Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Cyberchat > Political Issues
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Fill in a brief DW Simpson Registration Form
to be contacted when our jobs meet your criteria.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-26-2012, 12:05 PM
Coyote Coyote is offline
AO President
AAA
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Favorite beer: duo equus
Posts: 3,005
Default How will Supreme Court rulling on Obamacare impact elections in November

If they strike it down, does that help or hurt Obama?

If they leave it intact?

If they remove mandate?

If they say it isn't ripe?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-26-2012, 12:21 PM
Zakk Wylde's Avatar
Zakk Wylde Zakk Wylde is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,975
Default

Howard Dean was on this morning saying they would probably strike down the individual mandate, but that it wouldn't be a big deal. Come again? The path to universal coverage is to force people (even healthy people) to buy coverage, except we're not actually going to force people to buy coverage? That seems like a big deal.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-26-2012, 12:45 PM
independent independent is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,405
Default

The interesting political question is what happens if they throw out the mandate but not the guaranteed issue. Do the insurance companies lobby to get rid of the GI? I'd guess that would be unpopular politically. Which way would congress critters jump?

I'd guess that either throwing out the whole thing or keeping the whole thing would be a wash. The strongly pro and con voters are probably already in the D or R column.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-26-2012, 12:50 PM
johnny storm johnny storm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,324
Default

Zakk, if they strike down the mandate but not guaranteed issue, it's not a big deal* - people who need insurance can just buy it on the way to the hospital. Hard to guess what the Dean meant, but that's probably approximately what he was saying.


*Other than destroying all insurers and the market. But that will be fixed when government takes over everything.
__________________
But as with everyone who asks for an opinion, all I was really looking for was validation of my own opinion. ---asdfasdf
But hey, maybe banning porn will solve Social Security and the deficit.....Let me think about it. ---Eimon Gnome
This is amazing work. You visited a country a couple of times, saw free soda refills, and were able to determine the cause of obesity. ---George L. Costanza
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-26-2012, 01:01 PM
FormLetter's Avatar
FormLetter FormLetter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 44,103
Default

Designated enrollment periods can mitigate the adverse selection that comes along with guaranteed issue. If you're sick, you buy. If you decide not to buy, you aren't just saying you're healthy today, but that you are betting on being healthy until the next enrollment period.
__________________
Come join the AO Rap Battle Tournament 2013:
http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actu...33#post7082433
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-26-2012, 01:49 PM
gaddy gaddy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,274
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FormLetter View Post
Designated enrollment periods can mitigate the adverse selection that comes along with guaranteed issue. If you're sick, you buy. If you decide not to buy, you aren't just saying you're healthy today, but that you are betting on being healthy until the next enrollment period.
One of the simpler and smarter solutions I've heard. Anyone on the political scene discussing this?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-26-2012, 01:58 PM
Coyote Coyote is offline
AO President
AAA
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Favorite beer: duo equus
Posts: 3,005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gaddy View Post
One of the simpler and smarter solutions I've heard. Anyone on the political scene discussing this?
Of course not. There are no designated enrollment periods silly. Everyone HAS to sign up immediately. That's what mandate means.

There is no reason not to. It's free or heavily subsidized by the government.

And people who make more than $250K will pay for it. No worries for the 95%. Obama found you a sugar daddy so you don't have to work for your healthcare no more.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-26-2012, 02:12 PM
Standtall's Avatar
Standtall Standtall is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,473
Default

The first sick person who chose not to opt in and has to pay a bill will be all over CNN and MSNBC calling every Republican every name in the book. It will be called "news".
__________________
The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. –Chinese Proverb
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-26-2012, 02:19 PM
FormLetter's Avatar
FormLetter FormLetter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 44,103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote View Post
Of course not. There are no designated enrollment periods silly. Everyone HAS to sign up immediately. That's what mandate means.

There is no reason not to. It's free or heavily subsidized by the government.

And people who make more than $250K will pay for it. No worries for the 95%. Obama found you a sugar daddy so you don't have to work for your healthcare no more.
I don't think you know much about PPACA.

Either that or you are damaging the side of the argument that seeks to disparage PPACA by running off a bunch of things that aren't true about it.

Invoking the Erosewater rule: PPACA is bad enough on its own merits without having to resort to making things up to tarnish it.
__________________
Come join the AO Rap Battle Tournament 2013:
http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actu...33#post7082433
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-26-2012, 02:28 PM
Coyote Coyote is offline
AO President
AAA
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Favorite beer: duo equus
Posts: 3,005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FormLetter View Post
I don't think you know much about PPACA.

Either that or you are damaging the side of the argument that seeks to disparage PPACA by running off a bunch of things that aren't true about it.

Invoking the Erosewater rule: PPACA is bad enough on its own merits without having to resort to making things up to tarnish it.
PPACA extends medicaid to 130% of fed poverty limit (FPL). PPACA offers subsidies for those making up to 400% of FPL. That means a family of four making about $80,000 will get subsidies.

And how do you think all that is going to be paid for? Now, I realize PPACA doesn't explicitly say where the money is coming from, but where do you think the deficit will be paid from?

And I do think PPACA did increase the cost of Medicare by making it means tested. In other words, it moves more and more away from social insurance for everyone. The concept that created it. And more and more toward welfare. A program not for all, but one only for the poor.

Last edited by Coyote; 08-12-2014 at 10:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.37185 seconds with 7 queries