Obamacare: Who Stands to Win or Lose?

[MTARegional Bus]

My thought on it, 

 

it ether Obamacare or the current healthcare system which is costing a lot. .

[MHV9218]

Obamacare will cost an average of $328 per month across the nation. Many of the poor will get subsidies, and the few rich and upper-middle class will pick up the tab. Now the question is: pay the $99 penalty per year or ~$328 per month for insurance I don't need?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/obamacares-average-monthly-cost-across-u-328-040209815.html

(Read the comments section too.)

 

If you currently have no health insurance, which seems to be the impression I'm getting, you're both taking a risk for yourself and for the rest of us. We don't want to pay for it if you get sick. If you do have health insurance, then what are you talking about?

[CenSin]

If you currently have no health insurance, which seems to be the impression I'm getting, you're both taking a risk for yourself and for the rest of us. We don't want to pay for it if you get sick. If you do have health insurance, then what are you talking about?

What is the risk anyway? I can pay for myself. (Some people have the money to do that—surprise!) I don't need an insurance company to become a bank that I just throw my money into with the condition that I get to withdraw from it only when I get sick (and with conditions on that attached).

 

EDIT 1: If I'm forced, I'll by the minimum necessary coverage to keep the penalty fee away. Catastrophic health insurance seems like a good fit for those who don't frequent the services of doctors and pharmacies. I'm going to have to find out in the coming month if that qualifies as having health insurance under the ACA.

 

EDIT 2: For other folks who are looking to do the bare minimum, it seems like $45 might be the lowest (but page was created in 2009): http://ask.metafilter.com/124566/Where-can-I-get-cheap-catastrophic-health-insurance

[realizm]

What is the risk anyway? I can pay for myself. (Some people have the money to do that—surprise!) 

 

That's nothing new, all of us IT consultants are forced to pay for our own insurance coverage because we are freelancers. Which comes back to why the US healthcare system must be reformed. Unless you wish to continue to pay exorbitant fees for HMO coverage under an independant plan, if that's the case be my guest. I'm not down with it.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

If you currently have no health insurance, which seems to be the impression I'm getting, you're both taking a risk for yourself and for the rest of us. We don't want to pay for it if you get sick. If you do have health insurance, then what are you talking about?

I personally don't see how Obama's plan is going to be less expensive for the employee.  You have employers cutting back on benefits because of this so in a way you'll still be paying more for less.  Also, what insurance company is going to want to cover every Tom, Dick and Harry with all sorts of illnesses increasing their overall costs because of the high risk factor?

 

What is the risk anyway? I can pay for myself. (Some people have the money to do that—surprise!) I don't need an insurance company to become a bank that I just throw my money into with the condition that I get to withdraw from it only when I get sick (and with conditions on that attached).

 

EDIT 1: If I'm forced, I'll by the minimum necessary coverage to keep the penalty fee away. Catastrophic health insurance seems like a good fit for those who don't frequent the services of doctors and pharmacies. I'm going to have to find out in the coming month if that qualifies as having health insurance under the ACA.

 

EDIT 2: For other folks who are looking to do the bare minimum, it seems like $45 might be the lowest (but page was created in 2009): http://ask.metafilter.com/124566/Where-can-I-get-cheap-catastrophic-health-insurance

I think my main issue with healthcare here is the lack of options.  In my old company, me and another person voted for a program in which you would have the monies you paid out for your coverage kept in an account to accrue and when you needed it, violà it was there.  No need to pay for a potential "band aid".  

[realizm]

That's the point. The employers will have to be required to provide better healthcare coverage and a wider variety of options  for their employees under the pending plan, flawed as it is which I can see, will not deny that. The employers will receive government compensation for the costs if they agree to it. It would be more reasonable then the current state of the healthcare system and what employers face in terms of providing health benefits for the US workforce.

 

Now none of us I'm pretty sure is of the upper middle class making a salary of 200K per year or more so I fail to see what the concern is for those of the upper middle class who can take the hit as compared to the working middle class or the poor working lower middle class.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That's the point. The employers will have to be required to provide better healthcare coverage and a wider variety of options  for their employees under the pending plan, flawed as it is which I can see, will not deny that. The employers will receive government compensation for the costs if they agree to it. It would be more reasonable then the current state of the healthcare system and what employers face in terms of providing health benefits for the US workforce.

 

Now none of us I'm pretty sure is of the upper middle class making a salary of 200K per year or more so I fail to see what the concern is for those of the upper middle class who can take the hit as compared to the working middle class or the poor working lower middle class.

That's precisely my point.  Employers are ducking the issue completely by cutting where they can. Some will actually be taking the penalty rather than providing "better healthcare" as you put it, so I'm not seeing how that is helping anyone.  Their argument is that they simply can't afford it, so what's going on is less hiring, cutting of hours so that employees fall into the "part-time" segment where they then would not be be entitled to any of these "improvements" and cutting down previously generous healthcare packages that allowed for spouses to be carried on the plan, so you can certainly argue that so far this plan is not making things better but worse.  Also, raising a family is becoming more and more expensive and so the thought that 200k is a great salary is just not the case.  Plenty of people making over 100k a year are struggling to make ends meet so even the high salaries don't go as far as they used to, especially with the skyrocketing costs of college and raising children.

 

In short, if I had to decide between having a job and having healthcare coverage, if my health was fine, I'd go for the job and based on the anemic job numbers for the unemployed, I think many would tend to agree with me.

[CenSin]

The exchanges open tomorrow. And here is yet another article that confirms Obamacare will not make financial sense for the people who need it least:

http://news.yahoo.com/under-fire-obamacare-going-live-glitches-161515402--politics.html

 

The other arm of "Obamacare's" coverage expansion — subsidized private insurance through the new markets — is mainly geared to uninsured people in the middle class. The administration is hoping to sign up 7 million the first year. Young, healthy adults are prime customers, since they'll help offset the cost of caring for sicker people sure to sign up once insurers can no longer reject them.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The exchanges open tomorrow. And here is yet another article that confirms Obamacare will not make financial sense for the people who need it least:

http://news.yahoo.com/under-fire-obamacare-going-live-glitches-161515402--politics.html

lol... I'm sure they'll all be running to sign up because healthcare will be oh so more cheaper than it was before, even though their employer may not even offer them coverage.

[CenSin]

And now all of Congress will be on the plan too if the G.O.P. amendment passes! This amendment gaining unanimous support is the only sensible route. The voters are watching, and anyone that opposes the amendment on grounds that they should be getting freebies while everyone else gets Obamacare will be voted out of office.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-demands-lawmakers-pay-more-health-care-233638966--politics.html

[CenSin]

Well, looks like the losers are becoming visible: http://news.yahoo.com/beyond-obamacare-glitches-consumers-face-dramatically-higher-rates-212141638.html

Beyond Obamacare glitches, some consumers face dramatically higher rates
As Obamacare begins to roll out, some people who already buy insurance on the individual market are getting cancellation notices – and offers for coverage at double and triple their old rates.
Problems with the main Obamacare website, HealthCare.gov, have dominated headlines since the site opened for business on Oct. 1.
But another problem is surfacing: Some consumers who have been buying their own insurance are getting cancellation notices – and offers for insurance at dramatically higher rates.
There are multiple reasons this is happening. First, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) sets minimum standards for benefits, including mental-health and substance-abuse treatment, maternity care, prescription drugs, and rehabilitative care, which were not included in many of the old plans. Also, insurance companies are now required to take all comers, regardless of their health status, and so rates are rising to cover their costs as well.
In the debate before the ACA passed, there was plenty of focus on people who lacked insurance, either because they couldn’t afford it or had a preexisting condition. Now, newspapers around the country are chronicling the stories of the other category of consumer – people who make too much money to be eligible for federal subsidies and are being charged double and triple their old rates.
"The upper-middle class are the people who are essentially being asked to foot the bill, and that's true across the country,” Jonathan Wu, co-founder of ValuePenguin, a consumer finance website, tells the San Jose Mercury News.
Michael Yount of Charlotte, N.C., is one such unhappy customer. He and his wife, retired and in their late 50s, have been buying their own health insurance from Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) in North Carolina, paying about $380 a month with an $11,000 deductible. BCBS is offering them a new plan for three times the cost, $1,124.50 a month, still with an $11,000 deductible.
“We are an insurance company’s dream,” Mr. Yount tells the Monitor. “We pay our bills, we hardly ever get sick, no prescription drugs. And now this.”
Reluctantly, he says, they plan to drop out of formal health insurance, pay the penalty, and “self-insure.”
“No question, there’s risk there,” Yount says. “The question is, how much are you willing to pay someone else to mitigate that risk?”
He also understands that the law is meant to help those who have not been able to buy insurance because of preexisting conditions. But he objects to how it’s being done.
“If the only way to get it to them is forcibly taking it from everybody else, how is that any better?” Yount says. “I’m struggling with what is the greater evil and injustice. I don’t think it’s any more right to take it from one person forcibly. It’s coercion.”
Yount has been trying since Oct. 1 to get onto HealthCare.gov to see what his options are on the federal exchange, but with no success.
Indeed, after undergoing repairs over the weekend, HealthCare.gov is still experiencing significant difficulties. When the problems first became apparent, after open enrollment began on Oct. 1, administration officials blamed high traffic – a sign of the high demand from among the millions of Americans who have been unable to buy insurance until now.
Joanne Peters, spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), says the repair work is “beginning to show results.”
“Call center wait times are seconds, not minutes, and people have been enrolling over the phone 24/7,” Ms. Peters said Monday in an e-mailed statement. “Our work to expand the site’s capacity has led to more people successfully applying for and enrolling in affordable health coverage online, with wait times being shortened by approximately 50 percent since Friday. But we won’t stop until the doors to HealthCare.gov are wide open, and at the end of the six-month open enrollment, millions of Americans gain affordable coverage.” 
But technical experts say the problems are about more than just capacity and that the site needs design changes.
“The website is troubled by coding problems and flaws in the architecture of the system,” The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday, citing the conclusions of insurance-industry advisers, technical experts, and people close to the development of the marketplace.
Health-insurance consultants who have been tracking the rollout of the ACA say that if HealthCare.gov is not functioning smoothly by early November, the enrollment backlog will become critical. To be covered by Jan. 1, when the law’s mandate for individuals to carry insurance goes into effect, one must have signed up by Dec. 15.
HealthCare.gov services 36 states. The other 14 states plus the District of Columbia are running their own health-insurance exchanges, and while some have not had widespread problems – such as in Kentucky and Connecticut – others, like Maryland, have. The only way to be eligible for a federal subsidy is to buy insurance through one of the government exchanges.
A postscript from Michael Yount of Charlotte: He got back in touch to say that if he or his wife were to become ill, then they would buy health insurance – since the plans are now barred from turning anyone away.
One problem with that idea is that people can buy insurance on the government exchange only during the open enrollment period. In the first year, it goes from Oct 1, 2013, to March 31, 2014. Enrollment reopens on Oct. 7, 2014. So what happens if Yount or his wife get sick or have accident during the “blackout” period?
“As we discussed – there is risk,” Yount says in an e-mail. “But the odds are that the most likely scenario for a major medical problem is a car accident. That's covered with my auto insurance.”
And in the event of an expensive illness, he says, “we spin the wheel.”

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well, looks like the losers are becoming visible: http://news.yahoo.com/beyond-obamacare-glitches-consumers-face-dramatically-higher-rates-212141638.html

 

 

 

As Obamacare begins to roll out, some people who already buy insurance on the individual market are getting cancellation notices – and offers for coverage at double and triple their old rates.

 

^^This has been my argument the entire time!! How is this supposed to be "affordable" for anyone if the rates are double or triple what our old plans were?  My boss just sent us info yesterday on the plans we had from last year, and I already know that our plans are going up by as much as $90+ in some cases, though I'm not sure how much my employer is covering of these increases.  

[bobtehpanda]

 

^^This has been my argument the entire time!! How is this supposed to be "affordable" for anyone if the rates are double or triple what our old plans were?  My boss just sent us info yesterday on the plans we had from last year, and I already know that our plans are going up by as much as $90+ in some cases, though I'm not sure how much my employer is covering of these increases.  

 

It's meant to balance costs for individuals, so everyone is more likely to pay and so that hospitals that accept everyone are less likely to go broke. It's cheaper for the system and the government.

 

Do you think it's a coincidence that the hospitals that are closing left and right also serve a lot of uninsured people?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

 

 

 

It's meant to balance costs for individuals, so everyone is more likely to pay and so that hospitals that accept everyone are less likely to go broke. It's cheaper for the system and the government.

 

Do you think it's a coincidence that the hospitals that are closing left and right also serve a lot of uninsured people?

 

lol... Cheaper for the government... Of course, but it is not cheaper for the American taxpayer and that's the problem with this program.  I get it.  I mean really, in this country everyone should be insured, but the idea that this is not going to be expensive is just silly.  Look at every other country that has national healthcare.  They all have high taxes, so my point is the taxpayer will pay for this one way or another whether they want to or not and that's why a lot of people are angry about the mandate because healthcare in this country is some of the most expensive around and then to be told that you have to get insurance and see your rates skyrocket even more is just a slap in the face, esp. when the people that it's supposed to help will in many cases still not qualify to get those vouchers that have been talked about so much, so they still won't be able to afford it.  There have already been numerous examples of people waiting for Obamacare to go into effect so that they could "qualify" only for them to find out that they still don't qualify.

[MHV9218]

lol... Cheaper for the government... Of course, but it is not cheaper for the American taxpayer and that's the problem with this program.  I get it.  I mean really, in this country everyone should be insured, but the idea that this is not going to be expensive is just silly.  Look at every other country that has national healthcare.  They all have high taxes, so my point is the taxpayer will pay for this one way or another whether they want to or not and that's why a lot of people are angry about the mandate because healthcare in this country is some of the most expensive around and then to be told that you have to get insurance and see your rates skyrocket even more is just a slap in the face, esp. when the people that it's supposed to help will in many cases still not qualify to get those vouchers that have been talked about so much, so they still won't be able to afford it.  There have already been numerous examples of people waiting for Obamacare to go into effect so that they could "qualify" only for them to find out that they still don't qualify.

 

You really have no idea how this program actually works, do you?

[CenSin]

You really have no idea how this program actually works, do you?

I don't think any of us do. Neither do creators of Obamacare.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You really have no idea how this program actually works, do you?

Why don't you explain it then since I don't "understand" it. lol

[CenSin]

If most of these facts are true, Obamacare is currently a disaster. I'd give it another month or two before judging, but the early assesment looks bleak:

http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-america-own-government-223010441.html

 

DEMOCRATS TO AMERICA: WE OWN THE GOVERNMENT!

by Ann Coulter

 

In the current fight over the government shutdown, Republicans are simply representing the views of the American people.

 

Americans didn't ask for Obamacare, they don't want it, but now their insurance premiums are going through the roof, their doctors aren't accepting it, and their employers are moving them into part-time work — or firing them — to avoid the law's mandates.

 

Contrary to Obama's promises, it turns out: You can't keep your doctor, you can't keep your insurance — you can't even keep your job. In other words, it's a typical government program, but this one wrecks your health care.

 

Also, the president did raise taxes on the middle class in defiance of his well-worn campaign promise not to. Indeed, Obamacare is the largest tax hike in U.S. history.

 

Among the other changes effected by this law are:

• Obamacare will allow insurers to charge 50 percent higher premiums for smokers, but prohibits insurers from increasing premiums for those with HIV/AIDS.
• Nationally, Obamacare will increase men's individual insurance premiums by an average of 99 percent and women's by 62 percent. In North Carolina, for example, individual insurance premiums will triple for women and quadruple for men.
• Health plans valued at $27,500 or more for a family of four will be taxed at a rate of 40 percent.
• No doctors who went to an American medical school will be accepting Obamacare.
• A 62-year-old man earning $46,000 a year is entitled to a $7,836 government tax credit to buy health insurance. But if he earns an extra $22 in income, he loses the entire $7,836 credit. He will have more take-home pay by earning $46,000 than if he earns $55,000. (If he's lucky, he already works for one of the companies forced by Obamacare to reduce employees' hours!)
• Merely to be eligible for millions of dollars in grants from the federal government under Obamacare, education and training programs are required to meet racial, ethnic, gender, linguistic and sexual orientation quotas. That's going to make health care MUCH better!
• Obamacare is turning America into a part-time nation. According to a recent report by economist John Lott, 97 percent of all jobs added to the economy so far this year have been part-time jobs. Ninety-seven percent!
• Obamacare is such a disaster that the people who wrote it refuse to live under it themselves. That's right, Congress won a waiver from Obamacare.

Responding to the people's will, House Republicans first voted to fund all of government — except Obamacare. Obama refused to negotiate and Senate Democrats refused to pass it.

 

Then the Republicans voted to fully fund the government, but merely delay the implementation of Obamacare for one year. Obama refused to negotiate and Senate Democrats refused to pass it.

 

Finally, the Republicans voted to fully fund the government, but added a requirement that everyone live under Obamacare. No more special waivers for Congress and their staff, and no waivers for big business without the same waivers for individuals.

 

Obama refused to negotiate and Senate Democrats refused to pass it. So as you can see, Republicans are the big holdup here.

 

A longtime Democratic operative, Karen Finney, explained the Democrats' intransigence on MSNBC to a delighted Joan Walsh (aka the most easily fooled person on TV) by comparing House Republicans to a teenager trying to borrow his mother's car. "No, I'm not negotiating!" Mother says. "It's MY CAR!"

 

This wasn't a stupid slip of the tongue that other Democrats quickly rejected. Finney had used the exact same metaphor to a panel of highly agreeable MSNBC guests the day before. (MSNBC books no other kind of guest.)

 

The left thinks the government is their car and the people's representatives are obstreperous teenagers trying to borrow the government. Which belongs to Democrats.

 

That's not how the Constitution views the House of Representatives. To the contrary, the House is considered most reflective of the people's will because its members are elected every two years.

 

As a matter of fact, the Republicans who mistakenly assume they have something to do with running the government represent most of the people who pay taxes to run it. So it's more like a teenager who is making the car payments, maintaining the car insurance and taking responsibility for registering the car being told: "It's not your car."

 

But the Democrats refuse to even negotiate. It's their government — and if you Republicans think you're going out dressed like that, you've got another thing coming! Needless to say, they absolutely will not consider the Republicans' demand that Democrats merely live under Obamacare themselves.

 

Instead, Democrats say "the Koch brothers" are behind the effort to defund Obamacare.

 

They say Republicans are trying to "burn the whole house down" (Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz); "have lost their minds" (Sen. Harry Reid); are trying to negotiate "with a bomb strapped to their chest" (senior White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer); are "legislative arsonists" (Rep. Nancy Pelosi); and are engaging in "blatant extortion" (White House press secretary Jay Carney).

 

The MSNBC crowd calls Republicans "arsonists" every 15 minutes. They ought to check with fellow MSNBC host Al Sharpton. He knows his arsonists! In 1995, Sharpton whipped up a mob outside the Jewish-owned Freddy's Fashion Mart with an anti-Semitic speech. Sometime later, a member of the mob torched the store, killing seven Hispanic employees.

 

Every single Democrat in the country uses the exact same talking point: We "refuse to negotiate with a gun being held to our head."

 

Which means that the Democrats will engage in no negotiation at all — not now, not ever. House Republicans have already passed three-dozen bills defunding, or otherwise modifying, Obamacare. Senate Democrats and liberal commentators had a good laugh at Republicans for passing them. Now they're paying attention!

 

If you are in the minority of Americans not already unalterably opposed to Obamacare, keep in mind that the only reason the government is shut down right now is that Democrats refuse to fund the government if they are required to live under Obamacare.

 

That's how good it is!

 

I still disagree with "Republicans are simply representing the views of the American people" though. Most of their efforts are intertwined with questionable agendas that hurt people and help corporations or themselves.

[bobtehpanda]

lol... Cheaper for the government... Of course, but it is not cheaper for the American taxpayer and that's the problem with this program.  I get it.  I mean really, in this country everyone should be insured, but the idea that this is not going to be expensive is just silly.  Look at every other country that has national healthcare.  They all have high taxes

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of their health care - the United States has the highest per-person healthcare costs in the world, and spends the most of any rich country as a percentage of GDP. Part of it is because the current model is inherently flawed; insurers and hospitals charge based on the amount of services provided and not the effectiveness of care, and they have every incentive to mark up costs and pass them on to consumers.

 

Obamacare is an attempt to have one's cake and eat it too - expand medical access to everyone, but do very little to reduce costs. Most other countries have boards that decide who should be prioritized for medical care, or attempt to discuss with patients the various options they have. Here, they're known under the more popular name "death panels." This is also one of the few countries that has an entire system of tort lawyers targeting the medical industry for millions of dollars per patient - it raises costs for doctors and hospitals by forcing them to take out malpractice insurance (which is very expensive) and also provides a reason to excessively test patients to make absolutely sure, raising costs even further.

 

Obamacare is window dressing and something will have to be done about the structural cost of healthcare anyways (it would've been necessary eventually even without Obamacare), but at least now there is financial incentive for insurers to bring down rates - if Americans are priced out of their insurance, eventually they won't have a consumer base to sell to.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of their health care - 

What "this" are you referring to?

[bobtehpanda]

What "this" are you referring to?

 

You made a direct connection between healthcare for all and high taxes. Other countries' healthcare costs are significantly lower, it's just that those higher taxes pay for more than just healthcare. (Better infrastructure, better public schools, free or very low-cost higher education, etc.)

 

Coincidentally, in nearly all those areas America isn't doing so well. Infrastructure is crumbling because we devote what little money we have to new projects instead of fixing old things (the gas tax hasn't been raised since '93, and inflation, fuel efficiency, and a general downward trend in driving is cutting into revenues). America spends the most on public education of any country in the world, yet does not rank well in international PISA testing. As for private education, at least $1 trillion in owed student debt exists, and this is debt that cannot be reduced in the event of a bankruptcy.

 

 

 

Look at every other country that has national healthcare.  They all have high taxes

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You made a direct connection between healthcare for all and high taxes. Other countries' healthcare costs are significantly lower, it's just that those higher taxes pay for more than just healthcare. (Better infrastructure, better public schools, free or very low-cost higher education, etc.)

 

Coincidentally, in nearly all those areas America isn't doing so well. Infrastructure is crumbling because we devote what little money we have to new projects instead of fixing old things (the gas tax hasn't been raised since '93, and inflation, fuel efficiency, and a general downward trend in driving is cutting into revenues). America spends the most on public education of any country in the world, yet does not rank well in international PISA testing. As for private education, at least $1 trillion in owed student debt exists, and this is debt that cannot be reduced in the event of a bankruptcy.

Well yes of course.  Their taxes are high for a number of reason... Transportation, infrastructure, and so on, but healthcare is another reason as well.

[CenSin]

Well yes of course.  Their taxes are high for a number of reason... Transportation, infrastructure, and so on, but healthcare is another reason as well.

They also get more healthcare done with the money. If Obamacare can't be struck down, I'm hoping it succeeds in reaching the same financial efficiency.

[CenSin]

And this article basically says what I've been saying all along:

Millennials Are Opting Out Of Obamacare Because It's Not Insurance

By Cathy Reisenwitz

Experts say that young, healthy people must enroll in ObamaCare’s health exchanges to cover the cost of insuring sicker, older people. It’s a simple math equation: Charge everyone roughly the same rate for access to basically the same product. The people who use it less will subsidize the people who use it more.

The problem with this plan is that it hoses young, relatively poor people like me right when we least need high bills for services they’re not using. And it helps older, relatively rich people who should be able to afford the care they need. If America’s downtrodden and struggling young people are smart, they’ll opt out. Then it’ll be up to the federal government to fine them enough to make up for the shortfall.

First, let’s look at the math. As Nick Gillespie and Veronique de Rugy have pointed out for Reason magazine, the concept of today’s older generation as impoverished is simply wrong. In fact, today’s seniors are far wealthier than today’s young adults.

Looking at rates of homeownership, 83% of elderly households own a home. Meanwhile, 36% of millennials are still living under their parents’ roof. Those over 65 years of age have much lower poverty rates than most other demographic groups. Households headed by people 65 or older have 22 times the wealth of households headed by people under 35.

Not only are many young people either unemployed or underemployed, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimates that people under 40 owe 67% of the roughly $1.4 trillion that Americans owe on school loans. That’s on top of an average of several thousand dollars of credit card debt.

ObamaCare forces people who can scarcely afford the extra cost to subsidize care for people who absolutely can afford to pay for their own health services.

In the exchanges, a young person will have to pay an estimated $250 per month for basic insurance. Again, this cost is so high because these premiums are expected to pay for older people’s healthcare costs. These costs now include covering a plethora of expensive drugs, services and procedures thanks to ObamaCare’s requirements for insurance plans.

Another math lesson seems to be needed here: Insurance is only a good deal when it actually works like insurance. Using insurance to pay for routine care and predictable healthcare needs makes it no longer insurance, but cost pooling.

Using insurance to pay for routine healthcare services distorts price signals and increases costs through layers of administration. ObamaCare’s requirements that insurance pay for even more routine care than before codifies the fundamental flaw in the “insurance” (actually cost-pooling) “market” that we have today.

The only solution to achieving access to affordable catastrophic coverage for young people and affordable healthcare services for older people is an actual market in health insurance and in healthcare services. Young people need access to actual insurance, something that ObamaCare actually outlaws. And older people need an undistorted price system in healthcare.

Instead, ObamaCare exacerbates and mandates everything that’s wrong with our current system while attempting to transfer costs in the exact wrong direction, from old and rich to young and poor. This is both extremely inefficient and completely unfair. The only thing that would make this worse is if Congress attempted to raise the fines for opting out enough to actually cover the enormous shortfall young people opting out in droves will create. Let’s hope for the future of America they don’t.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/10/millennials-are-opting-out-of-obamacare-because-its-not-insurance/

[Via Garibaldi 8]

And this article basically says what I've been saying all along:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/10/millennials-are-opting-out-of-obamacare-because-its-not-insurance/

This!! This is exactly the problem with Obamacare and why I am so opposed to it!!