually talking about communities where in fact, when two parents are working, it's still very difficult for them to pay all the bills -- if they can, at all.  And part of that problem is that the same government that your argument seems to also suggest, maybe should just stay out of healthcare (though you say elsewhere you believe otherwise -- others who enjoy this sort of line clearly want the government to just get out of considering it) refuses to have a "minimum" wage consistent with the rising cost of living.  Part of that is also that the same government, often driven by people who claim to care about "jobs" but really even more, about "business" and "deficit cutting" have been yanking services out of those communities any way they can get away with, for decades.
 
          Actually, many women are opting out of (at least hetero, monogamous "traditional") relationships because the men just don't get it.  I heard Black men moaning about how the "bitches" in their communities didn't want them, but all ran for the White boys, a good few times on the train in Atlanta -- but I also heard it's a trend in sociology.  So yes, we get Black women unsatisfied with Black men -- now is that because they're just "frigid bitches"?  Or could it be, it because they live under policies where the society has conspired to give Black men (especially) few opportunities to make real money, still more opportunities to be detained by police often with no good reason (odds of simply being detained walking around or driving over nothing in the way of evidence), and a bunch of incentive to be niche criminal (drug market) or for some, to act more like gangsta misogynist asses (either just on the face of it to "look tough", or actually so -- but that can mean adopting an image that doesn't coexist with other options)?
« Last Edit: November 06, 2013, 04:42:50 PM by kylie »

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: ACA
« Reply #109 on: November 06, 2013, 05:11:03 PM »
I think it does come off as rather patronizing when you take women, who I believe are over half the population, and say in effect their needs are just 'extra,' or too expensive for men to be required to deal with financially and as a group sharing any common interest... 

With regard to healthcare, I was speaking about how premiums are determined today (either pre-ACA or post-ACA).  Certainly, under ACA, no one can be denied health insurance due to pre-existing conditions, but premium rates are still variable based on age, health, and status of the individual.  For example, if a woman decides to get tested for the BRCA gene (breast cancer gene), and the results are positive, she will face a higher premium.  This will be the case even as a result of ACA.  In other words, it's not fair, and the ACA doesn't change that.

What the ACA does, however, is require everyone to get at least the same minimal level of care.  In other words, men and women alike will have the same healthcare insurance requirements.

I already posted about my views earlier in this thread as to what I consider the optimal solution.  That would be focusing heavily and incentivizing the creation of full-time job opportunities (through tax subsidies for businesses creating entry level jobs, full-time positions, etc.), and naturally creating avenues of opportunity for people to purchase private insurance on their own.  While I did not vote for Obama in 2008, nor do I agree with many of his perspectives, I at least found his original healthcare proposal to be sensible, and fundamentally sound.  It made sense, and whether or not I agreed with it, it would at least provide one solution to expanding coverage and reducing healthcare costs.

I am not disagreeing with the ideology of what you are saying, but how does the ACA accomplish this goal of making all premiums the same for all people, as you say?  Premiums are still going to be higher for certain demographics.  For example, if you grew up in the poor inner city, and you ate fast food a lot because you couldn't afford healthy groceries, and thus, had a high BMI, your health insurance premium is going to be very high, even under ACA.  Of course, this is comparing individuals of equal income at present - in other words, not factoring in subsidies.  The premiums remain exactly the same before and after ACA, it's just the government is subsidizing the premium cost for certain populations, in paying the private insurance companies through their exchange.  That's a very important point to realize, and someone is still paying the tab.  It's a band-aid, and masking the real issue for variable premiums, and isn't a sustainable, long-term solution for ending variable premium rates (and one I think is economically impossible to achieve through legislation simply because different insurees vary in how much money they will claim, due to statistics).

Same reason why life insurance is more expensive at age 50 versus age 30.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2013, 05:38:25 PM by ValthazarElite »

Offline Chris Brady

Re: ACA
« Reply #110 on: November 06, 2013, 05:25:19 PM »
The ACA might not be a 'perfect' solution but if it's the best deal they could get then it's better than doing nothing.
It's a step.  And that's the best one can hope for now.  Maybe in the future it'll get better, hopefully.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: ACA
« Reply #111 on: November 07, 2013, 04:33:00 PM »
Kythia, not sure if you have been following my other posts in this thread, but if you know what the guaranteed cost for ACA will be on insurance companies, you definitely know something that no one else knows.

Not sure if you've been following your other posts in this thread but your entire argument is predicated on companies having perfect knowledge of their future incomes and the ability to predict through business plans future levels of sign ups.  If they lack that then how does your argument about business plans apply? 

Quote
I hope this explains the uncertainty I am referring to with regard to ACA.

This came across as patronising.  I realise it almost certainly wasn't intended as such, I'm just flagging it for future reference.

EDIT: Longer response incoming
« Last Edit: November 07, 2013, 04:44:14 PM by Kythia »

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: ACA
« Reply #112 on: November 07, 2013, 05:06:56 PM »
Excuse the double post but I actually think part of this is my fault.  I've been giving quick one or two sentence responses, which have obviously been badly phrased.  So grab a cup of tea while I try to rectify this.

Your argument is, so far as I read it, as follows.

1) Insurance companies have found, prior to ACA, an optimum pricing policy for their plans and have developed a range of financial predictions.
2) They have made business decisions based on these predictions
3) The changes made by ACA to their client base are essentially unknowable
4) This will cause a major market upheavel as insurance companies struggle to refind this optimum point.

Am I right so far?

I'd kind of question 1, at least in all cases.  But I'm happy to stipulate that at least some of them have done so.  So we'll discard the ones that haven't, and just focus on the ones that have.

Your argument still doesn't hold though.

See, your issue is with how 2 and 3 interact, leaving 4 unsupported.

Kythia and Valthazar Insurance (KAVI) are one of the companies that have found an optimal point.  We have developed business plans based on our knowledge of our target demograph, all the other factors.  Next year we'll make $X according to our predictions.  There's presumably some margin of error in that, but lets put that to one side.  There'll always be a margin of error.

We have known ACA is coming for a while.  We're not stupid and have done our best to factor in the changes - by this I mean we haven't simply ignored it and continued using predictions that take no account of ACA.  Within the confines of 3, we have done the best we can with that.  It's not perfect because this is new waters for us, but we've done better than if we haven't tried at all.

With me so far?  I don't think there's anything controversial there.

BAM! ACA arrives.  One of our predictions was too high, another too low, etc.  We find out where our predictions were wrong, and this is an ongoing process.  By this I mean the full ramifications aren't felt immediately, it takes time to gather all the information on where we went wrong in our predictions.

But once again, we're not idiots.  We new we wouldn't see all the changes immediately.  We greatly expanded the margin of error in our predictions to take account of this factor.  Yey us!

And here is where your argument falls down.

The situation we find ourselves in, one which we knew we would find ourselves in, is that we have a far weaker idea of what our income the next few fiscal years will be than we used to have.  Woe us is.

Some of our faulty predictions result in price shifts in our policies, others result in us cancelling plans we had previously offered as no longer tenable.  Sure.

But you're failing to bear in mind two factors.  Firstly that we knew these changes were coming and have factored the increased uncertainty into our business plans.  We've just shrugged and asked questions about the length of a piece of string when stockholders ask about their dividends this year and distracted any staff by pointing at the Goodyear Blimp when they ask about bonuses.  We have enough to continue operating, we know that much, but we're not sure about expansion and non-business-critical expenditure.

Your argument seems to be that our response will be to raise the cost of other plans.  But that is a stupid response.  I don't question that some will take that, but they'll go under.  KAVI is too savvy (that's our slogan.  Like it?)

Because we know from years in the business that a certain percentage of the population will "over cover" themselves, a certain percentage "under cover".  I'm not sure if you get what I mean there, but I'm referring to the fact that some people will buy more insurance than they need and be net contributors, some less and work out being net drains.  We have figures for that, this is what we do after all.  And we see no reason at all that ACA would change that.  It just means the lowest cover available is higher than it previously was.  It doesn't affect our higher plans at all - those people with higher than ACA plans will keep them.  Those people with lower than ACA plans have two choices.  Upgrade or quit.

We don't know, precisely, what the percentage split will be because of 3.  Fine.  But we do know several things:

1) The people with higher than ACA coverage will be largely untouched.
2) Some people with lower than ACA will pay more to us
3) Some people with lower than ACA will start paying us $0 as they quit.

So why would we raise prices?  We already have a set of customers on the policies that we would be raising, some of whom will quit if we raise.  Sure there is a larger uncertainty as we don't know how many -ACA will quit but we knew that uncertainty was coming.  It's a planned uncertainty.  We also know that the full effects will take time to be felt, but that the effects of a price hike will be seen immediately.

So by hiking too many prices/dropping too many policies (which cancel down to the same thing) what we're doing is introducing EXTRA uncertainty into our operations.  If we sit tight, safe in the knowledge that while our ACA predictions weren't perfect they had some positive value of usefulness, and wait for the full ramifications to become evident we've shored up our current income, reduced risk and likely gained positive PR.

Do you see my point now?

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: ACA
« Reply #113 on: November 07, 2013, 07:13:59 PM »
Kythia, I apologize if I came across as patronizing, but that wasn't my intent at all.

It seems that you are discussing your perspective of how a health insurance company should optimally respond to the ACA.  I don't know enough to make predictions about how a health insurance company should ideally react, other than what I have been doing so far - which is to rationalize why health insurance companies are potentially reacting in the manner in which they already are.  That's why I thought you were seeking clarification of my views on how the health insurance companies are reacting already.  I wasn't aware that you were wanting to debate the optimal response of healthcare companies (which is probably why that statement at the end was probably seen negatively - which I apologize for again).

I get most of my news from the WSJ, and every day for the past week, there have been articles explaining the current economic response to the ACA on the part of insurance companies, and the potential long-term ramifications it will have.  I tried linking a couple of them earlier, but I guess they aren't open access.  I linked a few articles below, and today, President Obama even publicly apologized for mass healthcare cancellations due to ACA.

"The administration knew that many policies would be changed by the insurance carriers. In 2010 the Health and Human Services Department estimated that 40% to 67% of individual plans would lose their grandfather status."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/politics/obama-obamacare-apology/

"Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance

Maybe there is merit to your perspective on how health insurance companies should be ideally dealing with the ACA, but that's another discussion entirely.  That doesn't seem to be what they are doing now - for better or for worse.  Specifically with regard to plan-specific rate increases, I attributed this to far less than estimated enrollment of young people.  Again, I'm not trying to justify or suggest that this is the superior option for health insurance companies - but simply suggesting a possible reasoning why this is occurring.  I gave a link for this in my last post, but it may not work, so I'll try to find another one. 

"In the average state, Obamacare will increase underlying premiums by 41 percent. As we have long expected, the steepest hikes will be imposed on the healthy, the young, and the male."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/

Multiple sources, including the Obama administration itself, is suggesting that potentially greater than 50% of current private insurance plans will be in flux.  I tried to find sources suggesting that premium rates won't rise on any existing private insurance holders, and I have not found any reputable ones.  The ones I did find, acknowledged a premium rate increase, albeit only a minimal percentage of individuals.  But these were basing their analysis on the assumption that all individuals with employer-based healthcare plans currently would retain them.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2013, 09:47:41 PM by ValthazarElite »

Offline mia h

Re: ACA
« Reply #114 on: November 08, 2013, 03:33:14 AM »
I'd take that Forbes story on the 41% increase with more than just a pinch of salt.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/25/double-down-obamacare-will-increase-avg-individual-market-insurance-premiums-by-99-for-men-62-for-women/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/24/sean-hannity/sean-hannity-says-average-man-will-see-his-premium/

So if you believe the Forbes articles, both written by the same guy, then the biggest increase has dropped from 279% in Nebraska two months ago to 179% in Nevada less than a week ago. If the rate increases have managed to drop by that much in under two months, just imagine what's going to happen in the next two months!! Hell, by this time next year insurance companies will be paying people to take their insurance policies.  ::)

Also I suspect the author already had a position and was trying to fudge the facts to fit his existing narrative. While I don't have time to check their homework I suspect that the quoted 41% isn't what it seems, if there are 3 groups: group A has to pay 31% more, group B has to pay 41% more and group C has to pay 51% more. The average increase isn't 41% because we have no idea how large the different groups are, if group A is 100 times larger that B and C combine then average increase would be a lot closer to 31%. Also there is the possibility that they left out group D who got a 80% reduction, they are only interested in the "average" of the increases and as D's didn't increase then they are excluded from the calculations

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: ACA
« Reply #115 on: November 08, 2013, 09:03:44 AM »
So if you believe the Forbes articles, both written by the same guy, then the biggest increase has dropped from 279% in Nebraska two months ago to 179% in Nevada less than a week ago. If the rate increases have managed to drop by that much in under two months, just imagine what's going to happen in the next two months!! Hell, by this time next year insurance companies will be paying people to take their insurance policies.  ::)

You're right, the author is biased, and that the Manhattan Institute is also biased, but I was hoping to examine a few statistics that were mentioned.

For example, here are the official government releases on premium rates:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013/MarketplacePremiums/ib_marketplace_premiums.cfm
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013/MarketplacePremiums/datasheet_home.cfm

In that release, it says that premiums nationwide will be 16 percent lower than expected, but this is comparing the Congressional Budget Office's projected rates in 2016, to its own findings.  While the CBO is certainly unaffiliated with any political party, the fact is, their report is internally comparing premium rate figures without corroborating with private insurers in developing these estimates.  In other words, this isn't telling you anything about how private insurers will respond next year, prior to the law taking effect.

As I said in my last post, I have tried to find reputable sources indicating the private premiums will not rise as a result of the ACA, and I have yet to find any.  Because of this lack of information from the government, many private research agencies (and thus, perhaps biased) are having to conduct studies on how premium rates will respond.

The ones I have found are making assumptions that employers are going to eat the costs of newly-required minimum requirement plans, and not drop current insurees.  I think in our discussion here so far, we have already acknowledged that this is already occurring (with regard to people losing coverage - cited in earlier posts), which is why I am having trouble finding sources on the claims you and Kythia are making.  If you could provide a few links that back-up your claims, given the current reality of how healthcare companies have already responded, I will be able to get a better grasp on where you are coming from with your views.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2013, 09:16:09 AM by ValthazarElite »

Offline Zakharra

Re: ACA
« Reply #116 on: November 08, 2013, 09:52:31 AM »
 Valthazar, please correct me if I'm wrong, but earlier I noticed you were saying one of the things jiggering the data in the climb to higher rates is the fact that it seems that it's mostly older people who are signing up and not too many younger people (collage aged to the late 202/early 30s) because that crowd doesn't think it will need the coverage, being young and invulnerable and all. The ACA was largely based on -all- age groups, young adult, middle aged and the elderly signing up, but the younger people aren't and since those who have higher health problems/issues are the ones signing up, the price is increasing to maintain the payout and cover the lack of younger healthier people who aren't paying into the system.

 I might have that wrong, but that seemed to be what you were saying. That one of the pillars the ACA was supposedly built on, isn't there, so prices rise as the revenue intake is much lower than expected.

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: ACA
« Reply #117 on: November 08, 2013, 11:28:04 AM »
I might have that wrong, but that seemed to be what you were saying. That one of the pillars the ACA was supposedly built on, isn't there, so prices rise as the revenue intake is much lower than expected.

Zakharra, that is correct, with regard to a low enrollment of young people into the ACA exchanges. 

In the case of ACA, the success of the program will be heavily reliant on younger, healthier individuals, who provide less of a financial drag on the system and make sure sicker, older individuals can receive affordable coverage.  By opting out of healthcare, they will face a yearly $95 penalty, or 1% of their annual income - whichever is higher.  This revenue will not be siphoned to insurance companies.  With too few young and healthy people and too many high-claim-risk, older, and sick policyholders in the insurance pools, premium costs would begin to trend upward each year.  This further discourages healthy people from buying coverage.  In healthcare, this is known as the "death spiral" effect, and is an industry-recognized phenomenon whenever new clients are taken on.

Here's an NPR article explaining the death spiral:

"The designers of Obamacare were aware of the dangers of a death spiral. That's why the Affordable Care Act has both a carrot and a stick to encourage people to sign up.  We actually have a term for this in the industry," says Laszewski, who advises health insurance companies. "We call it a death spiral. And many insurance companies have had death spirals so this is not a theoretical exercise."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/09/30/227468495/one-key-thing-no-one-knows-about-obamacare

Essentially, unless you get young people on-board ASAP, they will be even less likely to opt-in in the future, due to current short term premium increases due to predominantly unhealthy enrollees.  This situation is exacerbated even more by the faulty ACA website. 

"While older and sicker people have good reason to more aggressively try to get covered, the younger, healthier people aren’t likely to exhibit much patience with a balky website. They’re likely to put off the mandatory insurance sign up until much closer to the March 2014 deadline."
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/obamacare-signup-younger-people-99548.html#ixzz2k4lu78xf

"Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today acknowledged that long-awaited enrollment figures for the rocky first month of Obamacare will be “very low.”"
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/kathleen-sebelius-obamacare-senate-hearing-99449.html#ixzz2k4r9IsDw

So basically, of the few people that did enroll so far, the majority are the sick, and the older, who really need healthcare right now.  In other words, you can see how the faulty website (which obviously was an unforeseen event, as far as I can see), essentially aggravates the death spiral effect even more than with just the ACA itself - purely as a law.  As a result, at least in the short-run, this is what is prompting discussion about premium rate increases.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2013, 12:04:57 PM by ValthazarElite »

Offline Zakharra

Re: ACA
« Reply #118 on: November 08, 2013, 02:00:30 PM »
  Ok, so I did have that right, I wasn't sure. Man is that going to stick a wrench in the ACA funding system. Unless they go out and use force of some kind to make people sign up (maybe making it an actual tax -everyone- has to pay) I don't see the younger people willingly signing up for something many of them don't think they need. I cannot see it getting any better when the penalties start rising either, since as you say, the penalties go to the government, not the insurance companies that will need the money.

 Another thing I've heard is that getting the fines is severely limited by the ACA. the IRS can only take it from your refund (if you get one) and is not allowed to lay any liens or fines on your property or bank accounts or get access any other way to fine you. So technically, if you don't get a refund, they can't fine you unless they change how the fines are to be levied.

Offline consortium11

Re: ACA
« Reply #119 on: November 08, 2013, 03:40:06 PM »
Another thing I've heard is that getting the fines is severely limited by the ACA. the IRS can only take it from your refund (if you get one) and is not allowed to lay any liens or fines on your property or bank accounts or get access any other way to fine you. So technically, if you don't get a refund, they can't fine you unless they change how the fines are to be levied.

Yep; the ACA itself prevents the IRS from basically doing anything but taking it out of refunds (either individually or from a member of a household if another in the household picks up a fine) and sending strongly worded letters. It was pretty clearly a political move to make sure there weren't any "ACA Martyrs" going to prison for refusal to pay the fine but it does pretty severely neuter the stick in this stick and carrot approach.

On the death spiral, what happened in Massachusetts? From what I can recall the uptake from young people (and men in particular) was very low right up to the last minute, at which point a rush occurred. Does anyone more familiar with the situation know what that did to premium costs? 

Offline didoanna

Re: ACA
« Reply #120 on: November 08, 2013, 03:52:36 PM »
I doubt that the average person on the street knows exactly what socialism is, only that some guy running for office said it was bad.

That's cynically brilliant!

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: ACA
« Reply #121 on: November 08, 2013, 03:54:29 PM »
Try it for yourself.  Next time someone says that something is 'socialist', ask them what that means.

Offline consortium11

Re: ACA
« Reply #122 on: November 08, 2013, 04:48:35 PM »
Try it for yourself.  Next time someone says that something is 'socialist', ask them what that means.

To be fair, ask a Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist, Cuban theorist, anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist and a European social democrat what "socialism" is, they'd all give you a different answer despite all on the face of it being socialist thinkers. Hell, Marx and Bakunin couldn't agree on what a socialist was and those two are basically the founding fathers of modern socialism.

All the terms for political positions cover a wide variety of basis... "conservative" means very different things to different people, let alone a term like "right wing" which depending on who you ask covers everything from strict anarcho-capitalists to hardcore libertarians to one-nation Torys to neo-liberals to extreme war hawks to fascists. Socialism's no better or worse than the others... although socialists do have a habit of falling apart over their differences (and occasionally killing each other) more than other political positions tend to...

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: ACA
« Reply #123 on: November 08, 2013, 04:53:20 PM »
I'm willing to bet that the average American wouldn't be able to give a definition at all, or that their definition would make any and all of your trial subjects wonder what the American was smoking.  It's basically hit the same 'catch-phrase' status that 'communist' had before the Cold War ended.

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: ACA
« Reply #124 on: November 08, 2013, 11:31:43 PM »
The way I see it, any sensible person could see that ACA has nothing to do with socialism, other than to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and their supporters.  It criticizes the ACA for the wrong reasons.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2013, 11:42:21 PM by ValthazarElite »