The only losers are the people

You're disingenuously ignoring that Obamacare's objective level of 40% was never reached at all, and that the margin of shortfall widened from 12% to 14% with all indications that it will continue to widen. Obamacare cannot survive without that target group participating at the 40% level projected. Insurers are hemorrhaging cash and will continue to withdraw without financial input from that group. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Do you have a link for that 40% number? I believe that it was 35% that they wanted to see. It's true that they did not get 35% low risk participation. The result of that was significant premium spikes in years 2016 and 2017.

One more time, you would have a point if the total population on the exchanges kept increasing from year to year. However, that is not the case. The number of people buying health insurance on HealthCare.Gov has leveled off in 2017 to about 12 million people. In terms of the individual market the Health insurance companies are taking on the same amount of risk in 2017 that they did in 2016. Aetna stayed in the five states where they made a profit. Aetna is not losing cash in those states. If they were they would have stopped selling health insurance in those states as well.

Again, BCBS is the health insurance company to watch. The two things to look for are will they come back to the exchanges in 2018 and will request they steep premium increases.

“[T]here are significant reasons for concern. For one thing, while enrollment did grow relative to the same period last year, it didn’t grow much -- roughly 2.4 percent. More than 1 percent of that can be accounted for by population growth, meaning that we’re still basically flat-lining with a whole lot of people still uninsured.

“In particular, these are the young, healthy people you want on the exchanges, because they pay premiums without using much health care, lowering the cost of insurance for everyone else. Before Odumbocare went live, the Odumbo administration was saying it needed about 40 percent of the people on the exchanges to be between the ages of 18 and 34. It ended up with 28 percent, which is one reason the cost of insurance is so high.

“Worse still, that percentage went down this year, as [‘Politico’s’ Danny] Vinik notes: ‘There was a slight drop in the proportion of younger enrollees: Of the people buying insurance on the exchanges, 26 percent were between the ages of 18 and 34, down from last year’s figure of 28 percent.’

“That’s really bad news.” (Bloomberg)

.

"[F]ewer young adults than expected have enrolled in Odumbocare. Young adults are typically healthy and frequent the doctor a lot less, so their premium dollars are critical to offsetting the higher costs of treating older and sicker patients. The problem here could very well be that the SRP simply isn't high enough to coerce young adults to enroll. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that the average SRP in 2016 could be $969. Now compare that to the lowest-cost bronze plan in each state which could be $2,400 for the year -- and that's on the low end. The two costs aren't even close, and young adults could simply be choosing the cheaper path, which in this case means not buying health insurance." (Motley Fool)

"To reduce the risk of adverse selection, Odumbocare created a penalty for people who do not enroll in insurance. However, the penalty for not having insurance in 2016 was the higher of $695 per individual or 2.5% of income. Although $695 is a lot of money, it is still cheaper than health insurance policies offered on the exchange. Healthy people might decide to pay the penalty rather than buy the insurance. The biggest risk facing participating Odumbocare insurers is the lack of a mandate: healthy people can avoid buying insurance and pay the penalty instead.

"In a death spiral, not enough healthy people sign up for insurance. If there are too many sick people in an insurance pool, the cost of claims could be much higher than the premiums received. To make up for the loss, insurance companies increase rates. But those higher premiums will scare away healthy people, creating the 'death spiral.'

"The 2017 renewal season is worrisome. Not enough healthy people have enrolled. Insurance companies have responded to the losses by increasing premiums. But those higher premiums could end up scaring away even more healthy people." (Forbes)

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I have a lot of respect for Motley Fool. I am not arguing that the fine/tax/penalty is cheaper than the cheapest health insurance plan sold at HealthCare.Gov.

The 40% that Bloomberg said is suspect number. I have seen 35% in other places.

Like I said before BCBS is the health insurance company to watch in 2018. What they do will have an impact on the ACA.

I have a lot of respect for Motley Fool. I am not arguing that the fine/tax/penalty is cheaper than the cheapest health insurance plan sold at HealthCare.Gov.

The 40% that Bloomberg said is suspect number. I have seen 35% in other places.

Like I said before BCBS is the health insurance company to watch in 2018. What they do will have an impact on the ACA. Originally Posted by flghtr65

From three years ago.

One in four Odumbocare enrollees are young adults. That’s below the target.

The Odumbo administration has just released the enrollment report that health wonks around the world have anxiously awaited: The one that shows the age breakdown of people selecting insurance plans under Odumbocare.

It shows okay news for the White House: Twenty-four percent of those purchasing coverage are young adults, the coveted age group between 18 and 34 -- the exact group the White House thinks it really, really needs to enroll to make the health-care law work.

This is below the White House's target. The Odumbo administration has previously said that if 7 million people enrolled in coverage as expected, 2.7 million of them -- or about 40 percent -- would have to be young adults. That's an important target to hit because more young adults in the exchanges would mean a more healthy population, whose premiums could help subsidize the health care of older and sicker enrollees. (WaPo)

From three years ago. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

From your WAPO link.

Even more important than these top-line numbers is what's happening in each state. Insurance rates are set on a state-by-state basis, so even if thousands of young people are signing up in California, it doesn't effect the premiums in neighboring Nevada.

Which is why there has not been premium spikes in every state. Just in the states where the right mix was not achieved. You really have to look at each state.

From your WAPO link.

Even more important than these top-line numbers is what's happening in each state. Insurance rates are set on a state-by-state basis, so even if thousands of young people are signing up in California, it doesn't effect the premiums in neighboring Nevada.

Which is why there has not been premium spikes in every state. Just in the states where the right mix was not achieved. You really have to look at each state. Originally Posted by flghtr65

Exactly....it really is a state by state situation.

I've tried to tell some of these fuckers Obamacare is not in the Death spiral that they are making it out to be. Though in some states it is in a spiral.


.

Anthem (Blue Cross Blue Shield) is selling health insurance on the government exchange (HealthCare.Gov). BCBS is a major player. The death spiral that you are talking about implies that all the major health insurance will stop selling health insurance on HealthCare.gov due to unbalanced risk pools.

The number of people buying health insurance at HealthCare.Gov has leveled off at about 12 million. Which means all the high risk people are in the system. Premium increases in 2018 should be flat. The amount of risk that the health insurance companies are taking on in 2017 is not much different than what it was in 2016. The number policies sold in the individual market (HealthCare.Gov) didn't change by a lot. The ACA survives if BCBS decides to stay. There is no evidence that they plan to leave. Premium spikes should level off.

The ACA is insuring more people. The uninsured percentage rate is the lowest it has ever been. The graph that was provided in a prior post confirms that.

http://kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/...red-population Originally Posted by flghtr65

That link, like Obamacare, is an illusion. There is nothing there except a page saying you've been had.

The Ryan bill had to be pulled because you have moderate republicans who don't want to lose the expanded Medicaid in their state, which would be lost in 2020. Even if the Ryan bill had passed it was DOA in the Senate. Go ask republican Senator Collins of Maine, and Senator Cotton of Arkansas their view on the Ryan bill. The bill is a no go without the expanded Medicaid. Originally Posted by flghtr65

Do you know that as written, Obamacare stops the subsidies to the states this year for expanded Medicaid? That means those states you referenced are going to have to pony up hundreds of millions of their own dollars to cover the loss. Then again, talking about the Ryan bill is something of a red herring. Most of us here didn't support it and it is done. So we're back to discussing the failure of Obamacare and it's impending collapse. Which is why I wonder why the dems are so happy. When Obamacare fails, and it will, they can no longer blame it on the GOP (they'll try).

Do you know that as written, Obamacare stops the subsidies to the states this year for expanded Medicaid? That means those states you referenced are going to have to pony up hundreds of millions of their own dollars to cover the loss. Then again, talking about the Ryan bill is something of a red herring. Most of us here didn't support it and it is done. So we're back to discussing the failure of Obamacare and it's impending collapse. Which is why I wonder why the dems are so happy. When Obamacare fails, and it will, they can no longer blame it on the GOP (they'll try). Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You do understand that the Freedom Cacus will be the loser.

Trump will make a deal with the Dems and moderate Republicans and make a fix to Obamacare.


.

That would be OK With me.

Health care is a right. We have a national health care insurance program. It needs to work. Congress needs to make it work.

That would be OK With me.

Health care is a right. We have a national health care insurance program. It needs to work. Congress needs to make it work. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

As with everything , they wait until crisis mode before they work together. Crisis mode being they are about to be voted out.

Gerrymandering has made these so called Freedom cacus jokers unable to work within their own part and certainly not with Democrats.

Trump has let them neuter themselves, unwittingly imho but regardless , he will eventually work with the Democrats. And imho, it will have to be a decent fix or they will not work with him.

Remember, Trump was for single payer at one time.

Goes back to the Republicans welcoming and supporting the Tea Party.

Should always have been a third party.

That link, like Obamacare, is an illusion. There is nothing there except a page saying you've been had. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Try this one. The link in post #22 is missing the / after the word population.

http://kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/...ed-population/

Goes back to the Republicans welcoming and supporting the Tea Party.

Should always have been a third party. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Correct.

They think it is their way or the highway. Not exactly the best way to govern.

Be interesting to see how their supporters react when Trump cuts a deal with the Dems.


.

Do you know that as written, Obamacare stops the subsidies to the states this year for expanded Medicaid? That means those states you referenced are going to have to pony up hundreds of millions of their own dollars to cover the loss. When Obamacare fails, and it will, they can no longer blame it on the GOP (they'll try). Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The ACA does not stop providing funds for the expanded Medicaid. The Fed provides 100% of the cost at the start. This goes to 90% for the Fed and 10% for the states after 5 years. There are 31 states that took the expanded Medicaid and 19 that did not.

From the link:

The ACA included a carrot and stick approach to getting individual states to expand their Medicaid enrollment. The federal government traditionally provided 50%-83% of the funds for each state’s Medicaid program. The carrot approach provided that, in states that expanded Medicaid, the federal government would initially pay 100% of the cost of providing Medicaid to the new enrollees, eventually tapering down to shouldering 90% of the cost for expansion enrollees.

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-med...ansion-1738842