In The Philadelphia Inquirer is an 'article' called 'Obamacare: A bad deal for young people'

[onehandle]

It's sponsored by Independence Blue Cross and written by The Heritage Foundation.

Currently it's on the home page of their website:

http://www.philly.com/philly/health/healthcare-exchange/Obamacare_A_bad_deal_for_young_people.html

[OKNancy]

1. That sure isn't our families experience

My 29 year old daughter got a great deal. My 61 year old husband got a good deal too, but because of his age, of course he has to pay more.

[Berlum]

2. Right wing crapaganda (R) to pollute American brainpans

Skunky skanky skuzzy Republicon "values" on display. As usual.

[Mass]

3. I am relatively certain that some of their assumptions are false.

I have done some simulations on the Sherpa website and in general, the 60 year old pay more than the 30 year old (once factored into it the penalty for age).

However, the criticism that subsidies only apply to policies bought on the exchange and that these policies are often limited in space and network is true and frustrating, both for young people and for older people. For example, my son can either choose to keep his school insurance, who is expensive but covers Rhode Island and Massachusetts (and the rest of the country), or go to exchange in MA, with a policy that covers only part of MA.

[GoldenOldie]

4. Heritage Foundation?

This alone tells me all I need to know.

[Freddie]

5. Independence Blue Cross

Is advertising heavily about how to get one of their plans on the Exchange, and has a very user-friendly website devoted to same. Since only IBC and Aetna are selling plans on the exchange around here, they stand to make plenty $$ on Obamacare. Hypocritical asswipes.

[onehandle]

6. They can afford to play both sides of the coin.

When the inevitable happens and we have universal healthcare, let them wither and die.

[Freddie]

17. Looking forward to it

My brother, a "moderate", was saying how horrible it would be to put all those insurance co. drones, hospital billing clerks, etc. out of work. Didn't we put thousands of blacksmiths out of work 100 years ago? Some occupations will have a time limit. Part of the problem with our health care "system" (which the ACA perpetuates, unfortunately) is the horrendous waste of $$ on labor pushing paper.

[Demo_Chris]

7. Actually, they are correct, that's the point of the mandate...

The ACA relies on younger healthier people purchasing policies that they do not need (thus funneling their money to the insurance companies) in order to subsidize the policies of those who are older and have pre-existing conditions. If this were a great deal for young people we wouldn't need a mandate, we could just tell them how great it is and stand back.

In other words, the ACA is a regressive tax, a wealth transfer from the young and poor -- those least able to afford anything -- to the older and affluent.

[ProSense]

9. This is pure

"In other words, the ACA is a regressive tax, a wealth transfer from the young and poor -- those least able to afford anything -- to the older and affluent. "

...nonsense. Not only does the ACA allow young people to stay on their parents' plan up to age 26, most young people will be paying a lot less for coverage.

Obama Admin: Half Of Young Americans Could Buy Insurance For $50 Or Less
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023939187

Those who are young and wealthy are asked to pay more.

The Heritage Foundation is full of shit.

[Demo_Chris]

12. Yeah, but that's crap Prosense, and you know it...

Or are we now supposed to pretend that the White House isn't terrified that young people are going to opt out.

[ProSense]

13. No, it's not "crap." The Heritage Foundation is spewing crap

and you're attempting to validate it.

[Demo_Chris]

16. Then there is nothing to worry about and we don't need any mandates. nt

[ProSense]

19. What does that have to do with the fact that the OP is nonsense?

"Then there is nothing to worry about and we don't need any mandates."

Is not liking the mandates justification for validating nonsense from the Heritage Foundation?

[Demo_Chris]

24. As I said, it's not, but that's okay. I am not interested in debating the self-evident. nt

[Nye Bevan]

10. A tax-funded single-payer system would do exactly the same thing.

Young people in the UK, for example, do not pay a lower tax rate due to being less likely to use the National Health Service.

[Demo_Chris]

14. The NHS is funded through general taxation. nt

[Romulox]

15. Not with a progressive income tax it wouldn't, since older workers are wealthier, and earn more.

This is simple math. Progressive taxation is the essence of the entire progressive movement.

[Nye Bevan]

29. I think quite a few DUers would dispute your "older=wealthier" theory.

I'm fine with the rich paying more towards national healthcare. But I also have no problem with a 25 year old and a 55 year old paying the same if their incomes happen to be identical.

[Romulox]

31. It's statistically true, even as there are many individual exceptions.

At any rate, who cares? In the system I propose, we would tax based on income, not age.

That's not the system enacted with ACA, however--ACA hopes that lower-income young people can subsidize higher-income older people, and far from equal taxation, it's a bizarre for-profit plan riddled with arcane exemption, subsidies, and guaranteed profits for private industry. It's a nonsensical plan.

[ProSense]

23. Another reason

"In other words, the ACA is a regressive tax, a wealth transfer from the young and poor -- those least able to afford anything -- to the older and affluent. "

...why that's nonsense: the new tax on the high-income earners and the wealthy.

Reported when the law passed in 2010:

A big chunk of the money to pay for the bill comes from lifting payroll taxes on households making more than $250,000. On average, the annual tax bill for households making more than $1 million a year will rise by $46,000 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. Another major piece of financing would cut Medicare subsidies for private insurers, ultimately affecting their executives and shareholders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/24leonhardt.html

It's the law, 2013:

Net Investment Income Tax

A new Net Investment Income Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 3.8 percent Net Investment Income Tax applies to individuals, estates and trusts that have certain investment income above certain threshold amounts. The IRS and the Treasury Department have issued proposed regulations on the Net Investment Income Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Net Investment Income Tax, see our questions and answers.

Additional Medicare Tax

A new Additional Medicare Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 0.9 percent Additional Medicare Tax applies to an individual’s wages, Railroad Retirement Tax Act compensation, and self-employment income that exceeds a threshold amount based on the individual’s filing status. The threshold amounts are $250,000 for married taxpayers who file jointly, $125,000 for married taxpayers who file separately, and $200,000 for all other taxpayers. An employer is responsible for withholding the Additional Medicare Tax from wages or compensation it pays to an employee in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year. The IRS and the Department of the Treasury have issued proposed regulations on the Additional Medicare Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Additional Medicare Tax, see our questions and answers.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions

[Demo_Chris]

27. That's paying for the subsidy/tax credit side of things. The other larger half...

Is the insurance company side. That's covered by forcing every man, woman, and child in America to send in a check every month to their friendly neighborhood insurance company.

And it is there that we are told that people have to send that money in, they HAVE TO, particularly the young and relatively healthy, otherwise the entire system doesn't work. We need to force young people to buy catastrophic policies that they cannot afford to take advantage of -- worthless policies -- because that's what makes it work for older people with pre-existing conditions.

Now we COULD have spent less as a nation, provided actual healthcare for everyone, AND funded it progressively rather than regressively, but that wasn't anything this White House was interested in doing.

[ProSense]

30. There you go again

"That's paying for the subsidy/tax credit side of things. The other larger half...

Is the insurance company side. That's covered by forcing every man, woman, and child in America to send in a check every month to their friendly neighborhood insurance company."

...conflating the argument about how the law is paid for with the mandate.

You're agreeing with a BS premise advanced by Heritage because you dislike the mandate, which has nothing to do with "a wealth transfer from the young and poor -- those least able to afford anything -- to the older and affluent."

The fact is that wealthy Americans will pay more as part of the formula.

[mmonk]

34. +1

[sendero]

8. Wasn't the ACA ...

..... based on a Heritage proposal?

Fact is, you cannot wait until you are 60 and needing care to start paying into the system. It's really not a difficult concept but it is easily spun for the challenged of intelligence.

[ProSense]

11. Krugman explained

"Wasn't the ACA .... based on a Heritage proposal?"

...the disconnect best, citing what Jonathan Chait calls the "Heritage uncertainty principle":

And here’s the thing: Republicans don’t want to help the unfortunate. They’ll propound health-care ideas that will, they claim, help those with preexisting conditions and so on — but those aren’t really proposals, they’re diversionary tactics designed to stall real health reform. Chait finds Newt Gingrich more or less explicitly admitting this.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/a-health-care-mystery-explained/?_r=0

Republican proposals are hypothetical and theoretical BS. They have no intention of doing anything positive. They get credit for pushing things that they don't actually support and would never enact.

It's like Romney's veto of the most significant parts of the MA health care law.

It's like the AEI asshole pushing that Republicans should stand up for the safety net when his actual message is the poor should support destroying it.

[Romulox]

21. Was that after Krugman recently explained his support for the Trans Pacific Partnership?

And previous to that, NAFTA? Paul Krugman is another "Third Wayer" who has grown coy about the self-description.

He is the intellectual center of "Clintonian economics", and it is his bitter fruit we gnaw on to this day.

[ProSense]

26. You're knocking Krugman and agreeing with BS from the Heritage Foundation?

LOL!

[Romulox]

28. Nonsense. Obamacare ("Romneycare") is *also* from the Heritage Foundation. YOU agree with them. nt

[solarhydrocan]

18. Yes it was

The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at Heritage in a publication titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans".[21] This was also the model for Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts.[22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_foundation#Policy_influence

Here's the original paper by Stewart Butler, Heritage foundation.

Notice how they used the Auto insurance argument so popular with third way "liberals"

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans

2) Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance. Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have li a bility insurance.

But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. This man d ate is based on two important principles.

First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is the family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection.

If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not h e has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services - even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans

Why is anyone surprised? Obama told us all his policies are republican ones from the 80's

[Romulox]

20. Yes, and almost exactly in the form it was enacted--e.g. no drug reimportation, no public option. nt

[Romulox]

22. The idea that the youngest workers could bail out the healthcare industry is bizarre, to begin with.

The math doesn't work, and we all know it.

[PCIntern]

25. that's my paper and here's the funny part:

no one ever fricking reads it anymore anyway...even the website readership is way down so screw them and SCREW THEM.

I'm gonna write some comments in a little bit for their benefit...

[Capt. Obvious]

32. Your posting this here why?

This isn't going to feed the homeless or create jobs.

[onehandle]

33. Welcome to ignore.

Stalker.

[Capt. Obvious]

35. How immature of you

and I doubt that's true as I'm sure you'll pop in on my next atheist thread, stalker.

[hughee99]

36. Of course it is...

insurance in general isn't a great deal for young, healthy people. They ACA may provide them a BETTER deal than they're currently getting, though (for those who have insurance). The thing is, the people who are "young people" today, won't be "young people" in 20 or 40 years and we're trying to establish a system where EVERYONE can benefit when they need the insurance.