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

CATASTROPHE MODELING JOBS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 08-05-2013, 02:12 PM
redprinceton redprinceton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete5383 View Post
He goes on your beloved Medicaid, and the taxpayer picks up the bill.

Except now with PPACA, he has to have insurance or he's been paying a fine, i.e., no freeloading.
Utilization is going to increase. Claim costs are going to increase. Your profession agrees with this almost unilaterally.

Premiums may appear to go down at first because of the MLR but this benefit of PPACA will get eaten up pretty quickly.

The Affordable Care act does nothing to address the affordability of healthcare. It is a list new insurance regulations that will serve to further alienate the people making choices about their care from the true cost of their choices.

Last edited by redprinceton; 08-05-2013 at 02:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 08-05-2013, 02:15 PM
twig93's Avatar
twig93 twig93 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erosewater View Post
If you think Harry Reid was flipping his vote I have some beachfront property to sell you
Cool! Where is it? How much?
__________________
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The thing that is clearest is twig's advice
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 08-05-2013, 02:18 PM
pete5383's Avatar
pete5383 pete5383 is online now
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twig93 View Post
The guy with cancer can simply wait for the next open enrollment period and enroll for insurance at that time.

Basically, if you don't have any assets that the hospital can go after, this is what you can do. Pay the $700 tax penalty instead of the $3,000 insurance premium (not sure if those are the right numbers, but the tax penalty is always or nearly always less than the premium) until you are sick.

If you get sick and need emergency care (heart attack) then you go and get free emergency treatment because ERs are not allowed to turn you away. The hospital can try to go after you, but you have no assets worth anything, so you can erase these debts via bankruptcy.

If you get a chronic condition (cancer, diabetes), you will have to wait for the next open enrollment period to get insurance. But since you've been living with it this long, what's a few more months?

People with assets can't (or at least shoudn't) do this because they will lose their assets in the event that they need expensive emergency treatment. But people without assets have no real reason not to follow this plan of action.

If insurers are smart, they'll all have the same open enrollment periods. This will discourage people from doing this on the chance that they might have to wait 11 months for treatment when they really should get treatment earlier. But if different insurers have different open enrollment periods, then the waiting period for an uninsured person who develops a chronic condition is much shorter.
This might be how things would work in a world in which everyone is an actuary doing a net present value analysis. But in the real world, like Switzerland where the system is already in place, this doesn't materially happen.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 08-05-2013, 02:20 PM
redprinceton redprinceton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete5383 View Post
This might be how things would work in a world in which everyone is an actuary doing a net present value analysis. But in the real world, like Switzerland where the system is already in place, this doesn't materially happen.
Not saying I agree with twig's scenario or numbers, but you don't need to be able to do NPV calculations to know that $700 now is less than $3000 now.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 08-05-2013, 02:21 PM
pete5383's Avatar
pete5383 pete5383 is online now
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redprinceton View Post
Utilization is going to increase. Claim costs are going to increase. Your profession agrees with this almost unilaterally.

Premiums may appear to go down at first because of the MLR but this benefit of PPACA will get eaten up pretty quickly.

The Affordable Care act does nothing to address the affordability of healthcare. It is a list new insurance regulations that will serve to further alienate the people making choices about their care from the true cost of their choices.
I agree. PPACA is not a good bill, and it will probably increase costs.

But that doesn't mean it's a march to single-payer.
And it doesn't mean that we will have 300m people jumping in and out of insurance coverage as they need it.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 08-05-2013, 02:22 PM
twig93's Avatar
twig93 twig93 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete5383 View Post
This might be how things would work in a world in which everyone is an actuary doing a net present value analysis. But in the real world, like Switzerland where the system is already in place, this doesn't materially happen.
It does not require actuarial-level expertise to make the determination that 700 < 3000. A second-grader can do that math.

The poor already know that they can get free emergency care. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even an actuary to figure out that PPACA now gives them options for paying for chronic conditions too.
__________________
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The thing that is clearest is twig's advice
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 08-05-2013, 02:22 PM
Guerilla poster's Avatar
Guerilla poster Guerilla poster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In Griffin's Neighborhood
Posts: 50,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete5383 View Post
This might be how things would work in a world in which everyone is an actuary doing a net present value analysis. But in the real world, like Switzerland where the system is already in place, this doesn't materially happen.

In Switzerland, if you don't sign up, you get automatically enrolled and sent a bill by the insurance company. It is nearly impossible to voluntarily opt out.
__________________
"It makes no difference who you vote for the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people."

GORE VIDAL (RIP)
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 08-05-2013, 02:23 PM
twig93's Avatar
twig93 twig93 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redprinceton View Post
Not saying I agree with twig's scenario or numbers, but you don't need to be able to do NPV calculations to know that $700 now is less than $3000 now.
dang, ninja'd.
__________________
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The thing that is clearest is twig's advice
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 08-05-2013, 02:24 PM
twig93's Avatar
twig93 twig93 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerilla poster View Post
In Switzerland, if you don't sign up, you get automatically enrolled and sent a bill by the insurance company
Interesting. That does sound like a better set-up than PPACA. So it's not that people have my option available and choose to not take it... it's that my option is not actually available to them.

In other words: Switzerland <> PPACA

Thanks GP!
__________________
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The thing that is clearest is twig's advice
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 08-05-2013, 02:26 PM
erosewater's Avatar
erosewater erosewater is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: my mom's basement
Studying for your mom
Favorite beer: Schlitz
Posts: 40,723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twig93 View Post
If insurers are smart, they'll all have the same open enrollment periods. This will discourage people from doing this on the chance that they might have to wait 11 months for treatment when they really should get treatment earlier. But if different insurers have different open enrollment periods, then the waiting period for an uninsured person who develops a chronic condition is much shorter.
The open enrollment period will be determined by the exchange, not individual insurers
__________________
F*** Juan
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 12:10 PM.


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 0.23234 seconds with 7 queries