re: Someone help me understand

quote:

---

These trends existed well before the ACA.

---

Indeed.

quote:

---

And I suppose you are in the employer market?

---

no individual market. my employer has never paid for my health care (i said i'm not a leech)

quote:

---

The data said the average plan at that period was typically 4x that much.

---

for young people with no PECs?

quote:

---

But what I am not seeing you square is why you think repeal will magically push healthcare costs to 2009 levels and reverse a trend that was ongoing well before Obama was even in the US senate?

---

i never said that. my question to 5th was always whether or not MY rates would have gone up 500% since 2010 had the ACA not passed

i understand i wouldn't be paying $100/month. even if inflation was insane and i was paying 2.5x what i was (which is almost double the increase rates you posted of 131%), i'd still be paying HALF of what i am today

quote:

---

, the failure of the ACA is that it didn't reverse already ongoing trends, not that it originated them. So the logic that just repealing it fixes the underlying problems driving premium inflation is not true.

---

it is true for certain demos

the demos the ACA was written to frick over to subsidize everyone else would see much less inflation over time

quote:

---

for young people with no PECs?

---

Young people were typically better off price wise. But unless you are young forever, you are going to continue inching into the more expensive brackets.

I was a model of health in 2006 when I was on the individual market temporarily,and was never able to find a policy that was below 100 dollars that wasn't mostly shite, so I do wonder where you lived that you got such a great policy for so cheap?

quote:

---

i never said that. my question to 5th was always whether or not MY rates would have gone up 500% since 2010 had the ACA not passed

i understand i wouldn't be paying $100/month. even if inflation was insane and i was paying 2.5x what i was (which is almost double the increase rates you posted of 131%), i'd still be paying HALF of what i am today

---

Like I said, you probably would be slightly better off, though you would still probably be cursing your healthcare bills. But for how long would you remain better off? Unless you managed to stop aging, as you get older, the pocketbook hit in a less dispersed private market would end up being particularly harsh as most insurers would prefer to charge people a lot more as they age unless you are doing things like the ACA to offset it.

quote:

---

I don't know if you just don't know how to read charts,

---

Spoiler alert: he doesn't

quote:

---

Like I said, you probably would be slightly better off, though you would still probably be cursing your healthcare bills. But for how long would you remain better off? Unless you managed to stop aging, as you get older, the pocketbook hit in a less dispersed private market would end up being particularly harsh as most insurers would prefer to charge people a lot more as they age

---

over time i should accumulate more wealth and income so that offsets the increase

a bit more logical than giving breaks to those who have had decades to accumulate wealth and penalizing those trying to start their careers, i'd hope you'd agree

quote:

---

My own personal trend shows that my premiums barely increased prior to Obamacare being forced on us.

---

me too but that's a function of our age

we'd 100% be paying more now. probably in that 130-150% level that we say prior to the ACA

i don't think anyone is intellectually dishonest enough to say we'd be worse off than the 400-500% increase we have seen

quote:

---

over time i should accumulate more wealth and income so that offsets the increase

a bit more logical than giving breaks to those who have had decades to accumulate wealth and penalizing those trying to start their careers, i'd hope you'd agree

---

Perhaps it would make more sense if wage growth and personal wealth outpaced healthcare inflation. And we didn't have this weird trend, especially in rural areas, of working class, non-college graduates, actually seeing their wages decrease after they hit a middle age threshold. Putting them in a particularly vulnerable position if you jack up their rates.

And while ironically the employer tax credit has been shown with pretty solid evidence to be a major driver in wage stagnation, it is probably not going away.

The way the ACA is set up is based on income when it comes to subsidies. So while the 3:1 age rating means younger people pay more, the theory is that younger people with lower incomes will find themselves getting more in subsides to pay off that. Now I think the Dems fricked up on how they structured it, since people that are fortunate enough to get good jobs are the ones that get hurt. If you are 27 and make 25,000 you are pretty golden in terms of affording health insurance compared to a 27 year old making 60,000 and living in an expensive city(though I think both situations are not particularly ideal).

But I will say, I am more then open to re-structuring the system in a way that addresses this problem. As is the young people with middle incomes are getting squeezed while people on either side tend to be better off comparatively. But it should be done in a way that isn't swapping harm for one group to an equal or greater harm to another.

quote:

---

I don't know if you just don't know how to read charts

---

Really?

It's unclear if your response relates to group health insurance which seems the closest analog attainable to ACA unsubsidized premiums, or confusion about rate of inflation. Try making a point, and we'll discuss it.

quote:

---

don't know you or your situation..but probably. That is what the data/trends say

---