GBO on the health plan

[Lurker]

When Embar jumps back into this thread maybe he can answer these questions instead of dodging them.

1) You said that an extra $100 per month wouldn't change anyone's life but then attacked Obama for taking $16 a month out of a family's bank account, even though that $16 was more than made up for in additional benefits. Can you explain the contradiction?

2) Do you understand that a family can pay an extra $16 a month in premiums but still have a net savings since the ACA eliminated co-pays and deductibles they would otherwise have had to pay?

3) Why did you say that you can't look at the rate increase in isolation while doing exactly that, looking at the rate increase without considering the additional benefits?

[Embar Angylwrath]

When Embar jumps back into this thread maybe he can answer these questions instead of dodging them.

1) You said that an extra $100 per month wouldn't change anyone's life but then attacked Obama for taking $16 a month out of a family's bank account, even though that $16 was more than made up for in additional benefits. Can you explain the contradiction?

2) Do you understand that a family can pay an extra $16 a month in premiums but still have a net savings since the ACA eliminated co-pays and deductibles they would otherwise have had to pay?

3) Why did you say that you can't look at the rate increase in isolation while doing exactly that, looking at the rate increase without considering the additional benefits?

You surmise from a false premise, Lurker.

Your assumption is that everyone holding a policy will see that increased benefit for $16/month. However that isn't true. The small proportion of policies that have previously exculded those provisions now have to include them. And the cost is being born by all those people that have policies where those provisions were already included. So what you have is a large portion of the insured paying extra for something they already receive, so that those that didn't, can. That's why the driver in this cost increase was no cost sharing by the recipient of the benefit.

So in essence, a very few policy holders now have benefits paid for by the rest of us, because the insurance companies are now passing that risk-cost onto the insured pool. And while that's a great thing for those that didn't have the benefit before, how do you explain the the cost increase Obamacare cost people that saw no increase in benefit?

[Lurker]

You surmise from a false premise, Lurker.

Your assumption is that everyone holding a policy will see that increased benefit for $16/month. However that isn't true. The small proportion of policies that have previously exculded those provisions now have to include them.

Here we go again. You're accusing me of doing what you are doing. You are the one operating from a false premise.

The fact is, almost nobody enjoyed the benefits I listed that resulted in a 1.4% premium increase. Until the ACA, children were not allowed to remain on their parents policies until they were 26, very few plans included free preventative care, very few plans had expanded annual limits, and children could be dropped for preexisting conditions.

Everything you said - your entire premise about how most people already had the benefits I listed - was wrong. 180 degrees wrong. Almost nobody had them. You just made up some "facts" to fit your argument. And dodged the questions. Again.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You surmise from a false premise, Lurker.

Your assumption is that everyone holding a policy will see that increased benefit for $16/month. However that isn't true. The small proportion of policies that have previously exculded those provisions now have to include them.

Here we go again. You're accusing me of doing what you are doing. You are the one operating from a false premise.

The fact is, almost nobody enjoyed the benefits I listed that resulted in a 1.4% premium increase. Until the ACA, children were not allowed to remain on their parents policies until they were 26, very few plans included free preventative care, very few plans had expanded annual limits, and children could be dropped for preexisting conditions.

Everything you said - your entire premise about how most people already had the benefits I listed - was wrong. 180 degrees wrong. Almost nobody had them. You just made up some "facts" to fit your argument. And dodged the questions. Again.

Except for the kids staying on until 26, that hasn't been my experience.