patrick.net

Many younger people don't have insurance because they don't believe that they need it. So, their costs will go up from zip to whatever they pay.

You are forgetting the subsidies to make it affordable - but if they don't qualify for the assistance they can probably afford the premium. It might not have been their priority before, but one accident or disease can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. they just don't realize it's helping them until they need it. Dan8267 says

I fail to see the ethics in forcing 20-somethings to subsidize the very 60-somethings keeping them out of jobs and houses.

Are the 60 somethings really keeping them out of jobs and houses? Did they have control over when they were born or what the economy has been during their lifetimes?

The website that you linked to blames Obama for everything - refers to "obaracades" keeping people out of government areas during the shut down and blames the shutdown itself on President Obama. How can you trust a site that purports to be a news site if all it does is regurgitate the info Faux News and the Republican party is creating?

The House Republicans are playing political poker with people's lives, betting that they can change a law that they're calling unconstitutional (it's not) and illegal (the conservative supreme court didn't think so) and that they've tried to defeat over 40 times (failed).

All that they have to do is stop acting like spoiled little bitches and allow the government to start functioning again. They don't care about their constituents who are out of work - and they don't accept that the Affordable Care act is so popular that state websites crashed with all of the traffic of people who were trying to sign up.

I had nothing to do with the younger generation's lack of ability to get jobs. Why are you blaming me?

elliemae says

Many younger people don't have insurance because they don't believe that they need it.

I would argue that younger people don't have insurance because they know they are getting ripped off by it. Hence the need for age brackets.

elliemae says

Are the 60 somethings really keeping them out of jobs and houses?

The housing bubble, which still hasn't fully deflated, most certainly has kept the Millennials out of buying. As for jobs, the managers and executives of today are precisely the ones who have downsized the job market and locked the Millennials out of it.

elliemae says

How can you trust a site that purports to be a news site if all it does is regurgitate the info Faux News and the Republican party is creating?

I'm certainly open to evidence contradicting the claims of this article. However, it is obvious that the intent of forcing the young to buy insurance was to subsidize the old, not to protect the young. This was obvious from the moment the individual mandate was proposed. If you want, I can post countless other articles that confirm this principle.

elliemae says

The House Republicans are playing political poker with people's lives, betting that they can change a law that they're calling unconstitutional (it's not) and illegal (the conservative supreme court didn't think so) and that they've tried to defeat over 40 times (failed).

The House Republicans are wrong; that does not make the individual mandate right or just. If an individual mandate is necessary, then ethics demands that policies be age bracketed to prevent one generation from abusing another.

elliemae says

I had nothing to do with the younger generation's lack of ability to get jobs. Why are you blaming me?

Obviously not all 60-somethings are taking advantage of 20-somethings. However, as a group, the older generation is siphoning off the meager earnings of the younger generation and in doing so ensuring that the younger generation will lose decades of their lives paying back debts and building the same level of assets the Boomers had by their 30th birthdays.

Impoverishing young adults affects the conditions in which their children and grandchildren will grow up in. It also exponentially affects the retirement savings the Millennials will have when they are senior citizens. Even a modest $10K in a Roth IRA compounded over a lifetime makes a huge difference in retirement savings. If Social Security is on unstable ground now, image what it will be like for the Millennials.

Zzzz... as I mentioned last week apples and oranges. You might check that section of the report. The age band compression is a legitimate gripe.

See AARP.

Dan8267 says

The housing bubble, which still hasn't fully deflated, most certainly has kept the Millennials out of buying. As for jobs, the managers and executives of today are precisely the ones who have downsized the job market and locked the Millennials out of it.

I'm not responsible for the housing bubble, nor am I responsible for the bust. I do applaud the 24 year old man who bought a house in my neighborhood that had once been appraised for $299k for a deeply discounted $120k.

The managers and executives of today aren't the only ones who have created problems for the milennials. They are a small component of the system.

I get that you are angry - but:

Dan8267 says

However, as a group, the older generation is siphoning off the meager earnings of the younger generation and in doing so ensuring that the younger generation will lose decades of their lives paying back debts and building the same level of assets the Boomers had by their 30th birthdays.

This statement is quite contradictory. You say that the Boomers have everything - and had quite a bit of everything by their 30th birthdays. It's their fault that they were greedy, and that their conspicuous consumption has created a vacuum that the younger generation will never be able to fill.

And yet the younger generation deserves to be in the same position that your dream boomers were on their 30th birthday?

Our system is pretty fucked up - I'll give you that. But it'll never be fair. If it were, these huge corporations that pay little or no taxes would be forced to contribute substantially more and healthcare costs for everyone would be cheap as shit.

In other words, Dan, you are blaming the wrong people and buying into the hype. You're better than that.

Dan8267 says

Especially when the generation being screwed over has already been screwed
by
- obscene housing costs
- exponentially increasing college costs
-
extremely high joblessness after earning degrees
and the generation being
subsidized has already benefited from
- the greatest appreciation in stocks
and housing in U.S. history
- the best job markets
- pensions and social
security

Dan, thank you for standing up for the Millennials. I don't know if I'm technically in the "Millennial" generation (I'm 33), but I'm feeling the same economic pressures.

As for the ACA, I don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion.

I would argue that younger people don't have insurance because they know they are getting ripped off by it. Hence the need for age brackets.

BINGO we have a winner

I pride myself at being a good horsetrader. Shouldn't every strive to be in a capitalist system, or even a system like ours that pretends to be capitalist?

I know the work I must put in, and the dollars I receive in trade. I know what a healthy diet looks like (the opposite of the usfedgov suggested western standard american diet), and I put the work in to make sure I stay healthy.

What do the democrats offer in return? They want me to follow them to the scrotum of the mega corporations that sell "insurance" for my healthcare, and get to sucking on their ballsack. No thanks.

As a 32 year old, I've already shipped off over 50k to these mega corps black hole of rentier death. That needs to stop. Instead, the dems want to assure that over the next 40 years, that I ship off another half a million in lost wages to these wholly unnecessary assholes.

Get fucked you dumb motherfuckers

errc says

As a 32 year old, I've already shipped off over 50k to these mega corps black hole of rentier death. That needs to stop.

I know, you're invincible. Your healthy diet makes you completely safe from disease. You'll never need expensive medical treatment. ;-)

However, I do agree that the insurance companies are evil fucks.

freak80 says

errc says

As a 32 year old, I've already shipped off over 50k to these mega corps black hole of rentier death. That needs to stop.

I know, you're invincible. Your healthy diet makes you completely safe from disease. You'll never need expensive medical treatment. ;-)

However, I do agree that the insurance companies are evil fucks.

Rather then making yet another sarcastic smug ass remark, wishing that I would get sick so you could say I told you so, why not explain what it is you think might happen to me, that warrants me spending so god damned much money on insuring that I'll be alright?

List the different things you wish to happen to me, what the health insurance ass rape complex solution is to said problem, the probability of them happening, and their costs,,,,

The millennials already have unpayable student loan debt. What's a few more trillion piled on? That way, when they pull the trigger, they won't see a Chinese/Russian/Iranian soldier/civilian, it will be the face of the debt collector. And anyway, the millennials will live longer thanks to stem cells. If not, at least it will seem that way.

Dan8267 says

forcing 20-somethings to subsidize the very 60-somethings

This is an oversimplification, and wrong. A few key points.

-The ACA does not subsidize medicare

-The ACA does cover pre-existing conditions, this is one of the things "being subsidized" by getting everyone covered.

-If you're twenty something now, or 30, one day you will be 60 too, and hopefully your health care then will cost you a lower percentage of your income than what 60 year olds pay now.

-It kinda sucks that 28 year olds now are the first ones that have to have insurance (or pay a small fine to be covered), but hey, shit happens.

First of all, anyone- regardless of age- who doesn't have health insurance is an idiot. They are one step away from instant bankruptcy. Second of all, 95% of the things mentioned on the OP's list has nothing to do with Obamacare. If you will recall, Obamacare actually allows 20-somethings to stay on their parent's healthcare plans longer- far longer than when I was on my 20's.

Let me also say this. I'm in my mid 30's now, so not far from being within this age bracket myself. When I was in my 20's, I too felt like I was getting totally screwed: When I graduated the job market sucked. Real estate was too expensive. My car insurance was higher. In other words- not exactly different from how things are now. But I made it, it was a LOT of hard work, and now I do fairly well. Sure- I'm not thrilled with the way the system works, but subsidizing older generations is something that's been happening for a very, very long time so I'm not sure how this is a miraculous revelation...

edvard2 says

First of all, anyone- regardless of age- who doesn't have health insurance is an idiot.

+1.

I'm sure my niece would have been content to not have insurance, but when she was diagnosed with Crohn's she found out she needed it. The brain deficiencies that lead younger people to discount their own mortality risks, doesn't mean we have to indulge them.

The alternative in the past has often been to let the family assume the costs once they screw up. Unacceptable with current prices.

Put them kids to work!(so we don't have to)

elliemae says

I get that you are angry - but:

Don't read between the lines. I don't write between the lines.

I'm not a Millennial, nor do I have any close family who's Millennial. In fact, it is very much in my own self interest that the Millennials get assfucked. After all, knocking out the competition for housing benefits me, as does the transfer of wealth in the Affordable Care Act.

I am going against my own financial interests by sticking up for the Millennials. It's not anger; it's ethics. I simply see the way the ACA takes advantage of the young adults as massively wrong.

elliemae says

In other words, Dan, you are blaming the wrong people and buying into the hype.

I guess you don't see the generation war that I see, but other people do.

If you follow the money rather than the blather, it's clear that the American system is a bipartisan fusion of economic models broken down along generational lines: unaffordable Greek-style socialism for the old, virulently purified capitalism for the young. Both political parties have agreed to this arrangement: The Boomers and older will be taken care of. Everybody younger will be on their own.

Democrats may not be actively hostile to the interests of young voters, but they are too scared and weak to speak up for them. So when the Boomers and swing voters scream for fiscal discipline and the hard decisions have to be made, youth is collateral damage. Medicare and Social Security were mostly untouched in Obama's 2012 budget. But to show he was really serious about belt tightening, relatively cheap programs that help young people like the Adolescent Family Life Program and the Career Pathways Innovation Fund were killed.

10 reasons millennials are screwed

freak80 says

Dan, thank you for standing up for the Millennials. I don't know if I'm technically in the "Millennial" generation (I'm 33)

Nor am I, but we don't have to be to have empathy and see that the system is inherently discriminating against young adults. What makes it worse is that this is the time in which those adults are at their most financially vulnerable.

humanity says

-The ACA does not subsidize medicare

That statement does not contradict the fact that, by requiring the young to purchase insurance at whatever rate private companies force on them, the ACA has caused insurance companies to use the revenue from the young to subsidize the old. Even if you are for forcing the young to subsidize the old, it should be done in a transparent system controlled by the public, not private corporations.

I have yet to hear one argument against the use of age brackets in health insurance. And by age brackets, I mean no funding from one age bracket goes to pay another. Again, this isn't in my best interest, but it is the most socially just way to construct the system.

First of all, anyone- regardless of age- who doesn't have health insurance is an idiot.

And here come the elitist obamabots, right on cue. I'm certain that plenty of people don't have health insurance, because they cannot afford it. Or many don't have health insurance, because they've decided for themselves that its a racket and they don't want to waste the money.

My parents come to mind. My 60 y.o. dad, is a genius, and he doesn't have any health insurance. Either does my 56 y.o. mother. I'm fairly certain they haven't had insurance in over 15 years. They likely haven't bothered to go to the doctor, either.

They both look a good 10+ years younger then their peers of the same age group. And they avoid the health insurance / healthcare racket, like the plague. They also understand nutrition, and eat opposite the SAD that your beloved usfedgov insists everyone poison themselves with

Quigley says

Put them kids to work!(so we don't have to)

Sums up the "old" mentality perfectly. Thank you.

edvard2 says

If you will recall, Obamacare actually allows 20-somethings to stay on their
parent's healthcare plans longer- far longer than when I was on my 20's.

When I was at that age, I had to pay for my own insurance, whether through a company policy at the same rate as co-workers older than me, or directly through an insurance company. To think that good health today=lifelong healthiness is assinine, and doesn't even factor in accidents or repercussions of other peoples' actions.

The same goes for life insurance, auto insurance, and at that age renter's insurance.

Waaaa, grow up you spoiled me-generation millennials and assume control of your life like adults do.

upisdown says

When I was at that age, I had to pay for my own insurance, whether through a company policy at the same rate as co-workers older than me, or directly through
an insurance company.

And you had to walk a mile to school and back, through a foot of snow, uphill both ways. ;-)

freak80 says

And you had to walk a mile to school and back, through a foot of snow, uphill
both ways. ;-)

You ever had to wait out the eligibility period for company health insurance, and then be charged the same rate as someone 20 years older than you, and it's deducted out of your pay? And that was 25 years ago.

Apparently not.

Dan8267 says

That statement does not contradict the fact that, by requiring the young to
purchase insurance at whatever rate private companies force on them, the ACA has
caused insurance companies to use the revenue from the young to subsidize the
old.

And those insurance companies weren't doing that before?? LOL

Gee, other than accidents or the occasional cancer dianosis, younger people are generally healthier, and the older people get the less healthier that people tend to be. That's why Medicare was brought about, because of health care related poverty of seniors, which was at roughly 30%, and it went down afterwards to roughly 10%.

But the accidents and resulting injuries and that occasional cancer diagnosis usually lead to very high health care treatment costs by those same young people. Catastrophic costs are what breaks the system, not some 22 year old going to the E-room for cold medicine scripts.

Dan, you obviously know this, so I don't get the whole gist of your rant because you always see the big picture.

I have a pre existing condition that has made any insurance of any kind unavailable to me for several years.

Here is one fact that has consoled me during that period.
Iatrogenesis, Doctor caused harm, kills somewhere upwards of 250,000 Americans a year. (upward estimates are equivalent, maybe, to heart disease)
Well, no Doctor is going to kill me!

Fuck, as a private, cash, payer they won't even see me.

Robert Sproul says

I have a pre existing condition that has made any insurance of any kind
unavailable to me for several years.

Yup, and the numerous denials because of accident/injury, and the insurance claims a whole leg is excluded because of a toe or foot injury.

You ever know anybody that had a false diagnosis of skin cancer and that led to denial of health insurance from every insurance company?

sbh says

I have never been spurned by any provider

Maybe it is regional, friend.
Where I am there is a very short list of clown college Doctors that will even see new patients.
I end up using Urgent Care Clinics and consulting Dr Google. (Who by the way is more patient and informative than ANY physician that I have seen.)

Edit: I would also spread the word, if anyone else is Self-Doctoring that, astonishingly, you can order any and all blood work for yourself online.
http://directlabs.com is one lab, maybe not the cheapest.
I expect the Cartel to shut this tool of self care down as they get around to it.

There's nothing wrong with young ,tight,Millennial asshole.

I always focus on one point & while I'm being misdirected, they flip me over & do me dry.

George Carlin:
"And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That's what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that's being jammed up their assholes everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth.

"It's called the American Dream,because you have to be asleep to believe it."

When I was in college I had a roommate who had been young, healthy, invincible and uninsured. He owned a business and supported himself, had his own place. Minded his own business. Good guy.

Till he got crippled by an uninsured drunk driver. The uninsured drunk went to prison for "life" (3rd strike) and had nothing to go after for damages. My friend went broke with the medical bills and being unable to work. Lost his business, lost his home, had to move into shared housing with college students 'cause it was all he could afford on disability.

So many people think they are invincible. Until they aren't.

upisdown says

And those insurance companies weren't doing that before?? LOL

Not nearly to this extend. Remember, the entire intention of the individual mandate was to siphon as much money from the young, healthy adults as possible.

From PBS

Under the Affordable Care Act, getting young people into the health insurance market will be critical to offsetting the cost of caring for older, sicker Americans.

We know that in order for us to be successful, to really make sure the marketplaces are effective, there's a smaller subset that needs to really be at the center of our focus for outreach. And that's about two million to two-and-a-half-million young and healthy 18-to-35-year-olds.

The challenge now, how to convince young people, most of whom are healthy, to spend money on insurance they may not think they need or can afford.

Or straight from the mouth of one of those Millennials in the PBS article...

Look, young people are going to be used under Obamacare. Our generation is being asked -- that's the only way it works -- to subsidize an older, wealthier generation's health care. It's simply not a good deal for us at all. We can continue to get affordable options if we pay the penalty and stay outside these Obamacare exchanges and just pay for our own health insurance.

So no, the particular way the ACA is structured, and intentionally so, is to take advantage of the Millennials. And national policy on health care should not pit one generation against another.

Dan8267 says

And national policy on health care should not pit one generation against another.

Then again, our whole social security system is a form of generational theft...why should health care be any different?

freak80 says

Dan8267 says

And national policy on health care should not pit one generation against another.

Then again, our whole social security system is a form of generational theft...why should health care be any different?

How so?

I don't see the parallel

freak80 says

So many people think they are invincible. Until they aren't.

That's actually a myth. There are plenty of responsible young adults who don't at all think they are invincible, but still consider paying 10 times their fair share under the ACA as being assfucked.

Again, the goal of universal coverage can be met using age brackets. Simply state in law that the revenue from any age bracket cannot be used in another age bracket and that 90% of the revenue must be spent on health care, not private profits. The sole reason for not having age brackets is to take advantage of the poorer, younger population.

freak80 says

Dan8267 says

And national policy on health care should not pit one generation against another.

Then again, our whole social security system is a form of generational theft...why should health care be any different?

Two wrongs don't make a right. But yes, if executed like this, the ACA will become a Ponzi scheme. It will rely on ever increasing ratios of young to old, and is mathematically doomed to fail.

Right now the Millennials are attractive victims because they are young and there are so many of them. But a Millennial who pays for health insurance under the ACA isn't subsidizing his future, 60-year-old self; no he's subsidizing current 60-year-olds. So when he gets to be 60, they money he paid in his youth is already spent and not available for his health care.

Thus, when the Millennials reach their 50s and 60s, there will be a massive crisis because the Millennials will be a large, old generation and all the funding they put into the system will have been spent on prior generations. So there will have to be an even larger generation of young people to support the Millennials, and that's not going to happen.

Any system that relies on exponentially increasing populations is doomed to fail. Populations cannot grow exponentially forever.

Dan8267 says

I have yet to hear one argument against the use of age brackets in health insurance.

I can't see that this makes any sense at all.

A system without brackets is perfectly fair. That is if 30 year olds pay a little more than they would with brackets, and 60 year old pay less, that's perfectly fair as long as the system is consistent so that when that 30 year old gets to 60, they have the same deal.

With our expensive health care, it doesn't make sense to charge those with preexisting conditions 20 times as much as a 28 year old, nor does it make sense to make 60 year olds pay 5 times as much as a 28 year old. We should all get the same deal in due time, and we should be okay with "subsidizing" those with chronic or congenital type preexisting conditions, if you must call it subsidizing. I would just call it a reasonable implementation of insurance.

Dan8267 says

ven if you are for forcing the young to subsidize the old, it should be done in a transparent system controlled by the public, not private corporations.

That's true. Nationalized single payer would be way better.

I do not know to what extent the ACA is involved in these age rate questions. But I think the ACA must be establishing parameters. Otherwise it wouldn't work.

I guess Canada's nationalized insurance system in assfucking their millenials too?

humanity says

Dan8267 says

I have yet to hear one argument against the use of age brackets in health insurance.

I can't see that this makes any sense at all.

A system without brackets is perfectly fair. That is if 30 year olds pay a little more than they would with brackets, and 60 year old pay less, that's perfectly fair as long as the system is consistent so that when that 30 year old gets to 60, they have the same deal.

Ah, but there's the rub. As I stated just above, that's exactly what doesn't happen. Whenever generation G2 pays for G1, and G3 pays for G2, eventually Gn gets screwed. In such a system, each generation will always take more out of the system then they put in until the system collapses.

The only way to provide for stability is to have Gi pay for Gi for all i. That way no generation can take out more than it puts in. And, in fact, if not for the motivation of taking out more than you put in, there is no incentive to structure the system so that G[j > i] pays for G[i].

How do we determine what is a fair rate that americans should pay for their health insurance?

Who determines this fair rate?

Oh, mega corporations do.

Everybody knows that they are in the business of helping poor, sick people. Like all good democrats do

For the assholes that cheerlead, and vote for this heritage foundation concocted mess, you can fittingly call it fascist, or you can label it facist, but its all the same in the end.

(Your) Face, its what's for dinner!

humanity says

I guess Canadas nationalized insurance system in assfucking their millenials too?

I don't know. It depends on how their system is implemented.

I'm not arguing against nationalized health care. Hell, I'd be for that. I'm arguing against a particular, socially unjust implementation of health care policy -- one, by the way, that's not even a nationalize system.

As I've said before, I'd be fine with the individual mandate if the following conditions were met:
1. A single payer system to ensure that everyone pays the same for a given treatment at a given place.
2. A public option that anyone can choose including those whose employer's offer health insurance (just have the employer funding go to the public option).
3. Age brackets for health insurance disbursements.

None of these real reforms in any way hinders the implementation of the ACA or a nationalized health care system.

In fact, I would argue that the worst thing about the ACA is that it prevented real reform from happening. The public was almost riled up enough to demand real reform and instead we got pseudo-reform and a gift to big insurance in the ACA.

Dan8267 says

Ah, but there's the rub. As I stated just above, that's exactly what doesn't happen.

It must happen. This won't be like social security. And there is no reason to think it will be like medicare.

Dan8267 says

Whenever generation G2 pays for G1, and G3 pays for G2, eventually Gn gets screwed.

The primary reason we see that happening now is because the baby boom is such a large cohort compared to the group before and to a lesser degree also the groups after. But this is highly unusual, and is going to cost us anyway.

To that extent, I see your point. To the extent that SS and medicare have become somewhat "pay as you go" (they aren't nearly completely that way),
it does screw later generations, because they aren't as big compared to generations that follow as the boomers are.

The right wing saw this coming, which is why they gave the Bush tax cuts to the rich, and are for taxes being too low as long as possible as they horde wealth to prepare for the coming tough times.

It may backfire.

Dan8267 says

1. A single payer system to ensure that everyone pays the same for a given treatment at a given place.

Is healthcare a personal service or pre-packaged box thing that you buy at the local Costco? Do you treat every blind date the same? regardless how attractive the girl is? or are you suggesting the girl should treat every guy exactly the same regardless how you treat her? Money is what you use to charm a vendor. Vendors are whores, just like you whore your time every day to go to a place called work place. It's absurd to think every whore should be paid the same or every john should pay the same. To think doctors should treat everyone exactly the same is to ascribe to doctors less freedom than what whores have.

2. A public option that anyone can choose including those whose employer's offer health insurance (just have the employer funding go to the public option).

How long do you think it will be before that public option either runs out of money or has to be tax-payer supported? or have long lines because most doctors refuse to take the public option patients due to low pay.

3. Age brackets for health insurance disbursements.

Age is one of the biggest pre-existing conditions. You are exposing the patent absurdity of trying to have a centralized pricing system to discover the balance between having those with pre-existing conditions covered (including age) vs. those not having the pre-existing conditions demanding a lower insurance premium. Those price discovery processes are what the market place involving numerous independent participants is for.

edvard2 says

First of all, anyone- regardless of age- who doesn't have health insurance is an idiot. They are one step away from instant bankruptcy.

Your first Co-Insurance bill will do that nicely. Why run to bankruptcy when you can just stay and wait for it?

Also if you don't have insurance, and you don't have any money to afford insurance, then one is already bankrupt.

Regardless insured or uninsured, Obamacare has made poor and sick and deadly combination. At least before there were charitable options.