Nate Silver urges progresseves to support the Senate bill

[pscot]

I have a lot of respect for Nate Silver's opinions, since he always has the math to back them up. My initial response to the Senate bill was the same as Olberman's: no sale. According to Nate, that's the wrong answer. There's a lovely chart at the link.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/why-progressives-are-batshit-crazy-to.html

These estimates are straightforward -- they're taken directly from the CBO's report on premiums for people at different income levels. A family of four earning an income of $54,000 would pay $4,000 in premiums, and could expect to incur another $5,000 in out-of-pocket costs. The $4,000 premium represents a substantial discount, because the government is covering 72 percent of the premium -- meaning that the gross cost of the premium is $14,286, some $10,286 of which the government pays.
------
Status Quo. In 2009, the average premium for a family in the individual market was $6,328, according to the insurance lobbying group AHIP. However, this figure paints an optimistic picture for two reasons. Firstly, the average family size in the AHIP dataset is 3.03 people; for a family of four, that number would scale upward to $7,925, by my calculations. Secondly, the CBO's estimates are based on 2016 figures, not 2009, so to make an apples-to-apples comparison, we have to account for inflation. According to Kaiser, the average cost of health coverage has increased by about 8.7 percent annually over the past decade, and by 8.8 percent for family coverage. Let's scale that down slightly, assuming 7.5 annual inflation in premiums from 2009 through 2016 inclusive. That would bring the cost of the family's premium up by a nominal 66 percent, to $13,149. And remember: these are based on estimates of premiums provided by the insurance lobby. I have no particular reason to think that they're biased, but if they are, it's probably on the low side.

Not only, however, would this family paying a lot more under the status quo, but they'd be doing so for inferior insurance. According to the CBO, the amount of coverage in the individual market would improve by between 27 and 30 percent under the Senate's bill. Taking the midpoint of those numbers (28.5 percent), we can infer that there would be about $1,427 in additional cost sharing to this family in the status quo as compared with the Senate bill; this would bring their cost sharing to $6,427 total.

Add the $6,247 to the $13,149 and you get an annual cost of $19,576 -- for a family earning $54,000! Obviously, very few such families are going to be able to afford that unless they have a lot of money in the bank. So, some of these families will go without insurance, or they'll by really crappy insurance, or they'll pay the premiums but skimp on out-of-pocket costs, which will negatively impact their fiscal and physical health. But if this family were to want to obtain equivalent coverage to that which would be available to them for $9,000 in the Senate bill, it would cost them between $19,000 and $20,000, according to my estimates. (more)

[mzmolly]

1. K and R. We need to hear from everyone on this!

Thank you. :hi:

[laughingliberal]

2. Yeah and a couple making $58,280 will pay $14,400 a year in premiums

and another $5000-10, 000 in premiums. That's that same family at around forty five when the kids have grown up and left home and you managed to move up the income scale a little.

[pscot]

9. Instead of making shit up

read what Silver has to say, and take a look at his chart. Uninformed hysteria is not very useful.

[Nikki Stone1]

14. So what will they have to pay?

Instead of attacking, give the real information in a usable form. Saying "Look as his chart" won't work for most folks.

[pscot]

21. Are you really arguing that most DUers are too dumb

to understand a three bar chart with a dozen or so numbers on it. If that's the case we are well and truely fucked. This is arithmetic; simple addition. Anybody who successfully navigated the 5th grade should be able to understand this. After all, it was created by Senators, not electrical engineers.

[Nikki Stone1]

34. No, I am arguing that if you have a point to prove, the onus is on you to provide the evidence

in a readable and understandable format. If you're not really interested in proving your point, then you can do whatever you like. But no one ever gained a following by implying that people were too dumb to come up with the information themselves and not providing information in an convenient format. State your point, state your evidence, then provide your links. Don't stand back with arms folded saying, "Well, I'm right, and you have to search through all this info to see why." Most people will tell you "Thanks, but no thanks." Then you're just another elitist who believes it takes too much out of your precious time on earth to make your case to "the little people."

[laughingliberal]

26. Typical, no response from that side. What they will have to pay is whatever the damned

insurance gods of our lives decide they will have to pay. A couple with income over $58,280 a year does not qualify for a subsidy. And there is nothing to effectively prevent the criminal enterprises from charging whatever they want. I've stated what they were charging us. That was probably mild compared to what we'll be seeing in the future.

[Nikki Stone1]

35. Thanks for noticing! And thank YOU for providing the information.

Much appreciated. You've made your point.

[laughingliberal]

25. I don' t have to read what Silver has to say...

I have a calculator. I have a chart of the federal poverty guidelines. and I know what we were paying in premiums last year. I really don't need someone else to tell me what I can plainly add, subtract, multiply, and divide for myself.

Are there none among us who can't read the damned thing for themselves?

Edited to add Federal Poverty Guidelines. Add it up, yourself.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibility/Downloads/POV09Combo.pdf

FAMILY PERCENT OF POVERTY GUIDELINE
SIZE 100% 120% 133% 135% 150% 175% 185% 200% 250%
1 10,830.00 12,996.00 14,403.90 14,620.50 16,245.00 18,952.50 20,035.50 21,660.00 27,075.00
2 14,570.00 17,484.00 19,378.10 19,669.50 21,855.00 25,497.50 26,954.50 29,140.00 36,425.00
3 18,310.00 21,972.00 24,352.30 24,718.50 27,465.00 32,042.50 33,873.50 36,620.00 45,775.00
4 22,050.00 26,460.00 29,326.50 29,767.50 33,075.00 38,587.50 40,792.50 44,100.00 55,125.00
5 25,790.00 30,948.00 34,300.70 34,816.50 38,685.00 45,132.50 47,711.50 51,580.00 64,475.00
6 29,530.00 35,436.00 39,274.90 39,865.50 44,295.00 51,677.50 54,630.50 59,060.00 73,825.00
7 33,270.00 39,924.00 44,249.10 44,914.50 49,905.00 58,222.50 61,549.50 66,540.00 83,175.00
8 37,010.00 44,412.00 49,223.30 49,963.50 55,515.00 64,767.50 68,468.50 74,020.00 92,525.00
For family units of more than 8 members, add $3,740 for each additional member.
MONTHLY GUIDELINES
FAMILY PERCENT OF POVERTY GUIDELINE
SIZE 100% 120% 133% 135% 150% 175% 185% 200% 250%
1 902.50 1,083.00 1,200.33 1,218.38 1,353.75 1,579.38 1,669.63 1,805.00 2,256.25
2 1,214.17 1,457.00 1,614.84 1,639.13 1,821.25 2,124.79 2,246.21 2,428.33 3,035.42
3 1,525.83 1,831.00 2,029.36 2,059.88 2,288.75 2,670.21 2,822.79 3,051.67 3,814.58
4 1,837.50 2,205.00 2,443.88 2,480.63 2,756.25 3,215.63 3,399.38 3,675.00 4,593.75
5 2,149.17 2,579.00 2,858.39 2,901.38 3,223.75 3,761.04 3,975.96 4,298.33 5,372.92
6 2,460.83 2,953.00 3,272.91 3,322.13 3,691.25 4,306.46 4,552.54 4,921.67 6,152.08
7 2,772.50 3,327.00 3,687.43 3,742.88 4,158.75 4,851.88 5,129.13 5,545.00 6,931.25
8 3,084.17 3,701.00 4,101.94 4,163.63 4,626.25 5,397.29 5,705.71 6,168.33 7,710.42

[Hello_Kitty]

32. What is being made up here?

The poster says that the couple is making more money and...pay attention...the kids have grown up. There's a reason that the HCR cheerleaders always use the "family of four" as a default. It's because that's where it looks the best. You won't see Silver or any of the others using a single person or DINKs to illustrate the plan, even though the majority of households in the US do not have dependent children living in them.

[gratuitous]

3. Okay, so insurance premiums are cheaper

Do we have any hedge against those premiums rising at a rate five, ten or 20 times that of inflation in the coming years? Will the government paid part keep up with rising premiums? Are the consumers protected against peremptory denials of coverage? Pre-existing conditions covered, or is there a waiting period during which the consumer hopes he or she doesn't die? What obligations are imposed on the insurance companies for access to this captive crop of consumers with taxpayer funded premiums? Any at all?

[laughingliberal]

27. All good points. Insurance premiums are not cheaper, though

Some people might pay less due to the government subsidizing them. But the insurance company will be collecting the same amount. And, no, there's nothing to keep them from rising at the same rate they do now. The only concession we got for handing up our population to them was the ban on denials for preexisting conditions. But nothing to keep them from getting their rates high enough to price us out.

[rurallib]

4. IIRC several of the commentors had problems with Silver's numbers

including that the presentation he gave included a public option being available.

My concern is that maybe there are some good things for today, but they will soon be gone without a true alternative.

[pscot]

10. At the link, Silver notes that this was before the PO was dropped

but says that shouldn't make much difference to these numbers.

[clear eye]

18. Yeah. Right.

Thanks for exposing the flaw in the logic.

[pscot]

23. Say what?

:think:

[Walk away]

5. The last thing I can cut is my Health Insurance. If it comes to my home....

or HC then I am choosing my home. I already have crap insurance but because of pre-existing conditions my rates will skyrocket if BCBS is forced to cover me for everything.

I don't know who this bill is really going to help but there is a good chance I will end up being fined and uninsured. I hope it fails.

[optimator]

6. fuck nate silver

I have zero respect for that piece of shit.

[pscot]

13. Even idiots

are entitled to their opinions.

[ourbluenation]

30. why?

[Vinnie From Indy]

7. Nate's is missing a huge detail

The numbers he is using are direct result of the rampant greed of the health insurance companies. His math is meaningless for a number of reasons. One reason he missing the boat is that he is basing his numbers on the artificially high rates now being charged by insurance companies and drug companies. In addition, the numbers he is using for his calculations will have no relation to reality when the bill finally takes effect. The rates in a few years will undoubtedly be much higher while the income level of the family of four that he writes about will be the same or less.

Nice try Nate, but you are deliriously wrong!

[Nikki Stone1]

16. +1

.

[quiller4]

22. Nate is right. His math isn't based on wishful thinking.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. I remember another controversy involving math from about a year and a half ago.

Some people had rage. Other people had numbers.

The people with the numbers won.

[sui generis]

11. just because we've been handed a rotten turnip instead of a blood bag

doesn't mean we should hook up an IV.

Whatever blood we get out of this turnip of a bill may end up being worse than nothing.

1. We need a public option
2. level premiums
3. no caps or pre-existing and no "start up" period
4. take it out of our employment taxes or opt out up front with a certificate.
5. get employers out of the insurance business - they'll be able to create more jobs that way.
6. stop fucking compromising with the republicans. They aren't compromising in return on ANYTHING.
7. stop letting democratic senators add STUPID obstructive amendments.

Those politicians in 6 & 7 are a waste of perfectly good piss poor protoplasm that should be used for biofuel instead.

[dysfunctional press]

12. what do they use to determine a person/family's income...?

the prior year's tax return...?

what if the person has been unemployed for awhile since then...? do they have to wait until they file the next year's income tax before their income numbers would be adjusted? :shrug:

i'm asking because i don't know how it would be determined.

[zalinda]

17. Good question

Plus, it is more expensive for someone to live in Los Angeles or New York City, then say Little Rock, Arkansas. So, that family of 4 making $54,000 in LA or NY is barely surviving, but the same family in Little Rock has no problem in affording the fees. Then what?

zalinda

[pscot]

19. I don't know either

The fact is that none of us know what's in the fine print. The thing is morphing so fast I doubt most Senators fully understand it. All we have to go on is informed opinion, like Nate Silver's and others. I saw Kos on Olberman's program last night, and he's not ready to bail on this yet. He's close, but he's still mulling it over. Whatever comes out of the Senate will have to back to the House and is likely to be subject to a conference. I'm not advocating we just shut up and let them walk all over us. Just that we base our arguments on what's real, rather than a bunch of amped up internet rumors.

[tomm2thumbs]

15. I never hire a statistician to do what a doctor knows about - I listen to Dr. Dean

The next time I need some numbers run on an election, we'll chat with Nate - just as long as it ain't about the Oscars - he's never gotten that right either

[pscot]

24. Well in that case

you probably know that Dr.Dean has stepped back a bit from the notion that the bill should just be killed. I'm a great admirer of the the good doctor. but I've had a lot of experience with doctors in the last year or so, and I'm starting to think about them the same way I think about car mechanics. The quality varies.

[laughingliberal]

28. He supports working to fix the bill in conference and killing it if it stays as it is. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

33. You post false hoods

figures with the public option to push a bill without one. That is very dishonest.

[BlueIdaho]

20. Nate who?

[nemo137]

29. How is it that a post with actual information to pick apart

has been so completely unrecced?

[Bluenorthwest]

31. These are out of date figures

Silver is pushing figures based on a scenario including a public option. Posting this is weak.