Other Resources The Political Joe » ACA and Dissappointing numbers Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 3
 
 
2013-12-30 4:47 PM

User image

Master
2946
200050010010010010025
Centennial, CO
Subject: ACA and Dissappointing numbers

So they are claiming they have over 1 million signed up.  Or course that doesn't mean they have paid, just signed up.  but they are well behind the numbers that they expected by this point and the numbers they need to make the ACA successfull.

My guess (I have no proof), is that the majority of those who have signed up, need insurance, and are not the young healthy people that don't want or need the healthcare.

So taking a different tact, assuming that those people don't sign up, what do you think the outcry will be in 2015, when the tax man come a calling?



2013-12-30 6:19 PM
in reply to: velocomp

User image

Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers
Good. it'll give the rest of the people an idea that they have to pay for all this and maybe it can get yanked out by the roots before it does too much damage.

I've got kidney cancer and I think this Obamacare is abhorrent. It needs to go. It's not the job of the gov't.

No, the Republicans do not have to "come up with a viable alternative" it needs to be realized that's not the gov't's job.

Then again, I may sign up just to drain more from it with PET scans, CAT scans, other surgeries and whatnot.

But one of my primary things looking for a job was health care. Shame others don't see that's your own responsibility and not someone else's.

2013-12-31 8:40 AM
in reply to: velocomp

User image

Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers

I wonder how many would have signed up by now if the law hadn't caused so many people to get their current plan cancelled. What is the number that have been cancelled do to the law? 6 Million?

2013-12-31 8:48 AM
in reply to: crusevegas

User image

Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers
Originally posted by crusevegas

I wonder how many would have signed up by now if the law hadn't caused so many people to get their current plan cancelled. What is the number that have been cancelled do to the law? 6 Million?




As much as I dislike Obamacare, that scares Godwin's law enough to give you a hearty piffle!

2013-12-31 10:56 AM
in reply to: DanielG

User image

Master
2946
200050010010010010025
Centennial, CO
Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers

I just find it funny that next year when tax season rolls around, all those people who didn't sign up for health insurance are going to get  a bill for the "tax penalty".  And most probably didn't budget or plan for such a thing.  I wonder what happens when a poor person making below the poverty line doesn't sign up and then can't afford the penalty.  That should be interesting.  It's ashame this will happen after the November elections.

2013-12-31 11:12 AM
in reply to: velocomp

User image

Champion
6962
500010005001001001001002525
Atlanta, Ga
Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers
I highly doubt that the ~$100 penalty will even be a blip on their taxes. I see it as actually, oddly, taking less from the Govt. Maybe it will balance out things like EIC, etc.

Wasn't it many on here that said >50% of people don't pay taxes anyway, so this won't be any different. It will be absorbed by a tax credit here or there.

I, for one, will not be signing up because it doesn't make financial sense. Since leaving corporate America, I haven't had insurance and the math has worked out for me. I have no problem absorbing a tax penalty that small to stay self-insured.

For the first time in 3 years, I went to the doctor and found out I had the flu. Between the Doc in a Box and the prescriptions, it cost me just over $300. So I just pulled from the money that I have been saving by not having insurance.

Just like anything else in life, it's a gamble. But I'd say the odds are in my favor right now. Until the penalty gets higher, I'm good right where I am.


2013-12-31 11:30 AM
in reply to: DanielG

User image

Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers

Originally posted by DanielG
Originally posted by crusevegas

I wonder how many would have signed up by now if the law hadn't caused so many people to get their current plan cancelled. What is the number that have been cancelled do to the law? 6 Million?

As much as I dislike Obamacare, that scares Godwin's law enough to give you a hearty piffle!

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here?

2013-12-31 11:32 AM
in reply to: Marvarnett

User image

Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers

Originally posted by Marvarnett I highly doubt that the ~$100 penalty will even be a blip on their taxes. I see it as actually, oddly, taking less from the Govt. Maybe it will balance out things like EIC, etc. Wasn't it many on here that said >50% of people don't pay taxes anyway, so this won't be any different. It will be absorbed by a tax credit here or there. I, for one, will not be signing up because it doesn't make financial sense. Since leaving corporate America, I haven't had insurance and the math has worked out for me. I have no problem absorbing a tax penalty that small to stay self-insured. For the first time in 3 years, I went to the doctor and found out I had the flu. Between the Doc in a Box and the prescriptions, it cost me just over $300. So I just pulled from the money that I have been saving by not having insurance. Just like anything else in life, it's a gamble. But I'd say the odds are in my favor right now. Until the penalty gets higher, I'm good right where I am.

One of the positives of this law is if you get sick or diagnosed with some costly medical condition you can get coverage then. 

2013-12-31 11:33 AM
in reply to: Marvarnett

User image

Veteran
1019
1000
St. Louis
Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers

Originally posted by Marvarnett I highly doubt that the ~$100 penalty will even be a blip on their taxes. I see it as actually, oddly, taking less from the Govt. Maybe it will balance out things like EIC, etc. Wasn't it many on here that said >50% of people don't pay taxes anyway, so this won't be any different. It will be absorbed by a tax credit here or there. I, for one, will not be signing up because it doesn't make financial sense. Since leaving corporate America, I haven't had insurance and the math has worked out for me. I have no problem absorbing a tax penalty that small to stay self-insured. For the first time in 3 years, I went to the doctor and found out I had the flu. Between the Doc in a Box and the prescriptions, it cost me just over $300. So I just pulled from the money that I have been saving by not having insurance. Just like anything else in life, it's a gamble. But I'd say the odds are in my favor right now. Until the penalty gets higher, I'm good right where I am.

Keep in mind, nobody is being billed for the penalty and it does not raise the amount of taxes you owe.  All the IRS can do is withhold the penalty from your tax refund.  They can keep rolling your penalties over in to future years, but it's just a worthless number until you're scheduled to get a refund. They can't garnish your wages, criminally prosecute you, yada yada.  So if you really want to stay uninsured, just adjust your withholdings to make sure you owe a little bit at the end of the year and you'll never have to pay the penalty.

2013-12-31 11:35 AM
in reply to: crusevegas

User image

Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers
Originally posted by crusevegas

Originally posted by DanielG
Originally posted by crusevegas

I wonder how many would have signed up by now if the law hadn't caused so many people to get their current plan cancelled. What is the number that have been cancelled do to the law? 6 Million?

As much as I dislike Obamacare, that scares Godwin's law enough to give you a hearty piffle!

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here?




How many did Hitler kill or have killed?

Your number was just something that set off comparisons of previous instances of the number of 6 million people.

No, I'm not taking this seriously at all. I see no reason to. It's going to collapse or create a whole new meaning of government interference.

2013-12-31 11:39 AM
in reply to: DanielG

User image

Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers

Originally posted by DanielG
Originally posted by crusevegas

Originally posted by DanielG
Originally posted by crusevegas

I wonder how many would have signed up by now if the law hadn't caused so many people to get their current plan cancelled. What is the number that have been cancelled do to the law? 6 Million?

As much as I dislike Obamacare, that scares Godwin's law enough to give you a hearty piffle!

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here?

How many did Hitler kill or have killed? Your number was just something that set off comparisons of previous instances of the number of 6 million people. No, I'm not taking this seriously at all. I see no reason to. It's going to collapse or create a whole new meaning of government interference.

Thanks for the explanation, you had me pretty confused?!   



2013-12-31 11:49 AM
in reply to: crusevegas

User image

Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers
Originally posted by crusevegas

Originally posted by DanielG
Originally posted by crusevegas

Originally posted by DanielG
Originally posted by crusevegas

I wonder how many would have signed up by now if the law hadn't caused so many people to get their current plan cancelled. What is the number that have been cancelled do to the law? 6 Million?

As much as I dislike Obamacare, that scares Godwin's law enough to give you a hearty piffle!

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here?

How many did Hitler kill or have killed? Your number was just something that set off comparisons of previous instances of the number of 6 million people. No, I'm not taking this seriously at all. I see no reason to. It's going to collapse or create a whole new meaning of government interference.

Thanks for the explanation, you had me pretty confused?!   




I've been reading all my Dr's charts and just got new ones from CT scans and the MRI. I'm lucky I'm still speaking English.

2013-12-31 12:28 PM
in reply to: velocomp

User image

Pro
4313
20002000100100100
McKinney, TX
Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers


I'm wondering what number that they expected to sign up, just went ahead and got insurance from their employer (assuming they had a job that offered insurance) instead of the "affordable" exchanges.

I did a numbers crunch and it would cost me $340 more a month to go through an exchange vs. what I can get through my company.

I learned something interesting about the ACA. You cannot get a subsidy from the gov't if you have a job that offers medical insurance.

2013-12-31 12:56 PM
in reply to: bradleyd3

User image

Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers
Originally posted by bradleyd3



I'm wondering what number that they expected to sign up, just went ahead and got insurance from their employer (assuming they had a job that offered insurance) instead of the "affordable" exchanges.

I did a numbers crunch and it would cost me $340 more a month to go through an exchange vs. what I can get through my company.

I learned something interesting about the ACA. You cannot get a subsidy from the gov't if you have a job that offers medical insurance.




Don't sweat it.

If you want to keep your current insurance, you can.

2013-12-31 1:08 PM
in reply to: bradleyd3

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers
of course your employer is cheaper than the exchanges. most if not all help pay for it.
2013-12-31 1:57 PM
in reply to: bradleyd3

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers

Originally posted by bradleyd3 I'm wondering what number that they expected to sign up, just went ahead and got insurance from their employer (assuming they had a job that offered insurance) instead of the "affordable" exchanges. I did a numbers crunch and it would cost me $340 more a month to go through an exchange vs. what I can get through my company. I learned something interesting about the ACA. You cannot get a subsidy from the gov't if you have a job that offers medical insurance.

Does that include what your company may pay as part of your current premium?



2013-12-31 2:24 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by bradleyd3 I'm wondering what number that they expected to sign up, just went ahead and got insurance from their employer (assuming they had a job that offered insurance) instead of the "affordable" exchanges. I did a numbers crunch and it would cost me $340 more a month to go through an exchange vs. what I can get through my company. I learned something interesting about the ACA. You cannot get a subsidy from the gov't if you have a job that offers medical insurance.

Does that include what your company may pay as part of your current premium?




If he gets paid the same either way, that's an irrelevant question. The consumer pays more for less service.

If he gets the contribution put into his paycheck, that question is valid. Even then it's taxed and it would have to be net difference in the equation.

2013-12-31 2:35 PM
in reply to: velocomp

User image

Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers
It just gets better and better. Do people actually believe this stuff or is this another case of throw enough spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/eleanor-holmes-norton-obam...

“What we have been battling now is first, every time the House couldn't think of anything else to do, it had a big debate on repealing Obamacare, so there are millions who think it was repealed," Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) told MSNBC host Richard Lui.


2013-12-31 3:06 PM
in reply to: DanielG

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers

Originally posted by DanielG
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by bradleyd3 I'm wondering what number that they expected to sign up, just went ahead and got insurance from their employer (assuming they had a job that offered insurance) instead of the "affordable" exchanges. I did a numbers crunch and it would cost me $340 more a month to go through an exchange vs. what I can get through my company. I learned something interesting about the ACA. You cannot get a subsidy from the gov't if you have a job that offers medical insurance.

Does that include what your company may pay as part of your current premium?

If he gets paid the same either way, that's an irrelevant question. The consumer pays more for less service. If he gets the contribution put into his paycheck, that question is valid. Even then it's taxed and it would have to be net difference in the equation.

That is not an irrelevant question. The total cost is completely relevant. If his employer is paying $500/month for his insurance, and on the exchange the total cost is $300, then it would be cheaper. To objectively analyze the cost you must consider this. However, I know you are incapable of objectivity so carry on.

2013-12-31 3:16 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by DanielG
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by bradleyd3 I'm wondering what number that they expected to sign up, just went ahead and got insurance from their employer (assuming they had a job that offered insurance) instead of the "affordable" exchanges. I did a numbers crunch and it would cost me $340 more a month to go through an exchange vs. what I can get through my company. I learned something interesting about the ACA. You cannot get a subsidy from the gov't if you have a job that offers medical insurance.

Does that include what your company may pay as part of your current premium?

If he gets paid the same either way, that's an irrelevant question. The consumer pays more for less service. If he gets the contribution put into his paycheck, that question is valid. Even then it's taxed and it would have to be net difference in the equation.

That is not an irrelevant question. The total cost is completely relevant. If his employer is paying $500/month for his insurance, and on the exchange the total cost is $300, then it would be cheaper. To objectively analyze the cost you must consider this. However, I know you are incapable of objectivity so carry on.




It's a shame some cannot debate without personal attacks. A real shame.

2013-12-31 3:28 PM
in reply to: DanielG

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers

Originally posted by DanielG
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by DanielG
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by bradleyd3 I'm wondering what number that they expected to sign up, just went ahead and got insurance from their employer (assuming they had a job that offered insurance) instead of the "affordable" exchanges. I did a numbers crunch and it would cost me $340 more a month to go through an exchange vs. what I can get through my company. I learned something interesting about the ACA. You cannot get a subsidy from the gov't if you have a job that offers medical insurance.

Does that include what your company may pay as part of your current premium?

If he gets paid the same either way, that's an irrelevant question. The consumer pays more for less service. If he gets the contribution put into his paycheck, that question is valid. Even then it's taxed and it would have to be net difference in the equation.

That is not an irrelevant question. The total cost is completely relevant. If his employer is paying $500/month for his insurance, and on the exchange the total cost is $300, then it would be cheaper. To objectively analyze the cost you must consider this. However, I know you are incapable of objectivity so carry on.

It's a shame some cannot debate without personal attacks. A real shame.

It ceases to be a debate when one side continuously ignores important questions that don't fit their version of the facts.



2013-12-31 4:02 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers

OK, i'll try and give an objective response on this.

There are a couple of things with the ACA, you have the people who are signing up for insurance plans via the exchange.  The Federal government gets a cut of the premiums from everyone who signs up on the exchange, so it will have an impact on projected revenues if they fall short of their numbers.

You then have the expansion of medicaid which isn't people signing up for insurance, but people signing up for full government paid healthcare.  This is an increase in expense for the government.

What I have seen transpire is a mass influx of pre-existing condition folks who could not get insurance before sign up on the exchange and very few young invincible's.  This issue primarily effects the health insurance companies because they have to have a certain percentage of young and healthy people to offset the not so healthy.  They assumed that with the mandate and a penalty that a larger percentage of people would sign up.  So far, they've assumed wrong which means they will either go bankrupt, or raise their rates to compensate for all the new payouts.

The second issue is the number of people signing up for medicaid.  I haven't seen any recent numbers, but on the earlier ones they reported that almost 90% of the people signing up on the exchanges were signing up for medicaid and not exchange plans.  I think I posted a few articles a while back about the medicaid spike being far greater than expected.

So, essentially what I think will happen is the insurance companies are going to get rocked and have to raise their rates a lot.  The revenues will be a fraction of what the government predicted.  Medicaid costs will go through the roof.
ACA will implode fiscally within two years.

I know, I'm just a fiscal conservative whose against all government spending, but seriously how can anyone think this thing is going to work out?  The Feds will try to prop it up by printing more money, but the states don't have that luxury.

2013-12-31 6:25 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers

Originally posted by tuwood

OK, i'll try and give an objective response on this.

There are a couple of things with the ACA, you have the people who are signing up for insurance plans via the exchange.  The Federal government gets a cut of the premiums from everyone who signs up on the exchange, so it will have an impact on projected revenues if they fall short of their numbers.

You then have the expansion of medicaid which isn't people signing up for insurance, but people signing up for full government paid healthcare.  This is an increase in expense for the government.

What I have seen transpire is a mass influx of pre-existing condition folks who could not get insurance before sign up on the exchange and very few young invincible's.  This issue primarily effects the health insurance companies because they have to have a certain percentage of young and healthy people to offset the not so healthy.  They assumed that with the mandate and a penalty that a larger percentage of people would sign up.  So far, they've assumed wrong which means they will either go bankrupt, or raise their rates to compensate for all the new payouts.

The second issue is the number of people signing up for medicaid.  I haven't seen any recent numbers, but on the earlier ones they reported that almost 90% of the people signing up on the exchanges were signing up for medicaid and not exchange plans.  I think I posted a few articles a while back about the medicaid spike being far greater than expected.

So, essentially what I think will happen is the insurance companies are going to get rocked and have to raise their rates a lot.  The revenues will be a fraction of what the government predicted.  Medicaid costs will go through the roof.
ACA will implode fiscally within two years.

I know, I'm just a fiscal conservative whose against all government spending, but seriously how can anyone think this thing is going to work out?  The Feds will try to prop it up by printing more money, but the states don't have that luxury.

The way that it will work is if a large number of people sign up. I agree that there are many problems with it and that it probably won't work as is.

I just have a problem with people continuing to complain about how expensive it is, but then when you ask them how much they are paying plus what their employer is paying now vs the total cost of the ACA insurance, you get crickets.  I know for me, as a 24 year old, it costs 1/3 as much to insure me on the exchange, vs my contribution+ my employers contribution. Now, clearly this won't be the case for everyone, but I think it is absolutely crap to run around screaming about how expensive it is for the individuals compared to the current system, without at least honestly exploring the real numbers on the level of individuals, not what you "think" is going to happen to the entire system and country.

 



Edited by dmiller5 2013-12-31 6:30 PM
2013-12-31 6:28 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers

dp



Edited by dmiller5 2013-12-31 6:30 PM
2013-12-31 6:42 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Expert
960
5001001001001002525
Highlands Ranch, CO
Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers

Originally posted by tuwood

OK, i'll try and give an objective response on this.

There are a couple of things with the ACA, you have the people who are signing up for insurance plans via the exchange.  The Federal government gets a cut of the premiums from everyone who signs up on the exchange, so it will have an impact on projected revenues if they fall short of their numbers.

You then have the expansion of medicaid which isn't people signing up for insurance, but people signing up for full government paid healthcare.  This is an increase in expense for the government.

What I have seen transpire is a mass influx of pre-existing condition folks who could not get insurance before sign up on the exchange and very few young invincible's.  This issue primarily effects the health insurance companies because they have to have a certain percentage of young and healthy people to offset the not so healthy.  They assumed that with the mandate and a penalty that a larger percentage of people would sign up.  So far, they've assumed wrong which means they will either go bankrupt, or raise their rates to compensate for all the new payouts.

The second issue is the number of people signing up for medicaid.  I haven't seen any recent numbers, but on the earlier ones they reported that almost 90% of the people signing up on the exchanges were signing up for medicaid and not exchange plans.  I think I posted a few articles a while back about the medicaid spike being far greater than expected.

So, essentially what I think will happen is the insurance companies are going to get rocked and have to raise their rates a lot.  The revenues will be a fraction of what the government predicted.  Medicaid costs will go through the roof.
ACA will implode fiscally within two years.

I know, I'm just a fiscal conservative whose against all government spending, but seriously how can anyone think this thing is going to work out?  The Feds will try to prop it up by printing more money, but the states don't have that luxury.

 

Could you possibly provide a source for the bolded part.  I had not heard this before.  So when the insurance companies collect premiums, they will be sending a portion to the government???

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » ACA and Dissappointing numbers Rss Feed  
 
 
of 3
 
 
RELATED POSTS

ACA Calculator Pages: 1 2

Started by dmiller5
Views: 3130 Posts: 27

2013-12-05 5:28 PM Stuartap

The ACA has revealed ignorance about...

Started by pga_mike
Views: 2372 Posts: 23

2013-10-09 9:17 AM Jackemy1

The ACA started with "Conservatives"?

Started by pga_mike
Views: 1739 Posts: 11

2013-10-04 1:26 PM kevin_trapp

ACA fun begins on Oct 1 (mines beginning already) Pages: 1 2 3 4

Started by tuwood
Views: 9287 Posts: 90

2013-11-10 7:50 AM NXS

ACA Employer Mandate Pushed to 2015

Started by Aarondb4
Views: 1307 Posts: 4

2013-07-08 9:20 AM tuwood
RELATED ARTICLES
date : January 14, 2008
author : dr_forbush
comments : 0
In addition to writing your race number on each upper arm, they also wrote your age on your calf. This allowed me to see who was passing me by in the bike section of this race.
 
date : July 2, 2006
author : acbadger
comments : 1
Is there a magic number of days off for your training plan? Is it a one size fits all or an an individual choice?
date : September 2, 2004
author : Michael
comments : 0
If you are going to do a triathlon, you need to know at least some of the basic rules that can keep you from getting hurt or hurting someone else.