Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
asically, the idea is that the young must purchase healthcare in the government pool, and because they will not be in need of much healthcare, the costs for older Americans decrease. As Holtz-Eakin puts it, "In effect, young Americans are supposed to be both key participants and the piggy banks of the expansion effort."
What Obama, Pelosi, and Democrats have failed to account for is that consumers will approach healthcare in the exchanges just as they would with any other product.
When you are standing in the grocery store trying to decide which cereal to buy, you first go for your preference, and then you look at the price. There is a certain price at which you decide that Captain Crunch isn't worth it, and you settle for the generic store brand.
The same will happen with younger Americans. Lacking healthcare issues and the need for immediate insurance, there will be a price point at which Americans will decide that they are better off paying the penalty instead of purchasing healthcare. Later on, if they are in a dire situation, they will purchase healthcare as needed. Empirical data provides evidence for this claim.
The American Action Forum sponsored a national poll of Americans aged 18 to 40 in March and April of this year. They were specifically interested in what effects various premium increased would have on a consumer's willingness to purchase healthcare coverage. Respondents were those who already purchase insurance and were supplied with specific information regarding the various scenarios covered in the poll.
Originally meant to expand coverage, Obamacare will do exactly the opposite. Consumers act rationally under economic principles. Here is what will happen:
asically, the idea is that the young must purchase healthcare in the government pool, and because they will not be in need of much healthcare, the costs for older Americans decrease. As Holtz-Eakin puts it, "In effect, young Americans are supposed to be both key participants and the piggy banks of the expansion effort."
What Obama, Pelosi, and Democrats have failed to account for is that consumers will approach healthcare in the exchanges just as they would with any other product.
When you are standing in the grocery store trying to decide which cereal to buy, you first go for your preference, and then you look at the price. There is a certain price at which you decide that Captain Crunch isn't worth it, and you settle for the generic store brand.
The same will happen with younger Americans. Lacking healthcare issues and the need for immediate insurance, there will be a price point at which Americans will decide that they are better off paying the penalty instead of purchasing healthcare. Later on, if they are in a dire situation, they will purchase healthcare as needed. Empirical data provides evidence for this claim.
The American Action Forum sponsored a national poll of Americans aged 18 to 40 in March and April of this year. They were specifically interested in what effects various premium increased would have on a consumer's willingness to purchase healthcare coverage. Respondents were those who already purchase insurance and were supplied with specific information regarding the various scenarios covered in the poll.
Read the full article at Cameron Harris: Obamacare vs. Economic Principles ---The Young Won't Buy Healthcare
When it was implemented, about 8.4 percent of Massachusetts citizens were uninsured; by 2010, just 3 percent were uninsured. Uninsured rates fell most among minorities: In 2006, 15 percent of African-Americans were uninsured, in 2010, that rate was at 3.4 percent. Uninsured rates for Hispanics in the state fell from 20 percent to 9.2 percent during the same period.
The costs of ObamaCare are going to be astronomical. However, Holtz-Eakin makes claims which are supplemental to this fact, and it is those which I challenge.
It must first be recognized that Holtz-Eakin and his American Action Forum are a right wing organization formed for the express purpose of achieving a GOP majority in Congress. So it is fair to say they have a very biased agenda. Therefore, their claims must be viewed in this light.
As OohPooPahDoo points out, Massachusetts has a similar mandate, with similar penalties for avoiding the mandate, and yet we do not see young people avoiding it in large numbers.
So we have a biased political organization's claims of what WILL happen, and we have the real world example of what HAS happened.
Which one do YOU believe?
When it was implemented, about 8.4 percent of Massachusetts citizens were uninsured; by 2010, just 3 percent were uninsured. Uninsured rates fell most among minorities: In 2006, 15 percent of African-Americans were uninsured, in 2010, that rate was at 3.4 percent. Uninsured rates for Hispanics in the state fell from 20 percent to 9.2 percent during the same period.
The costs of ObamaCare are going to be astronomical. However, Holtz-Eakin makes claims which are supplemental to this fact, and it is those which I challenge.
It must first be recognized that Holtz-Eakin and his American Action Forum are a right wing organization formed for the express purpose of achieving a GOP majority in Congress. So it is fair to say they have a very biased agenda. Therefore, their claims must be viewed in this light.
As OohPooPahDoo points out, Massachusetts has a similar mandate, with similar penalties for avoiding the mandate, and yet we do not see young people avoiding it in large numbers.
So we have a biased political organization's claims of what WILL happen, and we have the real world example of what HAS happened.
Which one do YOU believe?
When it was implemented, about 8.4 percent of Massachusetts citizens were uninsured; by 2010, just 3 percent were uninsured. Uninsured rates fell most among minorities: In 2006, 15 percent of African-Americans were uninsured, in 2010, that rate was at 3.4 percent. Uninsured rates for Hispanics in the state fell from 20 percent to 9.2 percent during the same period.
The costs of ObamaCare are going to be astronomical. However, Holtz-Eakin makes claims which are supplemental to this fact, and it is those which I challenge.
It must first be recognized that Holtz-Eakin and his American Action Forum are a right wing organization formed for the express purpose of achieving a GOP majority in Congress. So it is fair to say they have a very biased agenda. Therefore, their claims must be viewed in this light.
As OohPooPahDoo points out, Massachusetts has a similar mandate, with similar penalties for avoiding the mandate, and yet we do not see young people avoiding it in large numbers.
So we have a biased political organization's claims of what WILL happen, and we have the real world example of what HAS happened.
Which one do YOU believe?
When it was implemented, about 8.4 percent of Massachusetts citizens were uninsured; by 2010, just 3 percent were uninsured. Uninsured rates fell most among minorities: In 2006, 15 percent of African-Americans were uninsured, in 2010, that rate was at 3.4 percent. Uninsured rates for Hispanics in the state fell from 20 percent to 9.2 percent during the same period.
We dont live in retarded massachusetts.
Among currently insured respondents, if out-of-pocket premium costs increase even 10 percent, 17 percent of respondents would discontinue coverage and pay the penalty indefinitely, or until an illness prompted them to sign up for coverage. If premiums increase by 30 percent, only 55 percent would continue purchasing coverage, and 45 percent would go without.
ObamaCare gives away the store. This is why it is going to bankrupt the federal AND state governments.
But as long as organizations like the American Action Forum make completely bogus claims, the Right will never get its footing.
Stop the lies. Liberals only succeed because the Right lies its fucking ass off every goddam day.
The truth would slay the Left in its tracks. When will the fucking maniacs who have hijacked the GOP ever figure this out?
The ACA is going to be anything but affordable.
Hope those who put jackass back in the WH will be oh so happy with their higher hc costs. Its just to bad the rest of us are in the same boat.
All except for those that can't pay. We will be paying for the're hc as well as our own.
Way to go all you idiots who voted the jackass back into office.
ObamaCare gives away the store. This is why it is going to bankrupt the federal AND state governments.
But as long as organizations like the American Action Forum make completely bogus claims, the Right will never get its footing.
Stop the lies. Liberals only succeed because the Right lies its fucking ass off every goddam day.
The truth would slay the Left in its tracks. When will the fucking maniacs who have hijacked the GOP ever figure this out?
The right has tried to make the argument that Obamacare will bankrupt everyone from businesses to the state and federal governments. No one seems to be listening to that claim, so it is reasonable to pursue others until something gains footing that makes people realize, "Hey, maybe this wasn't such a good idea."
I am not agreeing that these claims are bogus. I am just saying that Repubs are now having to think outside of the box for ways to teach Americans what is going to happen.
The costs of ObamaCare are going to be astronomical. However, Holtz-Eakin makes claims which are supplemental to this fact, and it is those which I challenge.
It must first be recognized that Holtz-Eakin and his American Action Forum are a right wing organization formed for the express purpose of achieving a GOP majority in Congress. So it is fair to say they have a very biased agenda. Therefore, their claims must be viewed in this light.
As OohPooPahDoo points out, Massachusetts has a similar mandate, with similar penalties for avoiding the mandate, and yet we do not see young people avoiding it in large numbers.
So we have a biased political organization's claims of what WILL happen, and we have the real world example of what HAS happened.
Which one do YOU believe?
When it was implemented, about 8.4 percent of Massachusetts citizens were uninsured; by 2010, just 3 percent were uninsured. Uninsured rates fell most among minorities: In 2006, 15 percent of African-Americans were uninsured, in 2010, that rate was at 3.4 percent. Uninsured rates for Hispanics in the state fell from 20 percent to 9.2 percent during the same period.
Mass is one state. We are talking about a country of 300 million people. False equivalence
ObamaCare gives away the store. This is why it is going to bankrupt the federal AND state governments.
But as long as organizations like the American Action Forum make completely bogus claims, the Right will never get its footing.
Stop the lies. Liberals only succeed because the Right lies its fucking ass off every goddam day.
The truth would slay the Left in its tracks. When will the fucking maniacs who have hijacked the GOP ever figure this out?
The right has tried to make the argument that Obamacare will bankrupt everyone from businesses to the state and federal governments. No one seems to be listening to that claim, so it is reasonable to pursue others until something gains footing that makes people realize, "Hey, maybe this wasn't such a good idea."
I am not agreeing that these claims are bogus. I am just saying that Repubs are now having to think outside of the box for ways to teach Americans what is going to happen.
They were never in the box. Because they are too retarded to comprehend ObamaCare, they decided to just make shit up about it.
And that is why we have ObamaCare today.
The costs of ObamaCare are going to be astronomical. However, Holtz-Eakin makes claims which are supplemental to this fact, and it is those which I challenge.
It must first be recognized that Holtz-Eakin and his American Action Forum are a right wing organization formed for the express purpose of achieving a GOP majority in Congress. So it is fair to say they have a very biased agenda. Therefore, their claims must be viewed in this light.
As OohPooPahDoo points out, Massachusetts has a similar mandate, with similar penalties for avoiding the mandate, and yet we do not see young people avoiding it in large numbers.
So we have a biased political organization's claims of what WILL happen, and we have the real world example of what HAS happened.
Which one do YOU believe?
Mass is one state. We are talking about a country of 300 million people. False equivalence
Massachusetts is a real world example of the real choices people make, not the false choices offered by the partisan hacks at American Action Forum. Massachussets has the same health insurance mandate, and the same lax penalties for not participating. And we see the choices the people made are nothing like the AAF is attempting to predict. And that is because they totally fudged their data and their scenario into a completely bogus hypothetical.
So go right ahead and continue to deceive yourself the AAF knows what it is talking about. Live in that fantasy world. The rest of us live in the real one.
As I have pointed out in further posts, the AAF completely ignored the real results of ObamaCare that are already happening which completely refute their fantasy world fake poll choices.
The number of uninsured young adults has already dropped significantly. This is a simple fact that no amount of piss and bullshit by the AAF can conceal. So stop consuming it and fight the Left with real facts and the truth.
The costs of ObamaCare are going to be astronomical. However, Holtz-Eakin makes claims which are supplemental to this fact, and it is those which I challenge.
It must first be recognized that Holtz-Eakin and his American Action Forum are a right wing organization formed for the express purpose of achieving a GOP majority in Congress. So it is fair to say they have a very biased agenda. Therefore, their claims must be viewed in this light.
As OohPooPahDoo points out, Massachusetts has a similar mandate, with similar penalties for avoiding the mandate, and yet we do not see young people avoiding it in large numbers.
So we have a biased political organization's claims of what WILL happen, and we have the real world example of what HAS happened.
Which one do YOU believe?
We dont live in retarded massachusetts.
That's all you got? That's your best shot?
ObamaCare is modeled after RomneyCare.
We really should look at the American Action Forum's polling data before drinking their piss. Did they inform the young people they polled that ObamaCare subsidizes their health insurance if they earn up to 400% above the poverty level?
Since younger people earn the smallest incomes, most of them are going to have their insurance premiums subsidized considerably.
Originally meant to expand coverage, Obamacare will do exactly the opposite. Consumers act rationally under economic principles. Here is what will happen:
The American Action Forum sponsored a national poll of Americans aged 18 to 40 in March and April of this year. They were specifically interested in what effects various premium increased would have on a consumer's willingness to purchase healthcare coverage. Respondents were those who already purchase insurance and were supplied with specific information regarding the various scenarios covered in the poll.
Despite predictions of rate shocks, most consumers in Washington state will actually see lower premiums and enhanced coverage when they buy insurance through the state's health insurance exchange.
Washington Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler on Tuesday released rates proposed by insurers, including Premera Blue Cross, Lifewise, Group Health Cooperative, BridgeSpan and Molina Health Care of Washington, for health plans they will sell on the state-run online marketplace, called the Washington Health Plan Finder, reported the Spokesman-Review.
And those prices don't include federal subsidies available to consumers, so the premiums that consumers will pay actually will be less than the rates proposed.
"We're pleasantly surprised with the individual rates we've seen so far," Kreidler said. "In many cases, people will get better benefits and pay less--especially if they qualify for subsidies."
For example, Premera's existing individual plans for 21-year-old non-smokers cost $325 each month with a $1,800 deductible. But the insurer proposed a $276 monthly premium for the same plan to be available in the exchange--a 15 percent decrease, the Associated Press reported.
To keep premium costs low, the Affordable Care Act allows certain individuals (adults under age 30 and people who otherwise have unaffordable coverage) to purchase catastrophic coverage, which still guarantees first dollar coverage of preventive services and primary care check-ups but has higher deductibles and lower AVs [actuarial value].
In 2014, young adults under age 30 will have the option to purchase a limited “catastrophic” benefit package to satisfy the requirement that all individuals and families must have insurance coverage for themselves and their dependents, or pay penalties, beginning Jan. 1, 2014. This catastrophic option includes high deductibles but still covers preventive services and three primary care visits. It may appeal to the so-called “young invincibles” who are healthy and unwilling to pay high prices for health insurance, but who will benefit from preventive screenings and primary care services.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Healthy twentysomethings may not worry much about insurance, but reform aims to change that -- by creating a low-cost plan just for them.
Legislators crafted a specific provision for the under-30 set because they'll play a critical role in the reform's success -- or failure. About 60 million Americans are uninsured, and about one-third of them are twentysomethings.
Young Adults? Insurance Decisions Dependent on Cost | American Action Forum
Notice the gigantic assumptions American Action Forum made:
Among currently insured respondents, if out-of-pocket premium costs increase even 10 percent, 17 percent of respondents would discontinue coverage and pay the penalty indefinitely, or until an illness prompted them to sign up for coverage. If premiums increase by 30 percent, only 55 percent would continue purchasing coverage, and 45 percent would go without.
The article is completely silent about the fact that people whose incomes are up to 400% above poverty level will see their insurance premiums subsidized by the federal government. Many of these young people will get insurance for FREE!
Let's see THAT polling chart! "How likely will you be to get health insurance if it is free?" "How likely will you be to keep your health insurance if your out of pocket costs DROP by 30 percent?"
But a new study by two members of the American Academy of Actuaries finds that tens of millions of Americans will be exposed to increased insurance costs, even when one takes the value of Obamacare’s subsidies into account.
