Healthcare Reform will Lower Premiums

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Wait a minute. How come some people can "choose" to pay less for less coverage but others may not choose to remain uncovered (when they are young and reasonably healthy) thanks to the proposed mandate that all must carry insurance?

Because if people were allowed to reject coverage, Republicans would complain incessantly about freeloaders. This is really a social program to prevent unnecessary Republican whining. It allows them to preserve their complaints for more important issues such as the President honoring foreign cultural traditions and bowing to an emperor.

More seriously, people will be able to choose not to be insured. They will just have to pay a fine instead. Similarly, people can choose to continue with a high payment healthcare plan. They will just have to pay an excise tax.

[Anonymous]

Then let's be more direct and just tax Republican whining!

[Anonymous]

Taxed if you don't buy insurance, taxed if you buy what someone arbitrarily deems too expensive or too expansive - I am having a hard time understanding how anyone thinks this is right? Put me in the 45% firmly opposed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Taxed if you don't buy insurance, taxed if you buy what someone arbitrarily deems too expensive or too expansive - I am having a hard time understanding how anyone thinks this is right? Put me in the 45% firmly opposed.

Well you have health insurance, don't you? So clearly you do not think it's too expensive or expansive.

If you don't have health insurance, how do you justify freeloading off the rest of us? Or will you make a pinkie swear to not go to the hospital when your time comes?

[Anonymous]

While thanks for posting the links, I don't see how ths proves anything. Jsteele - do you have any experience/background in economic forecasting?

From the CBO report "estimating effects that depend heavily on how enrollees, insurers, employers, or other key actors would respond—to such things as the changes in the market rules for nongroup policies or the excise tax on high-premium policies—involve greater uncertainty."

The Jonathan Gruber did a "micro simulation"

In other words these are just forecast with people's "guessed" behavior factored in. Anytime you layer in how you think people are goign to act, you are going to get it wrong.

I have not heard mention a key point I think isnecessary to drag health care costs down - a mandate that insurers who will see savings b/c more preventive care/less emergency room visits etc (this part of the savings arguement I get) will be passed on to those paying premiums. I'm not worried about employers not passing along savings, I'm worried about the insurance companies. Employers have a reason - disruntled angryemployees. Insurers are much more removed and without competition from a public option which could easilybe mandated to keep costs at a recovery leverl, insurance companies are for profit entities. I really think all of the current efforts is going to make things worse for americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While thanks for posting the links, I don't see how ths proves anything. Jsteele - do you have any experience/background in economic forecasting?

From the CBO report "estimating effects that depend heavily on how enrollees, insurers, employers, or other key actors would respond—to such things as the changes in the market rules for nongroup policies or the excise tax on high-premium policies—involve greater uncertainty."

The Jonathan Gruber did a "micro simulation"

In other words these are just forecast with people's "guessed" behavior factored in. Anytime you layer in how you think people are goign to act, you are going to get it wrong.

I have not heard mention a key point I think isnecessary to drag health care costs down - a mandate that insurers who will see savings b/c more preventive care/less emergency room visits etc (this part of the savings arguement I get) will be passed on to those paying premiums. I'm not worried about employers not passing along savings, I'm worried about the insurance companies. Employers have a reason - disruntled angryemployees. Insurers are much more removed and without competition from a public option which could easilybe mandated to keep costs at a recovery leverl, insurance companies are for profit entities. I really think all of the current efforts is going to make things worse for americans.

Well if you disbelieve forecasting as a matter of principle, then what is the alternative? Every country and pretty much every company has to use forecasts to do their jobs. And by necessity they must account for human behavior because it is a fact of life. Any retailer is making huge forecasts right now on consumer behavior for the holiday season. Without that, they would be doomed.

I think a better critique would be to evaluate the specifics of the forecasts rather than to dismiss the concept.