Trump accused the Freedom Caucus of 'saving' Obamacare. Its leader said it's not over.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

And neither did the AHCA.  The five-times premium permitted by the AHCA - versus three times under the ACA, and unlimited prior to the ACA - applies only to the individual market.

So, to the extent you believed that the AHCA was going to apply that "5" multiple to employer-based policies, you are mistaken.

There's a somewhat bitter sweet irony in not even knowing what died till we are doing the autopsy. Personally, I still say it was a turkey and we can do better, but I could just be optimistic.

[Jazzhead]

That's BS.  Before ObamaCare.... ie before the leftists forced government controls down our throats, the free market system worked and insurers were not charging more for older folks for health insurance provided through your employers.  Everyone paid the same damned rate/premium, no matter your age. 

Nice try.  No ceegar.

The group market is different than the individual market.   The price of an individual policy depends in large part on the age of the insured.   The price of a group policy depends in large part on the average age of the group of insureds.   Believe me,  employers with older workforces pay more than employers with younger workforces.   But employers don't charge higher cost shares for older employees.   But that's not the free market - it's government regulation.   You know - the kind you despise.   

[Jazzhead]

He's already a cheerleader for forcing businesses to cater to homosexual marriages and keeping death camps for killing infants open and available because shutting them down is forcing a woman to procreate in his sick twisted estimation.

That's the law, bub. 

[driftdiver]

That's the law, bub.

@Jazzhead

Funny how that's not your response to issues you don't like.  It was against the law to perform an abortion at one time ya know.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It's true.  If an insurance company wants to charge 50X, they can.  Of course, with a functioning market those insurance companies would promptly collapse because the entire senior sector would take a hike to a more reasonable company advertising more reasonable rates.  Having Uncle Sugar setting the rates short-circuits that market effect.

Obviously, they wouldn't charge 50X.  They'd charge whatever multiple is actuarial sound.  For example, pre-ACA, a 27 year old person would pay $117/month for a policy that would cost a 60 year old person $735/month.  That's a multiple of about 6.3

http://khn.org/news/age-rating/

The ACA capped that multiple at 3, and the AHCA capped it at 5.  So if you repeal the ACA without replacing that provision, you could expect prices for older people on the individual market to see an increase to pre-ACA levels - a 6.3 multiple.

Of course, you're right -- if a company tried to jack up that multiple above the actuarial sound rate, older people would flee to companies that charge a more reasonable rate, and those other companies would make more money.  But on the flip side, if a company charged less than that actuarial sound rate -- say, 3.0 without a government mandate, then older people would flock to that company.  But that company would then be taking in much less in premiums from older people than it was paying out in claims, so it would have to jack up premiums for everyone younger.  Those younger people would then start moving to plans that were cheaper for them, and the company charging below-cost for older workers would go belly-up.

Bottom line is that in the absence of a government mandate limiting what insurers can charge on the open individual market, the repeal and non-replacement of the ACA would result in costs for older workers more than doubling -- from the ACA multiple limit of 3, to the market rate of over 6.

I still support moving to the freer market.  But it seems as those some of those advocating for a complete repeal want to have their cake and eat it too -- repeal, but retain the non-market based restriction on how much older people can be charged on the open market.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

There's a somewhat bitter sweet irony in not even knowing what died till we are doing the autopsy. Personally, I still say it was a turkey and we can do better, but I could just be optimistic.

Right.  Too much arguing from emotion.   And you may well be right -- we might indeed be able to do better, and if we do, then all this headache/heartache will have been worth it.  But if nothing gets done, then we're left with ObamaCare, and the prospect of the Democrats having the next shot at addressing the problem.

[Cyber Liberty]

Obviously, they wouldn't charge 50X.  They'd charge whatever multiple is actuarial sound.  For example, pre-ACA, a 27 year old person would pay $117/month for a policy that would cost a 60 year old person $735/month.  That's a multiple of about 6.3

http://khn.org/news/age-rating/

The ACA capped that multiple at 3, and the AHCA capped it at 5.  So if you repeal the ACA without replacing that provision, you could expect prices for older people on the individual market to see an increase to pre-ACA levels - a 6.3 multiple.

Of course, you're right -- if a company tried to jack up that multiple above the actuarial sound rate, older people would flee to companies that charge a more reasonable rate, and those other companies would make more money.  But on the flip side, if a company charged less than that actuarial sound rate -- say, 3.0 without a government mandate, then older people would flock to that company.  But that company would then be taking in much less in premiums from older people than it was paying out in claims, so it would have to jack up premiums for everyone younger.  Those younger people would then start moving to plans that were cheaper for them, and the company charging below-cost for older workers would go belly-up.

Bottom line is that in the absence of a government mandate limiting what insurers can charge on the open individual market, the repeal and non-replacement of the ACA would result in costs for older workers more than doubling -- from the ACA multiple limit of 3, to the market rate of over 6.

I still support moving to the freer market.  But it seems as those some of those advocating for a complete repeal want to have their cake and eat it too -- repeal, but retain the non-market based restriction on how much older people can be charged on the open market.

So, before O-Care, they were charging that group more than 6X?  Not arguing with you, I just don't know.  I'm only just now getting to the point in life where it matters to me.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

Funny how that's not your response to issues you don't like.  It was against the law to perform an abortion at one time ya know.

Yup.  Over 40 years ago.  That's why I think it's a waste of time and resources to overturn Roe.  Too many women have relied on it and the liberty it guarantees for too long.  The better route - the more EFFICACIOUS route - is to persuade women to do the right thing.   

There are plenty of laws I don't like.  And my attitude towards them is the same - they were Constitutionally enacted by the peoples' elected representatives, and they can be changed or rescinded in just the same way.   

[driftdiver]

Yup.  Over 40 years ago.  That's why I think it's a waste of time and resources to overturn Roe.  Too many women have relied on it and the liberty it guarantees for too long.  The better route - the more EFFICACIOUS route - is to persuade women to do the right thing.   

There are plenty of laws I don't like.  And my attitude towards them is the same - they were Constitutionally enacted by the peoples' elected representatives, and they can be changed or rescinded in just the same way.   

Except the ones you like.

[Jazzhead]

So, before O-Care, they were charging that group more than 6X?  Not arguing with you, I just don't know.  I'm only just now getting to the point in life where it matters to me.

The free market is dispassionate and unemotional.   Older folks get charged six times more because actuarially they are six times riskier to insure.   

Sometimes the community makes the determination that that's a hardship, and requires insurers to set rates requiring the young to subsidize the old.    But that ACA's 3 to 1 ratio simply made a mess of the individual marketplace; it's such a bad deal for young folks that they rationally decide to withdraw from the market.

Again - the AHCA would have fixed that,  but the FC's stubbornness nixed it.     

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So, before O-Care, they were charging that group more than 6X?  Not arguing with you, I just don't know.  I'm only just now getting to the point in life where it matters to me.

Yes - on the individual (not employer-based) market.  It made sense for the insurers because older people cost so much more in terms of claims.   And the thing is that any insurance company that didn't do that would necessarily be charging younger people more to make up the difference, so they'd end up fleeing to other policies that were cheaper for them.

Here's the article -- it's August 2009, pre-ACA:

Health Insurance: How Much More Should Older People Pay?

Chris Denny, who runs a small marketing firm in Santa Rosa, Calif., buys his own health insurance for $117 a month. An avid gardener, Denny, 27, describes himself as healthy and fit.
The same policy, from the same insurer, would cost a 60-year-old man $735 a month, according to an estimate on eHealthInsurance.com, an online marketplace that lists quotes and coverage from a variety of insurers.  Such a difference in cost – common around the country – doesn’t surprise Denny, who says older people use more medical care: “So is it unfair to charge them five times more? I don’t think so.”

For years, insurers have charged older customers far more than younger ones, in part because of older residents’ higher use of medical services. Now, as Congress wrestles with a health care overhaul aimed at covering the majority of the 46 million uninsured, that discrepancy is one area targeted for change. The outcome could affect tens of millions of people – young and old – who don’t get insurance through their jobs and buy it on their own, as well as some small businesses. It would not affect people 65 and older, who are covered by Medicare, or people who work for large companies, which usually get group rates for health coverage.

Lawmakers face a delicate balancing act involving fundamental issues of fairness and cost. Limit insurers to charging only a small difference in monthly premiums between older and younger people, and the younger ones would likely pay far more than they do now. Allow a larger spread, and older residents may be priced out of coverage.....


http://khn.org/news/age-rating/

The ACA limited that multiple to 3, the AHCA limited it to 5 which is closer to what the market would set.  So if you repeal the ACA, the multiple will jump from 3 to around 6, essentially doubling the cost.

Again, as the article points out, this is not for group policies used by employers.  This is on the individual market, which covers the self-employed, etc..

[txradioguy]

@Jazzhead

Funny how that's not your response to issues you don't like.  It was against the law to perform an abortion at one time ya know.

As I pointed out earlier...he's all for judicial thuggery and the police state so long as it backs up his Liberal dogma.

[Cyber Liberty]

The free market is dispassionate and unemotional.   Older folks get charged six times more because actuarially they are six times riskier to insure.   

Sometimes the community makes the determination that that's a hardship, and requires insurers to set rates requiring the young to subsidize the old.    But that ACA's 3 to 1 ratio simply made a mess of the individual marketplace; it's such a bad deal for young folks that they rationally decide to withdraw from the market.

Again - the AHCA would have fixed that,  but the FC's stubbornness nixed it.     

I was asking @Maj. Bill Martin, not you because I think he knows.  I doubt you do, but you will make up an answer on the spot if that's what's required for you to "win." 

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes - on the individual (not employer-based) market.  It made sense for the insurers because older people cost so much more in terms of claims.   And the thing is that any insurance company that didn't do that would necessarily be charging younger people more to make up the difference, so they'd end up fleeing to other policies that were cheaper for them.

Here's the article -- it's August 2009, pre-ACA:

Health Insurance: How Much More Should Older People Pay?

Chris Denny, who runs a small marketing firm in Santa Rosa, Calif., buys his own health insurance for $117 a month. An avid gardener, Denny, 27, describes himself as healthy and fit.
The same policy, from the same insurer, would cost a 60-year-old man $735 a month, according to an estimate on eHealthInsurance.com, an online marketplace that lists quotes and coverage from a variety of insurers.  Such a difference in cost – common around the country – doesn’t surprise Denny, who says older people use more medical care: “So is it unfair to charge them five times more? I don’t think so.”

For years, insurers have charged older customers far more than younger ones, in part because of older residents’ higher use of medical services. Now, as Congress wrestles with a health care overhaul aimed at covering the majority of the 46 million uninsured, that discrepancy is one area targeted for change. The outcome could affect tens of millions of people – young and old – who don’t get insurance through their jobs and buy it on their own, as well as some small businesses. It would not affect people 65 and older, who are covered by Medicare, or people who work for large companies, which usually get group rates for health coverage.

Lawmakers face a delicate balancing act involving fundamental issues of fairness and cost. Limit insurers to charging only a small difference in monthly premiums between older and younger people, and the younger ones would likely pay far more than they do now. Allow a larger spread, and older residents may be priced out of coverage.....


http://khn.org/news/age-rating/

The ACA limited that multiple to 3, the AHCA limited it to 5 which is closer to what the market would set.  So if you repeal the ACA, the multiple will jump from 3 to around 6, essentially doubling the cost.

Again, as the article points out, this is not for group policies used by employers.  This is on the individual market, which covers the self-employed, etc..

Thanks!  Somebody could use a lesson from you on how to answer questions intelligently! 

[driftdiver]

Yes - on the individual (not employer-based) market.  It made sense for the insurers because older people cost so much more in terms of claims.   And the thing is that any insurance company that didn't do that would necessarily be charging younger people more to make up the difference, so they'd end up fleeing to other policies that were cheaper for them.

Here's the article -- it's August 2009, pre-ACA:

Health Insurance: How Much More Should Older People Pay?

Chris Denny, who runs a small marketing firm in Santa Rosa, Calif., buys his own health insurance for $117 a month. An avid gardener, Denny, 27, describes himself as healthy and fit.
The same policy, from the same insurer, would cost a 60-year-old man $735 a month, according to an estimate on eHealthInsurance.com, an online marketplace that lists quotes and coverage from a variety of insurers.  Such a difference in cost – common around the country – doesn’t surprise Denny, who says older people use more medical care: “So is it unfair to charge them five times more? I don’t think so.”

For years, insurers have charged older customers far more than younger ones, in part because of older residents’ higher use of medical services. Now, as Congress wrestles with a health care overhaul aimed at covering the majority of the 46 million uninsured, that discrepancy is one area targeted for change. The outcome could affect tens of millions of people – young and old – who don’t get insurance through their jobs and buy it on their own, as well as some small businesses. It would not affect people 65 and older, who are covered by Medicare, or people who work for large companies, which usually get group rates for health coverage.

Lawmakers face a delicate balancing act involving fundamental issues of fairness and cost. Limit insurers to charging only a small difference in monthly premiums between older and younger people, and the younger ones would likely pay far more than they do now. Allow a larger spread, and older residents may be priced out of coverage.....


http://khn.org/news/age-rating/

The ACA limited that multiple to 3, the AHCA limited it to 5 which is closer to what the market would set.  So if you repeal the ACA, the multiple will jump from 3 to around 6, essentially doubling the cost.

Again, as the article points out, this is not for group policies used by employers.  This is on the individual market, which covers the self-employed, etc..

We didn't have a free market before ACA. 

Health co-ops exist.  One I know of charges $300 per person regardless of age.  They manage it.  Of course they don't have huge profits and bonuses for executives.

[INVAR]

That's the law, bub.

Shaadrach, Meshack and Abednego Bub.

Any "Law" that contravenes the Laws of God or the inalienable rights from the Creator are not laws to be obeyed.

They are to be resisted and refused.

Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God - to quote Franklin.

BTW, since Obama decided with the full applause of Congress and the Courts that he and the federal beast could ignore the laws he disagreed with and order the government to ignore them too, I think that sets the rest of us free to do likewise with laws they pass that we disagree with.

Unless of course you agree that some animals are more equal than others.  Especially if they roost in government.

[txradioguy]

We didn't have a free market before ACA. 

Health co-ops exist.  One I know of charges $300 per person regardless of age.  They manage it.  Of course they don't have huge profits and bonuses for executives.

Liberals have been chipping away at free market Healthcare for as long as I've been alive.

IMO they first set us on this path with the Kennedy authored HMO Bill passed in IIRC 1972.

Until their first attempt with Hillary in 1992 they'd been taking baby steps...they regrouped after that failure and waited until they could shove the ACA down our throats on a one sided vote with a little bit of trickery tossed in for good measure.

[Cyber Liberty]

Liberals have been chipping away at free market Healthcare for as long as I've been alive.

IMO they first set us on this path with the Kennedy authored HMO Bill passed in IIRC 1972.

Until their first attempt with Hillary in 1992 they'd been taking baby steps...they regrouped after that failure and waited until they could shove the ACA down our throats on a one sided vote with a little bit of trickery tossed in for good measure.

But but but...it's the law!  Bub.   

[XenaLee]

I don't get your point.  Remember,  I'm arguing with idiots who claim that any law enacted by the peoples' representatives that they don't like amounts to "tyranny".

It is tyranny.... or soft tyranny.... when government rams down our throats something so unpopular that most Americans are against it (like with ObamaCare).  What the hell else would it be???

[txradioguy]

But but but...it's the law!  Bub.   

LOL at one point the rule of thumb was "the law" too. 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

It is tyranny.... or soft tyranny.... when government rams down our throats something so unpopular that most Americans are against it (like with ObamaCare).  What the hell else would it be???

The Law-uh (two syllables like the preachers say it.) Did you know that Bub? 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

LOL at one point the rule of thumb was "the law" too.

Pretty sure the invention of the cast iron frying pan put an end to that one. 

[txradioguy]

Pretty sure the invention of the cast iron frying pan put an end to that one. 

The original home defense weapon LOL

[XenaLee]

And neither did the AHCA.  The five-times premium permitted by the AHCA - versus three times under the ACA, and unlimited prior to the ACA - applies only to the individual market.

So, to the extent you believed that the AHCA was going to apply that "5" multiple to employer-based policies, you are mistaken.

The point is.... without government interference.... the system we HAD was fair.   I challenge you to find an instance or proof of an insurer charging someone over 60 five times what they charged a 40 year old for basic healthcare coverage under that "individual market" before ObamaCare.  Only when government gets its greedy/stupid/incompetent paws in something does things go downhill fast when it comes to fairness and ""equality"".
 

[XenaLee]

The Law-uh (two syllables like the preachers say it.) Did you know that Bub? 

The law is supposed to be applied equally.... and it's supposed to be enacted representing the wishes of, if not all, at least 'most' Americans.  Obamacare was the exact opposite.   It was a death knell warning to every freedom loving American re: what the radical left Democrats had in store for Americans in future.  And yet, nobody seemed to really react.

And then.... when Congress arrogantly exempted themselves from having to be inflicted with the "Affordable Care Act" due to their .... wait for it.... inability to afford it, and when Americans didn't rise up with pitchforks and torches in hand and march on DC....  I knew it was just a matter of time before things went permanently south.  And it is.