Study: ObamaCare’s bum deal for young people, quantified

[Stephanie]

the youngsters who voted for Obama are going to wake up and realize they voted to make themselves his slaves...way to go kiddos. we tried to tell you

SNIP:

posted at 4:41 pm on August 16, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

As everybody who hasn’t been determinedly keeping their heads buried in the sand is already well aware, the Patient “Protection” and “Affordable” Care Act was designed to rope young people into paying a disproportionate amount for their health insurance premiums in order to help pay for the inherently riskier insurance pools that it creates.

ObamaCare offers the choice, however, of paying a penalty rather than purchasing insurance, and the trouble for the administration is that the penalty is looking like it might be a much more attractive option for some of the very same young people they need to purchase needlessly expensive insurance plans in droves.

A new study offers some numbers on exactly what that choice might look like, via IBD:

Nearly 4 million young people will be much better off financially if they refuse to buy an ObamaCare insurance policy and instead pay the fine for going without coverage next year, according to a study released Thursday by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The study found that 3.7 million childless single people age 18-34 would save at least $500 if they didn’t buy insurance and instead paid the tax penalty next year. Of those, more than 3 million would save at least $1,000.

That’s despite the heavy taxpayer subsidies many of these young people would be eligible to get. The ObamaCare insurance exchanges provide tax credits to offset the cost of insurance to those with incomes up to 400% of the poverty rate. …

“This age group must buy insurance in the exchanges to cross-subsidize people who are older and sicker,” explained David Hogberg, a policy analyst at the conservative National Center. “Without them, the exchange will enter a ‘death spiral’ where only the older and sicker participate and the price of premiums increases precipitously.”

all of it here
Study: ObamaCare?s bum deal for young people, quantified « Hot Air

 

[Meister]

I heard this, also.
I think the devil is in the details with obummercare and those details are seeing the light of the day. This was pushed through a democrat congress and senate with cherry picked numbers for the CBO to analyze. Obama is carving out the parts of the law he doesn't like leaving the taxpayers hanging out to dry.
Baukus is right in assuming that the ACA is a trainwreck.

 

[Ropey]

I heard this, also.
I think the devil is in the details with obummercare and those details are seeing the light of the day. This was pushed through a democrat congress and senate with cherry picked numbers for the CBO to analyze. Obama is carving out the parts of the law he doesn't like leaving the taxpayers hanging out to dry.
Baukus is right in assuming that the ACA is a trainwreck.

We talked about the turkey carving a few years ago Meister and this is going to trend upward. President Obama is sucking the foreign and military power of the US in order to create the nanny state.

Henry Kissinger declared in the 1970's, 'If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population.

REPORT: TWO AMERICANS ENROLLED IN FOOD STAMPS FOR EVERY JOB OBAMA 'CREATED'

It's a tactic in a strategy. What's frightening is that from where I stand?

It seems to be working.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Duh. I've been saying for the past two years that Obamacare is nothing but a wealth redistribution program, taking money from the young, the poorest age group in the country, and transferring it to the elderly, the wealthiest age group in the country.

 

[Greenbeard]

Duh. I've been saying for the past two years that Obamacare is nothing but a wealth redistribution program, taking money from the young, the poorest age group in the country, and transferring it to the elderly, the wealthiest age group in the country.

The wealthy are not subsidized under this program, the poor are. So that interpretation makes very little sense.

Indeed, the example of a real(?) person this "study" uses is a 20-something who has to pay $17.67 per month for comprehensive health insurance.

If Haley buys health insurance through Washington D.C.'s exchange, she'll be eligible for a subsidy of about $1,329 under ObamaCare to help her pay for insurance. If she puts that toward the lowest-cost Bronze plan on the exchange, about $1,541, then she'll only have to pay about $212 out-of-pocket for health insurance.

This is considered a "bum deal" because she could instead pay the equivalent of $7.92 per month and get absolutely nothing. And since $17.67 > $7.92, the obvious conclusion is that it's better to pay the latter. (I feel like there's some factor missing in this analysis but can't quite put my finger on it. Hmm.) Deep stuff.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

the youngsters who voted for Obama are going to wake up and realize they voted to make themselves his slaves...way to go kiddos. we tried to tell you

SNIP:

posted at 4:41 pm on August 16, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

As everybody who hasn’t been determinedly keeping their heads buried in the sand is already well aware, the Patient “Protection” and “Affordable” Care Act was designed to rope young people into paying a disproportionate amount for their health insurance premiums in order to help pay for the inherently riskier insurance pools that it creates.

ObamaCare offers the choice, however, of paying a penalty rather than purchasing insurance, and the trouble for the administration is that the penalty is looking like it might be a much more attractive option for some of the very same young people they need to purchase needlessly expensive insurance plans in droves.

A new study offers some numbers on exactly what that choice might look like, via IBD:

Nearly 4 million young people will be much better off financially if they refuse to buy an ObamaCare insurance policy and instead pay the fine for going without coverage next year, according to a study released Thursday by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The study found that 3.7 million childless single people age 18-34 would save at least $500 if they didn’t buy insurance and instead paid the tax penalty next year. Of those, more than 3 million would save at least $1,000.

That’s despite the heavy taxpayer subsidies many of these young people would be eligible to get. The ObamaCare insurance exchanges provide tax credits to offset the cost of insurance to those with incomes up to 400% of the poverty rate. …

“This age group must buy insurance in the exchanges to cross-subsidize people who are older and sicker,” explained David Hogberg, a policy analyst at the conservative National Center. “Without them, the exchange will enter a ‘death spiral’ where only the older and sicker participate and the price of premiums increases precipitously.”

all of it here
Study: ObamaCare?s bum deal for young people, quantified « Hot Air

Funny how this isn't a big problem with the Romney implementation of the law in Massachusetts - which also has a smaller penalty than the cost of health care.

The study found that 3.7 million childless single people age 18-34 would save at least $500 if they didn’t buy insurance and instead paid the tax penalty next year. Of those, more than 3 million would save at least $1,000.

Not if they get in a skiing accident or lose an arm or OD on the recreational drugs they bought with the $500 they saved.. Does the author understand the concept of insurance? Its a bet you make that bad stuff will happen to you - but unlike other bets, its a bet you HOPE to lose.