U.S. Politics: Russian Around

[Fragile Bird]

7 minutes ago, Commodore said:

CBO estimates are trash

 

So this is just like those unemployment numbers, right? Absolutely fake, but real when it works for you?

[Mexal]

10 minutes ago, Commodore said:

CBO estimates are trash

This is mostly because the law wasn't as bad as everyone estimated it would be for the group market and companies kept insurance for their employees. It wasn't quite the job killer republicans said it was for years. That and the individual mandate wasn't as strong as believed.

At the end of the day, it was still the best estimate out there and still is.

[OldGimletEye]

12 minutes ago, Commodore said:

CBO estimates are trash

 

If the boys and gals at the Cato Institute have a better estimate, let's see it.

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

It wasn't quite the job killer republicans said it was for years. 

Shocker! Shocker!

4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

So this is just like those unemployment numbers, right? Absolutely fake, but real when it works for you?

How conservatives roll.

[Week]

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

This is mostly because the law wasn't as bad as everyone estimated it would be for the group market and companies kept insurance for their employees. It wasn't quite the job killer republicans said it was for years. That and the individual mandate wasn't as strong as believed.

At the end of the day, it was still the best estimate out there and still is.

Color me surprised that enrollment was lower than forecasted after a 7-year campaign by the right to denigrate, destroy, and (lol) replace the ACA.

[Week]

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/dec/cbo-crystal-ball-forecast-aca

Quote

Accuracy of the CBO Model

We examined the accuracy of the CBO’s model by mimicking how accurately it would have predicted actual marketplace enrollment if the CBO had known the income levels, insurance coverage rates, and premium rates that existed in 2014 (see Appendix Exhibit B1). The much lower than anticipated benchmark premiums reduced the number of people who might have been expected to qualify for any subsidy by more than 2 million people (about 7%). Differences in the distribution of income reduced the number of people who might have qualified by about 1 million (about 3%). After applying the actual income levels, insurance coverage rates, and benchmark premiums, we conclude that the CBO model’s prediction would have been just over 6 million subsidized enrollees. Actual marketplace enrollment in 2014—5 million—is about 18 percent below this revised forecast. This difference is, in part, attributable to the slower-than-expected rollout of the marketplaces.

[snip]

The Affordable Care Act was a critical step in expanding health insurance coverage, but it is unlikely to be the last national health policy reform considered by Congress. It is therefore reassuring that despite many factors that could not have been foreseen in 2010—such as the ACA’s troubled rollout and the lack of state support—the CBO model proved to be reasonably accurate compared with actual experience and the estimates of other modelers. This should allay concerns of some critics that its forecasts were biased in favor of the Administration.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, Week said:

Color me surprised that enrollment was lower than forecasted after a 7-year campaign by the right to denigrate, destroy, and (lol) replace the ACA.

They also didn't expect a lot of states to not set up exchanges, which threw off a lot of the predictions. 

20 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

So this is just like those unemployment numbers, right? Absolutely fake, but real when it works for you?

Get your stinkin' alternative facts out of my fake news! 

[Fragile Bird]

Lol, Commodore's attack on the CBO numbers is even funnier than I first thought!

Funny Part 1, the team at the CBO is a totally new team, appointed by the Republicans. By who, specifically? Tom Price!

And funny, Part 2?  The Republicans, while not happy the numbers are worse than they expected, aren't strenuously fighting it at all, because it dramatically cuts taxes for the wealthy and reduces the budget deficit by $337 billion over 10 years.

[Commodore]

13 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Lol, Commodore's attack on the CBO numbers is even funnier than I first thought!

Funny Part 1, the team at the CBO is a totally new team, appointed by the Republicans. By who, specifically? Tom Price!

And funny, Part 2?  The Republicans, while not happy the numbers are worse than they expected, aren't strenuously fighting it at all, because it dramatically cuts taxes for the wealthy and reduces the budget deficit by $337 billion over 10 years.

CBO numbers are shit regardless of whether they help or hurt your political position

It's the equivalent of a Soviet five year plan. They attempt to predict things that can't be predicted, and are always (predictably!) very wrong. 

[aeu]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

 

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

This is mostly because the law wasn't as bad as everyone estimated it would be for the group market and companies kept insurance for their employees. It wasn't quite the job killer republicans said it was for years. That and the individual mandate wasn't as strong as believed.

At the end of the day, it was still the best estimate out there and still is.

 

 

 The guy who put the table together knows this full well. He is not completely stupid like some of the hacks repeating numbers without understanding what they mean.  He actually talks about it somewhere in the wall of text to handwave and dismiss it.

Honestly, I prefer the idiots to these detestable fucks who actually know better and lie and / or mislead; and also attempt to sell those half-truths as serious analysis.   

 

 

 

[Kalbear]

17 minutes ago, Commodore said:

CBO numbers are shit regardless of whether they help or hurt your political position

It's the equivalent of a Soviet five year plan. They attempt to predict things that can't be predicted, and are always (predictably!) very wrong. 

So what's your prediction?

[Rippounet]

Foreign Affairs has a guy giving his two cents on the matter:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-03-13/republican-health-plan

Quote

Despite these similar building blocks, however, the new plan differs substantially in its implementation from the one it is intended to replace. For example, instead of a mandate for healthy people to buy insurance, the AHCA would impose a 30 percent penalty if a healthy individual doesn’t purchase insurance and then subsequently gets sick and wants it. The new legislation’s subsidies would be substantially less generous for low- and moderate-income workers, and unlike today, they would be set nationally and wouldn’t vary with the local cost of health care. And although the ACA limits the ratio of older to younger people’s premiums to three to one, the new bill allows for a ratio of five to one. There are also important differences in Medicaid, the program for low-income Americans and those with disabilities, in that the AHCA would impose limits on the federal government’s financing of the program and shift an estimated $370 billion in costs to states over the next decade, which could result in some combination of less coverage or more pressure on state budgets. 

It seems to me that the Republican plan is basically Obamacare made worse. But hey, maybe Foreign Affairs is "liberal fake news" or something...

[Sivin]

So what are the Senate numbers looking like right now for ConservaCare?

 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It seems to me that the Republican plan is basically Obamacare made worse. But hey, maybe Foreign Affairs is "liberal fake news" or something...

Well, kinda? The big win for them is the Medicaid cap, which is going to absolutely cripple most states when it starts. That's going to be the majority of the 370b savings. 

Beyond that, it will likely push people who need the most care out of the markets completely or force them to pay incredibly high prices - and both are fine as long as no one 'has' to get coverage. They can sell it as getting rid of the most hated part, the individual mandate. And they can also say that now you have a choice, and if you don't want healthcare so be it - and therefore completely ignore the % that aren't covered by handwaving them away as obviously not actually wanting coverage.

[LongRider]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, kinda? The big win for them is the Medicaid cap, which is going to absolutely cripple most states when it starts. That's going to be the majority of the 370b savings. 

Beyond that, it will likely push people who need the most care out of the markets completely or force them to pay incredibly high prices - and both are fine as long as no one 'has' to get coverage. They can sell it as getting rid of the most hated part, the individual mandate. And they can also say that now you have a choice, and if you don't want healthcare so be it - and therefore completely ignore the % that aren't covered by handwaving them away as obviously not actually wanting coverage.

And please, no dying in the streets.  So tacky. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, kinda? The big win for them is the Medicaid cap, which is going to absolutely cripple most states when it starts. That's going to be the majority of the 370b savings. 

Beyond that, it will likely push people who need the most care out of the markets completely or force them to pay incredibly high prices - and both are fine as long as no one 'has' to get coverage. They can sell it as getting rid of the most hated part, the individual mandate. And they can also say that now you have a choice, and if you don't want healthcare so be it - and therefore completely ignore the % that aren't covered by handwaving them away as obviously not actually wanting coverage.

What I don't get is why the Insurance Companies are okay with this. This is going to result in a big loss for them across the boards I would think. Folks aren't going to buy a product they can't afford.  

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

What I don't get is why the Insurance Companies are okay with this. This is going to result in a big loss for them across the boards I would think. Folks aren't going to buy a product they can't afford.  

Maybe. But it's not on them. 

For starters, they can bail out of bad markets more politically without issue. They have also gotten a state bailout promise as part of the AHCA that will help. But mostly, they can cut costs significantly by choosing to offer really shitty plans and not cover all sorts of things. Also recall that insurance companies make like 90% of their money through employer-based coverage, and for them the individual markets weren't ever a super awesome thing except in a few states. 

What insurance companies LOVE is a bunch of 55-75 year olds not being able to afford their coverage and them not having to accept it, because those are massive losses to them. 

[Rippounet]

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

What I don't get is why the Insurance Companies are okay with this. This is going to result in a big loss for them across the boards I would think. Folks aren't going to buy a product they can't afford.  

Apparently the 30% penalty will be paid to private insurers. That may help.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

17 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Maybe. But it's not on them. 

For starters, they can bail out of bad markets more politically without issue. They have also gotten a state bailout promise as part of the AHCA that will help. But mostly, they can cut costs significantly by choosing to offer really shitty plans and not cover all sorts of things. Also recall that insurance companies make like 90% of their money through employer-based coverage, and for them the individual markets weren't ever a super awesome thing except in a few states. 

What insurance companies LOVE is a bunch of 55-75 year olds not being able to afford their coverage and them not having to accept it, because those are massive losses to them. 

But again, who's going to buy that? And a bailout is just going to be a one time payout, right? 

It may not be on them as you say, but you have to follow the money. This is the GOP we're talking about. 

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But again, who's going to buy that? And a bailout is just going to be a one time payout, right? 

My understanding is the bailout is going to be an established pool to help insurers deal with overages. 

As to who buys it, some people will do it because it's better than the alternative, as bad as it is. 

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

30% penalty for whom and for what? Not familiar with this bit.

There's a 30% penalty if you sign up for coverage and don't have continuous coverage. This is to replace the individual mandate. It almost certainly cannot be done without a filibuster-proof vote. It does mean that because you can't be denied coverage, however, many people will pay the 30% surcharge and buy insurance only when they specifically need it. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

As to who buys it, some people will do it because it's better than the alternative, as bad as it is. 

There's a 30% penalty if you sign up for coverage and don't have continuous coverage. This is to replace the individual mandate. It almost certainly cannot be done without a filibuster-proof vote. It does mean that because you can't be denied coverage, however, many people will pay the 30% surcharge and buy insurance only when they specifically need it. 

 Sounds to me like a shit market. If you're priced out of anything substantial or effective why would you buy a useless policy? I don't see how the insurance companies can make any money this way. Say hello to Black Market Medicine.