CBO Is Increasingly Skeptical About ObamaCare

[mikey23545]

The latest report from the Congressional Budget Office : Obamacare is going to be more expensive than the Obama administration thought, disrupt the marketplace more than they thought, and be tougher to implement than they thought.



The latest report from the Congressional Budget Office highlights a number of reasons why the CBO is concerned about the implementation of Obamacare. It boils down to this: Obamacare is going to be more expensive than the Obama administration thought, disrupt the marketplace more than they thought, and be tougher to implement than they thought.

First, more expensive: The CBO significantly hiked the amount of money needed to fund the subsidies available through Obamacare's exchanges, hiking them by $233 billion. IBD explains: “The CBO's new baseline estimate shows that ObamaCare subsidies offered through the insurance exchanges — which are supposed to be up and running by next January — will total more than $1 trillion through 2022, up from $814 billion over those same years in its budget forecast made a year ago. That's an increase of nearly 29%. The CBO upped the 10-year subsidy cost by $32 billion since just last August.” Part of that is expecting more people in the exchanges thanks to employer dumping and more limited Medicaid expansion, but “The rest is largely the result of the CBO's sharp increase in what it expects the average subsidy will be. Last year, the CBO said the average exchange subsidy for those getting federal help when ObamaCare goes into effect next year would be $4,780. Its latest estimate raised that to $5,510 — a 15% increase. All these numbers are up even more from the CBO's original forecast made in 2010, which had the first-year subsidy average at $3,970.”

Second, more disruptive: More employees will be dropped from their existing plans and fewer uninsured people will get coverage. The WSJ explains: “The CBO has long said it expects the new federal health law will prompt some companies to drop millions of employees from health plans because workers have new options to buy insurance on their own. In August, CBO put the number at four million over 10 years. Now it’s seven million. What changed? Nothing about the health law. Rather, the cliff deal that was enacted in January. When CBO crunched the numbers in August, it assumed that no cliff deal would be reached and higher tax rates would kick in. Economists typically assume that higher tax rates mean that more people are offered, and accept, employer-provided health benefits, says Paul Fronstin, a senior research associate at the Employee Benefit Research Institute. That’s because health benefits are tax-deductible for companies, and so are any premiums that the employee is required to contribute.”

Third, more difficult to implement: The CBO isn't buying the administration's repeated assurances that everything will be ready to go on time when it comes to the health insurance exchanges. From the report: “CBO and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] have slightly reduced their estimates of the rates at which people will enroll in the insurance exchanges or Medicaid as the expansion of coverage is implemented—a process that had already been anticipated to occur gradually. That change reflects the agencies’ judgment about a combination of factors, including the readiness of exchanges to provide a broad array of new insurance options, the ability of state Medicaid programs to absorb new beneficiaries, and people’s responses to the availability of the new coverage.”

National Journal explains: “Publicly, administration officials have promised that the new exchanges will be ready on time… But the CBO report expresses skepticism… In plain language, that means CBO thinks the marketplaces won’t have many insurance choices, the Medicaid enrollment systems will not be ready for new people to enroll, and people will be less enthusiastic about signing up for new insurance options.”

Taken together, this is a report that shows how already, Obamacare is failing to match the hopes of its creators in many respects. Expect this trend to continue in future years. This is going to be a lot of political fractiousness and market disruption over a policy which may ultimately end up nudging the insured percentage up only slightly.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...re_116951.html

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Sarcastic pricks are a dime a dozen on here. Without any humor in the sarcasm your posts seem desperate and lame. It's like you need some reassurance that you "won"? I've seen this behavior before, its most popular known as small dick syndrome.

Meh, 7 3/4 erect.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

looks like he hit a nerve and got the action from you he wanted

I'm easily played. Thats no achievement.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

My opinion is that 20% of administration overhead is plenty of margin for a health insurance business. How hard is that to understand?

Just because I chose to not get into stupid ass arguments with people who are not going to change their mind doesn't = "getting my ass handed to me".

With all due respect, your opinion in this matter is uninformed and therefore largely irrelevant.

Insurance companies operate on a fairly tight profit margin already. As has already been pointed out, they profit if the market does well and their investments buoy them. From an underwriting standpoint, they really don't make money.

Now if the economy is doing well, I suppose you're right - this is a fine thing. However, during strong economic times, that's when insurance companies build up the war chests that allow them to ride out downturns. Putting in artificial constraints on how they're allowed to spend their money makes them extremely vulnerable to market swings.

Another quasi-crash could bury even large insurers.

Though as a good populist, I see you've already blamed the 'corporate fat cats' and just think we can go ahead and slash their salaries to make up any shortfalls. But here's the problem - excellent executives are in extremely high demand. If the insurance industry isn't able to pay these guys their market value, they're just going to go to another industry. And now you're looking at a leadership vacuum an an industry that is incredibly important, not just to the economy but to our health as a populace.

!@#$ing around with the insurance companies is a very very bad idea and there is absolutely no benefit to pushing them under or driving away qualified leaders.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

looks like he hit a nerve and got the action from you he wanted

I had no intention to troll only to educate. He is the one that posted the MEME and stuck is fingers in his ears like a child. I know it's uncommon to admit being incorrect, but it's obvious he is ignorant on the subject but kept defending his position because of his preconceived feelings towards any large industry.

[Dayze]

it's as though no one in our government besides Obama read the bill.

[Fairplay]

[FD]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

No. If you are paying out more in claims then you are taking in, in premiums that you raise premiums. There really isn't much room to manuever in OH cost for these companies. Insurance companies employee a shit load of people in hope of breaking even and then invest that money into things like strip malls or whatever that also employee a shit load of people. Anyone that thinks the general principle of insurance is the debil just doesn't get it. In fact some companies actually lose more money in claims then they take it, but that's not so horrible in a good economy so the eat the loss there in hope of recouping the investement income.

I agree with your first sentence, but you missed my point. You said the 80% rule pushing companies into the red would cause them to raise premiums, but thats wrong. Any extra $ they raised that way would have to be reimbursed directly to their consumers unless they cut costs. Like I said, I dont think you understand how the 80% rule works.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by FD

I agree with your first sentence, but you missed my point. You said the 80% rule pushing companies into the red would cause them to raise premiums, but thats wrong. Any extra $ they raised that way would have to be reimbursed directly to their consumers unless they cut costs. Like I said, I dont think you understand how the 80% rule works.

No, it's not. Only 80% of the extra premiums would be paid to consumers. So the company is still keeping 20% of the raised premium. It's not a dollar in dollar out match.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

I had no intention to troll only to educate. He is the one that posted the MEME and stuck is fingers in his ears like a child. I know it's uncommon to admit being incorrect, but it's obvious he is ignorant on the subject but kept defending his position because of his preconceived feelings towards any large industry.

I am not ignorant on the subject. You are biased and have blinders on. As FD has pointed out you have no clue on how the 80% rule works.
I'm done with this thread and subject. Obamacare is the law of the land. SCOTUS has ruled. The 80/20 rule is in place and the American citizens have got $1.5 billion more $'s in their pockets, in just the first year. That is a good thing.

[FD]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

No, it's not. Only 80% of the extra premiums would be paid to consumers. So the company is still keeping 20% of the raised premium. It's not a dollar in dollar out match.

100% of the new premiums would be used to recoup the losses from paying old premiums in your example. Thus, 0% are used on health costs and so it all has to be paid right back out. Every new dollar of premiums gets paid out in rebates.

Another way of thinking about it is this: any subscriber premiums in excess of 25% of health costs have to be reimbursed. Without changes to those costs, it doesnt matter how much you increase premiums, it all has to be reimbursed.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by FD

100% of the new premiums would be used to recoup the losses from paying old premiums in your example. Thus, 0% are used on health costs and so it all has to be paid right back out. Every new dollar of premiums gets paid out in rebates.

Another way of thinking about it is this: any subscriber premiums in excess of 25% of health costs have to be reimbursed. Without changes to those costs, it doesnt matter how much you increase premiums, it all has to be reimbursed.

They have to pay 80% if they don't pay 80% then it's reimbursed. Regardless is still gives them more money for operating cost assuming everything else equal. If they are currently taking in 100K in premiums and are now paying 60%(60K) out in claims they are going to have to recoup that. So what does insurance company do, raise premiums to 150K so they recoup 1/2 of what they lost by paying 80%. If they can find cuts elsewhere like all important jobs they may have to do that as well.

[FD]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

They have to pay 80% if they don't pay 80% then it's reimbursed. Regardless is still gives them more money for operating cost assuming everything else equal. If they are currently taking in 100K in premiums and are now paying 60%(60K) out in claims they are going to have to recoup that. So what does insurance company do, raise premiums to 150K so they recoup 1/2 of what they lost by paying 80%. If they can find cuts elsewhere like all important jobs they may have to do that as well.

I'm not going to go back and forth on this all day, I'll just explain one more time that you don't understand this rule.

Health claims have to account for 80% of premiums. Any amount collected in premiums in excess of this amount has to be rebated.

In your example, they initially have to rebate $25k to get down to $75k, since 60/75=80%. After the premium increase, they still need to get down to $75k since their costs haven't changed, so they rebate $75k. Every new dollar that came in has gone right back out.

[Dallas Chief]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

My opinion is that 20% of administration overhead is plenty of margin for a health insurance business. How hard is that to understand?

Just because I chose to not get into stupid ass arguments with people who are not going to change their mind doesn't = "getting my ass handed to me".

I am making a choice to who and how often I will respond to in this forum.

So if you want to make the choice to label all who disagree with you as liberal scum, thats your choice.

Profits = Revenues - Expenses

For example
Revenue= 100
Expenses= 80 + whatever it costs them to put the lights on, salaries, HR, etc etc etc.

How much profit does that leave to hire new people, expand your operations etc when your operating costs (overhead + selling, general, and administrative) is somewhere in the 14-18% of sales range? In this case sales =100. That's right... anywhere from a 2%-6% profit margin. Not 20% as you keep beating your chest about. This has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservatives. It is purely dollars and sense. Smaller health insurance companies will find it more than difficult to operate in this environment. The big guys can swing it because they offset their losses in individual premium sales of policies by selling group policies to large companies in which they don't have to provide as much back end service, a cost that smaller companies have to absorb. You don't seem to get that or your vision is blurred by your Barrycoloredkoolaid glassses.

You smell what I am stepping it yet?

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Dallas Chief

Profits = Revenues - Expenses

For example
Revenue= 100
Expenses= 80 + whatever it costs them to put the lights on, salaries, HR, etc etc etc.

How much profit does that leave to hire new people, expand your operations etc when your operating costs (overhead + selling, general, and administrative) is somewhere in the 14-18% of sales range? In this case sales =100. That's right... anywhere from a 2%-6% profit margin. Not 20% as you keep beating your chest about. This has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservatives. It is purely dollars and sense. Smaller health insurance companies will find it more than difficult to operate in this environment. The big guys can swing it because they offset their losses in individual premium sales of policies by selling group policies to large companies in which they don't have to provide as much back end service, a cost that smaller companies have to absorb. You don't seem to get that or your vision is blurred by your Barrycoloredkoolaid glassses.

You smell what I am stepping it yet?

He is a mindless Obama groupie. You would have better luck trying to fill up the Grand Canyon with pennies than you will trying to reason with that idiot~

[Johnny Vegas]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

you guys are hopeless. If you received a $1.5 billion tax cut you'd be estatic. But since that $1.5 billion is from Obamacare it sucks. You guys need to get your partisan heads out of the bubble.

my math might suck so correct me if I'm wrong. So that $1.5 billion is divided between 50 million people insured comes out to $30 saved that year for each individual.