Actually it's just olds, not old sicks. I just read the pertinent part of the law this morning. It says that the ratio can't be greater than 3:1 based on age. No mention of sickness in that ratio-setting provision.

There are, of course, other provisions that deal with sickliness, but regarding the 3:1 ratio, that's just for age discrimination.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981367&forum_id=2#20976711)

As a young health person, I had health insurance for 38 dollars a month. It would completely cover me against any big emergency. That will now be outlawed and I will have to pay over $6000 a year for the kind of plan that Obamacare mandates, which means super comprehensive coverage that I don't want to pay for at prices far above what they would be in a normal market.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981367&forum_id=2#20974579)

Prediagnosed people will benefit, though. That is a legitimate issue that needed to be addressed. Obamacare did so in the worst way imaginable. Young people with serious ongoing prediagnosed illness are about .0001% of youngs, of course.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981367&forum_id=2#20974653)

Explain this bs

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981367&forum_id=2#20974660)

Otherwise the maximum premium is scaled based on a % of the federal poverty line.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981367&forum_id=2#20974856)

it's only a small minority of olds with individual plans and an even smaller minority of youngs with pre-ex's and people who are completely dirt poor who will benefit from this. A young normal person who works at starbucks will have to pay more now because of this since their premium will be scaled against olds and sicks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981367&forum_id=2#20975141)

Yer making us shitlibs look bad.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981367&forum_id=2#20975317)

2. Some youngs are healthy, a lot are not and are completely fucked in the current system. A friend of mine is adopted, and guess what, that's a pre-existing condition so she was completely fucked when trying to get health insurance. There are a lot of good things in the healthcare bill.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981367&forum_id=2#20974650)

this is obviously false. a lot in absolute numbers? sure. percentage wise? no, not at all

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981367&forum_id=2#20975316)

*pokes OP with walking cane*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981367&forum_id=2#20974786)

1) In 30 years, things will have changed A LOT, and whether we have Obamacare or not at this moment does not have much bearing on what policies we will have in place then.

2) The current trajectory is, without question, completely unsustainable. Costs have to be drastically reduced one way or another. If we are to heavily socialize the costs of health care, then the government will have to step in and slash benefits (since we won't be able to use markets to innovate/reduce costs). The current state of things is a wild orgy of irresponsibility and spending, and we can continue to fuel it with debt for a time, maybe even long enough for the boomers to keep enjoying it right up until their death. But certainly by the time we are old, we'll have to reign things in. Today's health care is really quite outstanding if you can afford it, it just costs too damn much. When we're old, we'll not only be lacking such great health care but we'll also be still paying the debt from when the Boomers enjoyed theirs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981367&forum_id=2#20975262)

Author: .,.,...,..,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

"The CBO has estimated that the average premium for a single insurance policy in the non-group market would be roughly $5,800 in -- in 2016. Respondents -- the economists have supported -- the Respondents estimate that a young, healthy individual targeted by the mandate on average consumes about $854 in health services each year. So the mandate is forcing these people to provide a huge subsidy to the insurance companies for other purposes that the act wishes to serve, but isn't -- if those figures are right, isn't it the case that what this mandate is really doing is not requiring the people who are subject to it to pay for the services that they are going to consume? It is requiring them to subsidize services that will be received by somebody else."

JUSTICE GINSBURG: "If you're going to have insurance, that's how insurance works."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1980633&forum_id=2#20968909)

Date: June 27th, 2012 9:48 PM

Author: solace and wallace (Let Ambient In!)

Hey Guess What:

The average premium was already fucking 4800 in 2009, and it's rising every year, dickwad. 5,800 would actually indicate an increase rate lower than the one occurred in the 2000's.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1980633&forum_id=2#20971353)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981367&forum_id=2#20975260)

Now instead of that, you'll be paying over $6k a year. (Generally take what the CBO says and adjust up a lot).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981367&forum_id=2#20975324)