![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
telemann.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics
Looks like Obama care is having an impact on the number of younger Americans who have no health insurance. This group has been hit very hard by the economic downturn, when you'd expect the number for uninsured to INCREASE, not decrease. Despite the caveats in the article below, I'm pretty confident that the explanation why the insured are increasing is directly related to the implementation of "Obama care." Kaiser itself credits the new law for enlarging it's insurance rolls by nearly 600,000). You know, "Obama care" is the thing that every single Republican presidential candidate was screaming at the top of their lungs they would abolish the minute they're sworn in. Let's see them try to explain how they would get the insurance back for these young Americans without the old canards about "gutting Medicare to pay for this" and "TORT REFORM!", or close the prescription donut-hole (especially is a key electoral state like Florida with lots of elderly voters).
Need a reason to believe the Affordable Care Act is starting to work? The Census Bureau just gave you a half million of them. That’s how many young adults had health insurance in 2010, as compared to 2009, according to the official estimates. Or, to put it another way, the proportion of 18- to 24-year olds without health insurance fell, by roughly two percentage points, last year.
It's pretty remarkable, given what was happening in the rest of the population. For every other group of non-elderly adults, from 35 through 64 years of age, the proportion without health insurance increased. (See the graph above.) You expect that sort of data, given economic conditions: When people lose jobs, they also lose access to employer-sponsored insurance. When their incomes fall or their debts rise, they have a harder time keeping up with premiums. But then why aren't 18- to 24-year-olds suffering the same fate? What makes them so special? Nobody can be certain right now. Health insurance estimates are famously quirky and these data frequently mask critical information. But, as noted yesterday, the circumstantial evidence suggests, very strongly, that the Affordable Care Act is the primary factor.
Source.
Oh no!
Date: 14/9/11 18:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/9/11 18:14 (UTC)/Jenny McCarthy for VP!
Giving something away means more people want it; film at eleven...
Date: 14/9/11 18:25 (UTC)Is this really rocket science to you? When you drop the price or subsidize something more people, especially more people from a demographic that has tended to forgo consumption of the particular good or service in question, will demand it. This is economics 101.
Re: Giving something away means more people want it; film at eleven...
Date: 14/9/11 18:34 (UTC)EVERYONE needs insurance. If you go by potential years of life/productivity lost, you could argue that young people need it even more.
Re: Giving something away means more people want it; film at eleven...
Date: 14/9/11 18:41 (UTC)Re: Giving something away means more people want it; film at eleven...
Date: 14/9/11 20:54 (UTC)Setting asside statistics though, as well, the original observation still stands. Wise or not, the demographic in question has been the group most likely to go without health insurance, possibly due to the perception (whose truth or falsity may be debated) that they are less likely to "need" it, or they value it less because of their statistically reduced likelihood of being in the position of receiving a payout.
That being said, it is still a fact of basic economics that when the price of a good or service is reduced that more of that good or service is demanded.
Re: Giving something away means more people want it; film at eleven...
Date: 14/9/11 19:04 (UTC)Re: Giving something away means more people want it; film at eleven...
Date: 14/9/11 20:56 (UTC)Re: Giving something away means more people want it; film at eleven...
Date: 15/9/11 00:49 (UTC)Is it?
Re: Giving something away means more people want it; film at eleven...
Date: 15/9/11 01:41 (UTC)Re: Giving something away means more people want it; film at eleven...
Date: 15/9/11 02:58 (UTC)I'm aware of the individual mandate. And I believe the individual mandate doesn't take effect until 2014.
How are or how will employers be mandated to provide insurance?
Re: Giving something away means more people want it; film at eleven...
Date: 16/9/11 19:04 (UTC)Re: Giving something away means more people want it; film at eleven...
Date: 14/9/11 19:35 (UTC)Why so angry?
Got something more extreme?
Re: Giving something away means more people want it; film at eleven...
Date: 14/9/11 21:00 (UTC)As for "anger," well, let's not call it that precisely, but a return in kind with respect to the challenging tone of the original post and the sneering dismissal implied by the icon with which the OP chose to adorn it.
Re: Giving something away means more people want it; film at eleven...
Date: 14/9/11 21:15 (UTC)Re: Giving something away means more people want it; film at eleven...
Date: 15/9/11 00:28 (UTC)Re: Giving something away means more people want it; film at eleven...
Date: 15/9/11 10:46 (UTC)Re: Giving something away means more people want it; film at eleven...
Date: 15/9/11 00:28 (UTC)10 for $1 will get rid of item X quicker than FREE X!
(no subject)
Date: 14/9/11 18:40 (UTC)profitscustomer-base of the insurance companies. The problem is that getting people insurance doesn't get them better health-care.(no subject)
Date: 14/9/11 18:57 (UTC)A stupid question...
Date: 14/9/11 18:59 (UTC)Why not the price of said insurance or, better yet, healthcare in general?
I also not that the number of uninsured people in every other bracket has actually risen so if the number of people insured/uninsured is your metric for success it's not a very resounding one.
Re: A stupid question...
Date: 14/9/11 19:02 (UTC)if folks lose their jobs, they lose their insurance. that ain't the prez' fault.
Re: A stupid question...
Date: 14/9/11 20:01 (UTC)Re: A stupid question...
Date: 14/9/11 20:04 (UTC)Re: A stupid question...
Date: 16/9/11 19:11 (UTC)Ah, but that's where you're wrong! You see, stimulus spending makes baby Jesus cry and every tear destroys a job!
Re: A stupid question...
Date: 14/9/11 20:33 (UTC)I know, right? It's like celebrating that those who need it most don't have it, but hey, it's okay - those young folks are pouring money into the broken system!
Re: A stupid question...
Date: 14/9/11 20:37 (UTC)Re: A stupid question...
Date: 14/9/11 23:33 (UTC)This was one of the core ideas of Obama's health care and why he wants health care to be mandatory, to make sure healthy people are enrolled to subsidize rates for the sick.
If you look at the rates paid compared with the health care consumed, this graph looks like a transfer of wealth from the 18 - 24 years olds to those who are older and wealthier.
Re: A stupid question...
Date: 15/9/11 03:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/9/11 19:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/9/11 22:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/9/11 00:51 (UTC)What changed in the federal law from 2009 to 2010 to incentivize an 18-24-year-old to purchase insurance?
(no subject)
Date: 15/9/11 00:52 (UTC)Meant to write: I thought the law didn't go into effect until 2014.
Ah!
Date: 15/9/11 00:56 (UTC)"Under the Affordable Care Act, if your plan covers children, you can now add or keep your children on your health insurance policy until they turn 26 years old."
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/provisions/youngadult/index.html
Re: Ah!
Date: 15/9/11 01:02 (UTC)Re: Ah!
Date: 15/9/11 01:45 (UTC)Re: Ah!
Date: 15/9/11 02:55 (UTC)Re: Ah!
Date: 15/9/11 03:00 (UTC)Re: Ah!
Date: 15/9/11 03:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/9/11 01:24 (UTC)(A correction to your post: Kaiser doesn't credit its own roles as increasing by 600,000 young adults (the number for "Kaiser Permanente" is 90,000); it credits the total of all insurers (as of May 2011) as adding 600,000 young adults.)
...HOWEVER, the article does not mention how these increases in the young adult population compares to prior time periods:So, Aetna added 90,000. Does that mean that Aetna credits the dependent provision as responsible for adding 90,000 in the same manner that Well Point credits the provision for adding 280,000 to its roles. That point is unclear to me, and it's an absolutely critical point in understanding the impact/effect of the provision.
(no subject)
Date: 15/9/11 01:24 (UTC)