UnitedHealth Care projects millions in losses from the ACA, & what it plans to do

Neomalthusian said:

If you need further explanation to understand my point, just ask.

When I said people just above 400% FPL (that means "federal poverty level") in high cost states are negatively affected by the law, this is what I mean:

I know of a small business owner with a family of 5 in Fairbanks, AK who makes somewhere just north of 400% of the FPL. For a family of 5 that's about $142,000. As a result this family has to pay the full private market rate for insurance, which happens to be over 20% of this family's income. If they earned $140,000 (just under 400% FPL) they'd get subsidies and pay no more than 9.5% of income ($13k) on premiums annually. Because they're just over that threshold they pay over 20% of their income, close to $40,000, and that's for the lowest cost bronze option. That is why it has been called a "subsidy cliff." It creates an arbitrary earnings disincentive around that level of income, discourages stay-at-home spouses from returning to work in some cases, and is just in general bad policy. All sorts of other welfare benefits are smoothed for this very reason, to avoid earnings and work disincentives. Why isn't this one? It's bad policy that it's not smoothed.

There are numerous other problems that affect different Americans in different states highly inequitably. Another big one is the family glitch. Do you know what that is? Do you want me to painstakingly explain that one to you as well? I can, just say the word.

Do you care? Probably not. Your main objective here is to defend the law at all costs like a partisan sheep and pretend its various problems don't exist.

Click to expand...

Neo, I understand the concept of the FPL. I didn't understand why it had to be "entrepreneurs". And neo, what proves you are a partisan sheep is you want to repeal Obamacare for things that affect a very small number of people and its questionable if its even a problem. And here's the rub Neo, its easily fixed. Only a partisan sheep, would obediently support repealing Obamacare because (put easily fixed small or imaginary issue here). But you don't care about making it better, you obediently want it repealed.


See neo, I can discuss the things you "trumpet" and we have but your silly talking points preclude you from acknowledging the massive benefits of Obamacare such as 17 million newly** insured, lowers the deficit and increases the quality of care. Partisan sheep like yourself know to play up the small or imagined problems and ignore the massive benefits. So neo, prove you're not a partisan sheep and simply state that thanks to Obamacare there 17 million newly** insured, lowers the deficit and increases the quality of care.

If you can't post the facts, you might as well post “baaaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaa” when you reply.,

**newly means they were not previously insured. Some cons still cant grasp that.

Vern said:

Neo, I understand the concept of the FPL. I didn't understand why it had to be "entrepreneurs".

Click to expand...

Entrepreneurs who have made a successful run at establishing a small-to-medium size business are 1) fairly likely to be able to earn >400% FPL while also 2) are self-employed, i.e. can't just hop on some employer's group plan, and 3) therefore spend upwards of 20% of their income in some cases on health insurance for their families. A family of 5 up here can in some cases spend upwards of $40,000 just in premiums and that's just for the bronze option. Conclusion: the outcome of this law on certain types of people varies widely.

And neo, what proves you are a partisan sheep is you want to repeal Obamacare for things that affect a very small number of people

Click to expand...

At this point I want to repeal it and implement single payer instead. You sound so gung-ho partisan loyalist in support of PPACA that you're presumably anti-single payer, yeah?

And here's the rub Neo, its easily fixed.

Click to expand...

Then stop desperately supporting the law as some wondrous thing and balking at the fact that it has serious problems that require fixing. Here's what needs to be done: 1) smooth the 400% FPL subsidy cliff, 2) fix the family glitch, i.e., make sure no one has to spend over 9.5% of their income on premiums, and not just for the working family member's individual self, but the whole family, 3) prohibit the in-network out-of-network swindle insurance companies have been allowed to continue wielding against their customers.

Do you have any basis for disagreeing with those recommendations? No, you do not. In fact your recent posts indicate you don't even understand what these things are, hence I've had to repeatedly explain them to you. And all you keep trying to do is celebrate what a wonderful law this is and continue pretending its problems don't actually exist.

So not only are you ignoring that we would be better served by single payer so that you can continue pretending PPACA is a godsend, but you're ignoring PPACA's flaws. Only a partisan sheep would do such things.

Vern said:

Neo, I understand the concept of the FPL. I didn't understand why it had to be "entrepreneurs". And neo, what proves you are a partisan sheep is you want to repeal Obamacare for things that affect a very small number of people and its questionable if its even a problem. And here's the rub Neo, its easily fixed. Only a partisan sheep, would obediently support repealing Obamacare because (put easily fixed small or imaginary issue here). But you don't care about making it better, you obediently want it repealed.


See neo, I can discuss the things you "trumpet" and we have but your silly talking points preclude you from acknowledging the massive benefits of Obamacare such as 17 million newly** insured, lowers the deficit and increases the quality of care. Partisan sheep like yourself know to play up the small or imagined problems and ignore the massive benefits. So neo, prove you're not a partisan sheep and simply state that thanks to Obamacare there 17 million newly** insured, lowers the deficit and increases the quality of care.

If you can't post the facts, you might as well post “baaaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaa” when you reply.,

**newly means they were not previously insured. Some cons still cant grasp that.

Click to expand...

When the individual states were left footing the bill for a poorly written federal act that was intended to be paid for with federal borrowed money?

Yeah..........nice try!

RetiredUSN said:

When the individual states were left footing the bill for a poorly written federal act that was intended to be paid for with federal borrowed money?

Yeah..........nice try!

Click to expand...

Retired, last time I responded to one of your chatroom esque posts, you cut and run. is this another "chatroom-esque" post? Lets find out.

first let me point out the hyperbole in your post:
left footing the bill
poorly written
paid for with borrowed money

I find conservatives resort to hyperbole when they cant make a clear straight forward and factual post. first "left footing the bill" is lacking any real substance. The Fed pays for 90% of Medicaid expansion after 3 years. The first 3 years, the fed paid 100%. Kentucky did a study whether to expand Medicaid. They found it saved money. Wow, more people with health care and it saved money. Who could find fault with that? obedient conservatives of course.

""After exhaustive review, CHFS strongly recommends expanding Medicaid in Kentucky. The Cabinet has found
that not only will expansion have tremendous benefits for the health of hundreds of thousands of Kentuckians;
upon full implementation, it would cost Kentucky more to turn it down."

"poorly written" is just you flaiing (obediently so) at Obamacare.

"paid for with borrowed money" is just odd. we paid for Iraq with borrowed money. What did that do besides kill 4000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. I could go on but you get the point. We paid for the Bush tax cuts with borrowed money. What did that do besides raise the deficit? Did you complain about either of those? Now we have a health care reform that actually reduces the deficit. The CBO told us (if you obediently flail at that then I'll know all I need to know about you) Obamacare reduces the deficit. And get this, in 2020, the fed will spend less on health care than if we didn't pass Obamacare at all. Think about that. 17 million newly** insured and we'll actually spend less than if we did nothing.

The $900 Billion Slowdown in Federal Health Care Spending | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Just scroll down to the 2020 Healthcare Spending Chart. So R, if you want to have an actual discussion then lets talk.

**newly means they were not previously insured. Some cons still cant grasp that.

Neomalthusian said:

At this point I want to repeal it and implement single payer instead. You sound so gung-ho partisan loyalist in support of PPACA that you're presumably anti-single payer, yeah?

Click to expand...

gung ho? Neo, I'm simply posting the facts. And here's the key neo, I'm discussing your points. You're not discussing the fact that Obamacare created 17 million newly** insured, lowers the deficit and increases the quality of care. And neo, I have to laugh, only conservative partisan sheep so obediently filled with hatred for Obamacare want single payer now. that's just funny.

Then stop desperately supporting the law as some wondrous thing and balking at the fact that it has serious problems that require fixing. Here's what needs to be done: 1) smooth the 400% FPL subsidy cliff, 2) fix the family glitch, i.e., make sure no one has to spend over 9.5% of their income on premiums, and not just for the working family member's individual self, but the whole family, 3) prohibit the in-network out-of-network swindle insurance companies have been allowed to continue wielding against their customers.

Click to expand...

Neo, we've discussed this before. I pointed out to you previously that republicans are the road block to fixing these small or imagined problems. And neo, it is a "wondrous thing". Without it we'd still have the republican plan of status quo. Partisan sheep like yourself cant admit its "wondrous" compared to the republican plan of status quo.

So not only are you ignoring that we would be better served by single payer so that you can continue pretending PPACA is a godsend, but you're ignoring PPACA's flaws. Only a partisan sheep would do such things.

Click to expand...

First off it is a "godsend". Without it, we'd still have the republican plan of status quo. And I don't know that single payer is better. Your obedient partisan sheep agenda is the only thing that tells you single payer would be better. Here's an excellent thread to highlight my opinion.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/obama...amacare-republican-proof.html?highlight=proof

I can only tell you that if your conservative masters told you to oppose single payer and you would have obediently hated it. And neo, I'm ignoring no flaws. I'm ignoring your hyperbole because your agenda is to repeal Obamacare not fix it. Like I said, you have to ignore the massive benefits of Obamacare and whine about the small or imagned problems and you have to ignore that its republicans stopping any of the simple fixes for the small and imagined problems.

Neomalthusian said:

Then stop desperately supporting the law as some wondrous thing and balking at the fact that it has serious problems that require fixing. Here's what needs to be done: 1) smooth the 400% FPL subsidy cliff, 2) fix the family glitch, i.e., make sure no one has to spend over 9.5% of their income on premiums, and not just for the working family member's individual self, but the whole family, 3) prohibit the in-network out-of-network swindle insurance companies have been allowed to continue wielding against their customers.

Click to expand...

1) Presumably you want to achieve that by pushing the cutoff to higher incomes (500% FPL? 600%?). For many consumers, there is no subsidy cliff, the subsidies phase out before you get to 400% FPL. Where it does exist, it's because premiums are high in relation to incomes--so it affects those in the higher age brackets or those in high-premium states like yours. Push the cutoff higher, and more people in high-cost see the subsides phase out like younger people and those in low-premium areas do. But that means dedicating more federal money to premium subsidies. Even though spending on the premium subsidies has been below expectations, that's going to be a tough sell politically.

2) This is easy enough, if Congress is willing. Hillary Clinton has already called this out as something she wants to change.

3) I don't know what this means. You want all providers to be in-network for all plans? That will just make your problem worse. Part of the reason Alaska has such high premiums is that it already has extremely weak managed care (mostly due to state laws), which effectively hands pricing power over to health care providers. You can be angry at Obama but the inflationary incentives pushing up prices in your state are baked into the Alaska Administrative Code. It sounds like you want to double down on this. That would be a mistake.