<p>That is right… 2.4 percent. </p>
<p>And you are writing about a disaster? </p>
<p>You are insulting everybody.</p>
<p>“GP, I did already. Just google Wellpoint.”</p>
<p>Can’t find it.</p>
<p><a href=“The Young and the ObamaCare-less - WSJ”>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049704579320632933622494</a></p>
<p>"Age is a crude actuarial proxy for health status, and merely 24% of enrollees are between ages 18 and 34. ObamaCare’s economics needs that to rise to about 40% to achieve a critical mass. Enrollment also skews heavily to people 55 to 64 years old, at 33%.</p>
<p>Insurance policies plunge into a “death spiral” when premiums don’t cover the cost of claims, causing rates to surge year over year and more and more beneficiaries to drop coverage. This “adverse selection” already appears to be underway in eight states including Maryland, Washington, Ohio, Texas and Indiana.</p>
<p>Humana HUM -0.89% disclosed in a Securities and Exchange Commission regulatory filing that the insurer expects its ObamaCare risk pool to be “more adverse than previously expected.” Expect managed-care organizations to start making writedowns on their ObamaCare business."</p>
<p>I thought we already asked not to be “informed” by Avik Roy.</p>
<p>Forbes is a major publication. Did Texas forbid any links to them?</p>
<p>And the WaPo link reflects dstark’s position.</p>
<p>Gawd, GP, this isn’t about who publishes or whether it fits the CC TOC. It’ss about freaking content and perspective.</p>
<p>Ezra Klein writes for the Washington Post and he is a cheerleader for ACA. I don’t have any problem if you want to link to his articles.</p>
<p>LF, you don’t have a problem as long as you agree with the content and perspective. </p>
<p>Avik Roy again. :)</p>
<p>GP, I googled Wellpoint. Give it another try.</p>
<p>Ezra Klein quit the WAPO to start his own website. Carry on.</p>
<p>Tell me specifically what I should google. Can’t find it.</p>
<p>Over the last 20 years, I would have wept with gratitude over a 2.4% premium hike. The average was about 11-12%, and several years it was more than 20%. Perspective, indeed. </p>
<p>Uhm, there are people whose just premiums just tripled. Let’s not forget. </p>
<p>The 2.4% is Kaiser’s estimate, not what others are projecting, including the White House before the numbers became apparent. Kaiser is an ACA supporter and is hardly objective.</p>
<p>“Ezra Klein quit the WAPO to start his own website”</p>
<p>No more linking to him.</p>
<p>Yes, there were a lot of people who had inexpensive “junk” insurance, which would pay for, say, only the first day of a hospitalization, or capped total yearly benefits at a low level. People who didn’t need much healthcare probably thought that coverage was a good deal, not realizing that if they needed much more than routine care, they were going to be in big trouble. </p>
<p><a href=“Moody's - credit ratings, research, and data for global capital markets”>Moody's - credit ratings, research, and data for global capital markets;
<p>'Uncertainty over the demographics of those enrolling in individual products through the exchanges is a key factor in Moody’s outlook change, says the rating agency. Enrollment statistics show that only 24% of enrollees so far are aged 18-34, a critical group in ensuring that lower claim costs subsidize the higher claim costs of less healthy, older individuals. This is well short of the original 40% target based on the proportion of eligible people in this cohort, says Moody’s."</p>
<p>“Yes, there were a lot of people who had inexpensive “junk” insurance, which would pay for, say, only the first day of a hospitalization, or capped total yearly benefits at a low level. People who didn’t need much healthcare probably thought that coverage was a good deal, not realizing that if they needed much more than routine care, they were going to be in big trouble.”</p>
<p>How many people had insurance which paid for only one day of hospitalization? Specifics please.</p>
<p>Ok… These are my numbers. CF can correct me. Kaiser is known as non partisan. </p>
<p>I dont need Kaiser. I defintely do not need Avik Roy,who works for a libertarian think tank and is paid to hate Obamacare. </p>
<p>Let’s say we only get 25 percent of yoing people signing up snd all the premiums are profits. No costs at all for these people. Let’s say 1 million perfectly healthy young people did not sign up. And the premiums for these young people are 2500 a year. </p>
<p>So … This is what has to be understood.
$2500 times 1 million people = $2,5 blion dollars. </p>
<p>$2.5 billion. There are going to be 20 million people in the individual market. </p>
<p>$2.5 billion divided by $20 million people is </p>
<p>$125… Per person… Per year. That is approximately the added cost if 1 million healthy people dont show up. A little over $10 a month.</p>
<p>There is no calamity and these numbers overstate the issue. There are fewer variable costs. Of course, fixed costs are a little higher per person. </p>
<p>GP…, just buy one less bottle of wine or a few cheaper bottles.</p>
<p>dstark, where is the Wellpoint citation?</p>
<p>Ezra does have a blog telling why Malkin’s “death spiral” is off. But it’s from November.
GP, I like critical thinking, whether or not someone and I agree. It’s the vetting I referred to, a process. </p>
<p>“Uncertainty” is a factor in business analysis. It is not the kiss of death.<br>
There have been many plans that capped hospital days. </p>