Posted on 11/30/2016 8:08:49 AM PST by Mikey_1962
A new study by Jonathan Gruber, one of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) chief economic architects, suggests that roughly two-thirds of new Medicaid enrollees in 2014 were eligible for the program under previous state eligibility criteria—meaning that they were not made eligible by the ACA. If accurate, then a much smaller share of new Medicaid enrollees were made eligible for the program by the ACA than Washington experts commonly believe. For example, the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) most recent projection is that only one of six new Medicaid enrollees were eligible for the program before the ACA. Gruber’s results, combined with much higher than expected Medicaid enrollment and spending over the past three years, has profound implications for the distribution of program costs and the effect of a repeal of the ACA. First, Gruber’s results suggest that people who were already eligible for Medicaid before the ACA have been inappropriately categorized as though they are newly eligible because of the ACA. This is important because the ACA requires the federal government to pay a lot more of the cost of covering newly eligible enrollees than it does for those eligible for Medicaid before the ACA. Thus, it appears the federal government is paying a lot more than it should be and that states are paying far less. Second, Gruber’s results suggest that if the ACA were repealed, a lot fewer people would likely lose coverage than previously thought.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Yep. We all got Grubered. Well, we didn’t but the dummies did and now they’re screaming about it.
Along with making insurance companies cover a pre-existing illness. That is the antithesis of insurance.
Har! She is an airhead.
This man committed fraud.
Fixed that line...
Gruber SHOULD be in the Hoose Gow!!
Pre-existing conditions should be insured. Insurance for a single calendar year without pre-existing conditions is not really insurance. What material medical expense fits nicely in a calendar year. You could charge the client for whatever insurance they did not pay for in the past year or two. If you are worried that some people only get insurance when they are sick. But as you get over 50 you always have pre-existing conditions.
The other issue they need to look at is cost. Why do we pay more for a drug than the average of the top 50 richest countries. We should pay that average or we should not insure that drug.
Also, hospitals and doctors should have one price for each service. The idea that one guy pays 10 times more than another is crazy. Charge what you like but everybody gets that price like a grocery store.
That is likely not accurate given the source is Gruber who has admitted it’s OK to lie to meet an end.
The ACA greatly relaxed the Medicaid eligibility requirements, basically opening it up to anyone who makes below a certain level of income regardless of assets, age, infirmity, etc.
Previous Medicaid eligibility requirements (although different in each state) were generally limited to young children, mothers with young children, blind people, a few other disabilities. There was an asset test as well as an income test.
So, no I don’t believe what Gruber is saying.
The stated goal of the ACA was that at least half of “newly insured” would come from additions to the Medicaid rolls. They met that goal easily. The only way to do that was by relaxing the eligibility requirements drastically.
Meaning if we repeal Obamacare, the poor won’t be thrown out on the streets to die.
For that we have the word of none other than Jonathan Gruber.
Time to chuck Obamacare.
“Two-thirds of new Medicaid enrollees in 2014 were eligible for the program under previous state eligibility criteria—meaning that they were not made eligible by the ACA - Jonathan Gruber.”
I don’t believe this. The Medicaid expansion was HUGE. We went from a system where you had to be in a specific category, eg single woman, disabled etc to qualify and then had to meet income limits of under the poverty line.
The expanded system makes ANYONE (working age, able to work, no kids) eligible for Medicaid if you make under about 140% of the poverty line (in some states, higher).
The expansion of the eligible population was, therefore, huge.
I’m not sure why Gruber is running this line now. I don’t see what scheme it advances.
“Pre-existing conditions should be insured. Insurance for a single calendar year without pre-existing conditions is not really insurance. What material medical expense fits nicely in a calendar year. You could charge the client for whatever insurance they did not pay for in the past year or two. If you are worried that some people only get insurance when they are sick. But as you get over 50 you always have pre-existing conditions.”
The dilemma is that the preexisting conditions coverage is the main source of Obamacare’s higher premiums and hugely higher deductibles. Take that away and insurance companies can go back to doing insurance.
Well as I said. If you take away pre-existing insurance its not really insurance. The only people who could handle material illness are those who got insurance through their work or medicare, both have pre-existing insurance. For the rest who bought insurance on their own, they got in trouble and went bankrupt as soon as they had a material illness. Each year their rates go up dramatically or they are dropped. The insurance industry wants to get rid of pre-existing conditions which is actually the insurance people need.
And I really hat to say it. But that provision that takes young adults 18 to 25 get free healthcare on their parents plan is ridiculous. Those are not kids. Those are often working adults. Or adults that should be working. They could at least means test it. If you make more than $39K you have to get health insurance.
The premiums for 18 to 25 year olds are paid by the parents...their college aged children are just extended on parents’ plans.
Frankly, I don’t want any of my family having to register on the Obamacare data collection website ever, so if staying on my insurance prevents that, it is a good thing.
Additionally, given the weak job market for recent college grads and length of time some students are needing to finish their degrees, I don’t think it is ridiculous.
Many families I know have taken advantage of that provision—including mine. One of my children had to do multiple staggered internships and the internships pushed out their education until they were 25. Found a job in first month following graduation and has been paying own insurance since, but I am glad that provision existed.
If a parent’s medical plan is “family” and there is at least one other adult, then that kid is totally free. Most family plans are 3+ persons. The fourth person and so on, are free. You have a deductible for that kid. However there is a family cap, so that deductible may never come into play.
Its true that your kid may be hanging around the house waiting for the perfect job. Our your kid may be getting his masters in something. But your kid is also one of the healthy ones that Obamacare was depending on to offset the less healthy ones. And now that 6 of the most healthy years in our lives is either free or at a greatly reduced cost, there is no way Obamacare is going to work. And neither is any other plan. People used to get insurance for those years. Now the insurance system is out of balance so prices will need to go up a lot.
Many economists are wondering why young adults aren’t working as much as they did before 2009. Its not the economy. Its this insurance. They can go to machu picchu, or sail to Mackinaw. Or train for an iron man. Or just sit in their parents basement smoking pot. But they don’t have to get a job because healthcare is provided without one.
I gave a survey to my employees. Why did they work. Number two behind salary was medical insurance. For about 20% of my staff it was the only reason. And since 75% of the country does not get a college degree, there are lots of people who should be working, but aren’t.
Sorry, I find your comments pretty shocking...There is no free insurance for children...Actually, our insurance has rate calculated for each person...Yes, there are deductibles, and as I am sure you know, everything regarding insurance is based on actuarial statistics.
Oh, none of my “kids” were “hanging around the house for the perfect job,” though they all did seek degrees—one PhD, one MS, and one BS+. However, I am guessing you don’t read very well because I stated that my one “kid” who was on my family insurance program until age 25 got a job as soon as they graduated (1.5 months fast enough for you?), and now they are “paying premiums” for their company insurance. Oh, and since they were hit by a drunk driver, these were not exactly the healthiest 6 years of their life.
So it would seem to me that you are wanting healthy young adults to subsidize your medical bills or my group plan to subsidize your small company plan...And it seems that you are supporting Obamacare. Why would you want to support Obamacare?!?
Obamacare?! Again, I will repeat from my first post: Frankly I want it to “NOT work,” and I hope it does implode...I don’t want my “kid” on Obamacare or their data on the Obamacare data collection website. Why would you??? I am hoping you are not one of the few Freepers who thought Obamacare was a good idea?!
Insurance prices are going up, but my “kids” are not the problem—how about all the “kids” that have been brought in from South America and the Middle East on numerous immigration programs??
“Many economists are wondering why young adults aren’t working as much as they did before 2009. Its not the economy. Its this insurance.” Seriously? Sorry, you did not source it, and I don’t believe it. Obamacare has been a deterrent to job creation. Kids may not be working, but it is not because of insurance—at least none that I have known. And I fail to see how they can go surfing or sailing without a job...Sure maybe some, but that would not be a majority...your own survey only showed 20%, and I have no idea the sample size, etc, (spouse is a statistician, so I get it)...Young adults ARE NOT working because the GDP has been lousy and the actual U-6 jobs rate horrible for 8 years. The job market has been really lousy for BOTH recent college grads and those without a college degree. I I know this because I did recruiting and was able to assist my “kids” with job seeking—for one, we sent out over 150 resumes over a year—and they were not on my family insurance BTW~I give special “Thanks” to the H-1B Visaholders for making job seeking more difficult than ever for recent college grads.
Regarding your statistic, “ 75% of country does not get a college degree.” Stats are fun aren’t they, but they can be misleading...Perhaps 75% of the total US population does not get a college degree, but they are not about whom we are concerned are we?
According to BLS, 2 out of 3 high school grads in 2015 went on to college, and those who did not were looking for work.
In October 2015, 69.2 percent of 2015 high school graduates were enrolled in colleges or universities, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Recent high school
graduates not enrolled in college in October 2015 were about twice as likely as enrolled graduates to be working or looking for work (72.7 percent compared with 36.0 percent).
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm
NO young adults should be forced subsidize OBAMACARE. Let family insurance pay for them and let Obamacare crash and burn!
He’s up to something that’s for sure.
Certified liar.
Most insurance options come in single, plus one, and family. I have family because I have 5 children, 2 out of college, two in college and a high schooler. It costs me nothing to include my four kids over eighteen on my company medical, since I am already paying for family. Its a very large company. But the options have been virtually the same for the past 30 years in more than 15 health care plans I have been on.
Whether my kids are on my plan or their plan does not matter to Obamacare. It matters to healthcare costs. They are not paying, and I am not paying. Nobody is paying for their healthcare except the general insurance paying public who has to buy more expensive insurance because young adults don’t pay. They also aren’t working in record numbers. And they aren’t looking to work in record numbers.
And the US census has 75% of adults over 25 without a college degree for many years. Its true that more young adults are “enrolled” but that does not mean that they will graduate or are even trying to graduate.
IT seems we are just going to have to disagree...I would think that your group plan has calculated the premiums for the entire group...I just have never heard of children as being “free” on a family policy. Insurance companies have calculated the group’s costs over large group.
Interesting in that our plans have not been virtually the same for 25 years perhaps because we are self-funded. We have had many changes, including mergers, etc... from HMOs to PPOs to Medical Savings Accounts, basic coverages have changed...our coverage certainly is not static.
Very few people work for same company for 30 years let alone have insurance that remains virtually unchanged, so you have been fortunate to have unchanged plans that are subsidized because your large family is being subsidized by smaller families and couples.
IMHO it does make a difference to Obamacare—your “kids” have to be insured by someone, their employer, their college, their parents, or Obamacare.
Our insurance company for years allowed us to include our children on our insurance while in college—long before the “ridiculous” rule (as you put it). However,we had to provide proof of college enrollment.
I am not going to repost everything I said before regarding work—which I did SOURCE...I don’t have stats on number of kids not looking for jobs, that source you should provide since you are sticking with it...Again, I will just say all the students I know who have graduated from high school and college are working very hard to get ahead.
Again stats are FUN...who we are talking about is recent high school/college grads...You keep using the 75% of adults over 25 don’t have a college degree...
Actual Stats:
The number with no college degree is 26.35%
The percentage some college is 21.5%.
http://strongernation.luminafoundation.org/report/2016/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
However, the number of students who graduate from college after 6 years, that number is 60% with numbers being as high as 89% at selective schools:
The 6-year graduation rate for first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began their pursuit of a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year degree-granting institution in fall 2008 was 60 percent. That is, 60 percent of first-time, full-time students who began seeking a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year institution in fall 2008 completed the degree at that institution by 2014. The 6-year graduation rate was 58 percent at public institutions, 65 percent at private nonprofit institutions, and 27 percent at private for-profit institutions. The 6-year graduation rate was 57 percent for males and 62 percent for females; it was higher for females than for males at both public (61 vs. 55 percent) and private nonprofit institutions (68 vs. 62 percent). However, at private for-profit institutions, males had a higher 6-year graduation rate than females (28 vs. 25 percent).
Six-year graduation rates for first-time, full-time students who began seeking a bachelor’s degree in fall 2008 varied according to institutional selectivity. In particular, 6-year graduation rates were highest at post secondary degree-granting institutions that were the most selective (i.e., had the lowest admissions acceptance rates), and were lowest at institutions that were the least selective (i.e., had open admissions policies). For example, at 4-year institutions with open admissions policies, 36 percent of students completed a bachelor’s degree within 6 years. At 4-year institutions where the acceptance rate was less than 25 percent of applicants, the 6-year graduation rate was 89 percent. \
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). The Condition of Education 2016 (NCES 2016-144), Undergraduate Retention and Graduation Rates.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I will close in saying that with all due respect, it seems that even tho you think family insurance coverage to age 26 is “ridiculous,” you are covering your FOUR post-high school kids on that plan...If you are so opposed to the system, why not just tell your college kids to take the college insurance plan and pay for it separately, then the young and healthy are paying in premiums to prop up the system that you support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.