What do you see happening to your healthcare costs in the next few years

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We need some kind of pooling of risk to get healthy people into the system,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We had that, it was called the individual mandate, it was a Republican idea. Trump repealed it because it was passed under Obama.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

We had that, it was called the individual mandate, it was a Republican idea. Trump repealed it because it was passed under Obama.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Except it didn’t work. So we didn’t really have it. Too many opted out. We increased coverage, covered more people, covered more health events for more people, but didn’t get sufficient numbers of healthy people.

I have a liberal view on this. No one chooses to be born healthy, no one chooses to be born with lifelong health issues, so the proper thing is to pool the risk. We’re all in that together. No one should struggle financially for their entire life because they were born with a terrible illness. It’s bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Except it didn’t work. So we didn’t really have it. Too many opted out. We increased coverage, covered more people, covered more health events for more people, but didn’t get sufficient numbers of healthy people.

That's just not true. Numbers of uninsured plummeted to historic lows and near the CBO estimates. The issues had more to do with Republican led states denying the exchanges and more recently Trump gutting Federal funding. In states where it was embraced it was actually working nearly according to plan. Not perfect but heading in the right direction.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

That's just not true. Numbers of uninsured plummeted to historic lows and near the CBO estimates. The issues had more to do with Republican led states denying the exchanges and more recently Trump gutting Federal funding. In states where it was embraced it was actually working nearly according to plan. Not perfect but heading in the right direction.

you are like a wind-up toy

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

That's just not true. Numbers of uninsured plummeted to historic lows and near the CBO estimates. The issues had more to do with Republican led states denying the exchanges and more recently Trump gutting Federal funding. In states where it was embraced it was actually working nearly according to plan. Not perfect but heading in the right direction.

"That's just not true."

Yes it is true. Costs skyrocketed because not enough healthy young people signed up. Sick people signed up in huge numbers, healthy people paid the fine and self-insured. That's why it failed miserably.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"That's just not true."

Yes it is true. Costs skyrocketed because not enough healthy young people signed up. Sick people signed up in huge numbers, healthy people paid the fine and self-insured. That's why it failed miserably.

Jim, you're just making thing up again. Uninsured among young adults dropped more than any other age group. Of course with Trump's changes this could change dramatically.

Makes a lot of sense to break something people depend on without any alternate plan.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, you're just making thing up again. Uninsured among young adults dropped more than any other age group. Of course with Trump's changes this could change dramatically.

Makes a lot of sense to break something people depend on without any alternate plan.

Yes, numbers of uninsured dropped. Problem was, sick people had huge incentives to join, and healthy people had incentives not to join. That's why the math didn't work. Too many healthy people were better off paying the fine/penalty, rather than enrolling.

If it worked as swimmingly as you suggest, why did costs skyrocket? The ACA got a lot more people insured, sure. But the pooling of risk between healthy people and sick people, wasn't nearly sufficient. You can't prove that wrong by pointing out how many people signed up. The problem wasn't that too few signed up, the problem was too few healthy people signed up.

I think we need a system where the young/healthy people cannot opt out. We need their money to help pay for people who are sick through no fault of their own. The ACA attempted to do this. It gave an easy out to the healthy.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If it worked as swimmingly as you suggest, why did costs skyrocket?

You're making thing up again. Costs didn't skyrocket in fact the rate of increase slowed as was expected.