Why do we pass such stupid laws?

809 Views | 21 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by dajo9
LudwigsFountain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I retired from my career in healthcare finance shortly before the Affordable Care Act was passed, was on my wife's health plan for a few years and then went on Medicare. So I never bothered to learn much about the ACA. But when the recent shutdown featured the ACA subsidies my interest was piqued and I did some reading, which prompted the following rant.

The ACA has a provision requiring insurance plans to pay out a set percentage of premiums in care. The requirement is 85% for large group plans and 80% for smaller plans. This applies to all plans, not just those purchased through the ACA exchanges. So instantly the incentive to curb unnecessary care is eliminated. And with premiums subsidized there is now a direct incentive to expand care, raise premiums and increase profits. But it gets worse. With this incentive in place, insurance companies start acquiring physician practices and pharmacy benefit corporations so they can feast on the increased care directly. United Health Care employees 10% of the physicians in the United States. And I don't blame UHC and the others; when I see flies buzzing around spilled honey I blame whoever spilled it, not the flies.

And on another front, it looks like with half of all ACA enrollees fully subsidized, there's incentive to set up 'harvesting' firms and fraudulently enroll people in more than one state. There are systems set up to prevent this but there also estimates that it is happening in the low millions. The incidence of zero plan utilization in the ACA is higher than that in private insurance and is increasing, another indication this is happening.

And we wonder why premiums are increasing so rapidly. Meanwhile the Democrats push for more government involvement and the Republicans twiddle their thumbs and offer no alternative.



DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LudwigsFountain said:


And on another front, it looks like with half of all ACA enrollees fully subsidized, there's incentive to set up 'harvesting' firms and fraudulently enroll people in more than one state.



Care to substantiate your claim with a link?

How's Trumpcare coming along?
Is it still just a concept?

LudwigsFountain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

LudwigsFountain said:


And on another front, it looks like with half of all ACA enrollees fully subsidized, there's incentive to set up 'harvesting' firms and fraudulently enroll people in more than one state.



Care to substantiate your claim with a link?

How's Trumpcare coming along?
Is it still just a concept?



I hadn't searched on my opinion that there's an incentive in the ACA to increase care but now I have. Here's what Gemini has to say

AI on the ACA's incentive to increase care

Nor had I searched on how premiums will react to this incentive. Like above, I just relied on my experience. Again, here's Gemini's response

Will the incentive noted above lead to higher premiums?

I believe everything else I posted is factual. You may want to do your own research on those points.

As far as Trumpcare, what little I've read is just Trump rambling on about nothing substantial. Like I said, I'm not a fan of either party on this issue, so I don't know why you'd ask that.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LudwigsFountain said:

DiabloWags said:

LudwigsFountain said:


And on another front, it looks like with half of all ACA enrollees fully subsidized, there's incentive to set up 'harvesting' firms and fraudulently enroll people in more than one state.



Care to substantiate your claim with a link?

How's Trumpcare coming along?
Is it still just a concept?




I believe everything else I posted is factual. You may want to do your own research on those points.



So you actually believe that its a FACT that half of all ACA enrollees are fully subsidized?
Again, where does this claim come from?
Got a link?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree it is stupid that for profit health insurance companies exist.

But the ACA with all it's flaws is better than the death by denial we had before.
LudwigsFountain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

LudwigsFountain said:

DiabloWags said:

LudwigsFountain said:


And on another front, it looks like with half of all ACA enrollees fully subsidized, there's incentive to set up 'harvesting' firms and fraudulently enroll people in more than one state.



Care to substantiate your claim with a link?

How's Trumpcare coming along?
Is it still just a concept?




I believe everything else I posted is factual. You may want to do your own research on those points.



So you actually believe that its a FACT that half of all ACA enrollees are fully subsidized?
Again, where does this claim come from?
Got a link?


Look, I didn't know any of the facts I posted until I researched them. Do you think I did that and then ignored the results?

Here's the answer to your question

What % of ACA enrollees are fully subsidized

I'm not going to redo all of my research just so I can add more links. If you're skeptical make your own inquiries; it takes about as long as asking me.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sorry, but your Artificial Intelligence link indicated that "roughly half of all enrollees across all marketplaces MIGHT be in fully subsidized plans"

That claim, without any credible references is worthless.

The berth is so wide here that you could drive a White Freightliner through it.

LudwigsFountain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Sorry, but your Artificial Intelligence link indicated that "roughly half of all enrollees across all marketplaces MIGHT be in fully subsidized plans"

That claim, without any credible references is worthless.

The berth is so wide here that you could drive a White Freightliner through it.




You forgot to mention that the subsidies were increased in 2021. My post was based on this response, when I asked about the current status of ACA premium subsidies.

"Approximately half of all ACA enrollees were enrolled in fully subsidized plans as of November 2025, meaning they paid no premium out-of-pocket, with the federal government covering the full cost. Nearly all marketplace enrollees (around 93-94%) receive some level of subsidy, but a large portion of this is enhanced coverage that makes premiums zero for many low-income individuals.
  • Fully subsidized enrollees: Roughly 50% of enrollees had plans that required no premium payment as of November 2025.
  • Enrollees receiving some subsidy: Around 93-94% of all ACA marketplace enrollees received premium tax credits to lower their costs.
  • How enhanced subsidies work: Temporary, enhanced subsidies have made premiums zero for those with incomes up to 150% of the federal poverty level, while also reducing premium costs for others."
What I find frustrating about this board is that rather than engage with the main thrust of a discussion, people play gotcha by finding what 'might' be a discrepancy in an ancillary point. So let me ask you a question. Do you think I'm wrong in concluding that the medical loss provision of the ACA, coupled with the insurance industry's knowledge of how the program works, has an adverse impact on premium increases? If not,why not?
Aunburdened
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LudwigsFountain said:

DiabloWags said:

Sorry, but your Artificial Intelligence link indicated that "roughly half of all enrollees across all marketplaces MIGHT be in fully subsidized plans"

That claim, without any credible references is worthless.

The berth is so wide here that you could drive a White Freightliner through it.




You forgot to mention that the subsidies were increased in 2021. My post was based on this response, when I asked about the current status of ACA premium subsidies.

"Approximately half of all ACA enrollees were enrolled in fully subsidized plans as of November 2025, meaning they paid no premium out-of-pocket, with the federal government covering the full cost. Nearly all marketplace enrollees (around 93-94%) receive some level of subsidy, but a large portion of this is enhanced coverage that makes premiums zero for many low-income individuals.
  • Fully subsidized enrollees: Roughly 50% of enrollees had plans that required no premium payment as of November 2025.
  • Enrollees receiving some subsidy: Around 93-94% of all ACA marketplace enrollees received premium tax credits to lower their costs.
  • How enhanced subsidies work: Temporary, enhanced subsidies have made premiums zero for those with incomes up to 150% of the federal poverty level, while also reducing premium costs for others."
What I find frustrating about this board is that rather than engage with the main thrust of a discussion, people play gotcha by finding what 'might' be a discrepancy in an ancillary point. So let me ask you a question. Do you think I'm wrong in concluding that the medical loss provision of the ACA, coupled with the insurance industry's knowledge of how the program works, has an adverse impact on premium increases? If not,why not?


My advice to you, don't waste your time trying to have a debate with this moron. He can only think in terms of Dems vs. MAGA.
LudwigsFountain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aunburdened said:


My advice to you, don't waste your time trying to have a debate with this moron. He can only think in terms of Dems vs. MAGA.

I think that's good advice. I'll take it.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LudwigsFountain said:

DiabloWags said:

Sorry, but your Artificial Intelligence link indicated that "roughly half of all enrollees across all marketplaces MIGHT be in fully subsidized plans"

That claim, without any credible references is worthless.

The berth is so wide here that you could drive a White Freightliner through it.




You forgot to mention that the subsidies were increased in 2021. My post was based on this response, when I asked about the current status of ACA premium subsidies.

"Approximately half of all ACA enrollees were enrolled in fully subsidized plans as of November 2025, meaning they paid no premium out-of-pocket, with the federal government covering the full cost. Nearly all marketplace enrollees (around 93-94%) receive some level of subsidy, but a large portion of this is enhanced coverage that makes premiums zero for many low-income individuals.
  • Fully subsidized enrollees: Roughly 50% of enrollees had plans that required no premium payment as of November 2025.
  • Enrollees receiving some subsidy: Around 93-94% of all ACA marketplace enrollees received premium tax credits to lower their costs.
  • How enhanced subsidies work: Temporary, enhanced subsidies have made premiums zero for those with incomes up to 150% of the federal poverty level, while also reducing premium costs for others."
What I find frustrating about this board is that rather than engage with the main thrust of a discussion, people play gotcha by finding what 'might' be a discrepancy in an ancillary point. So let me ask you a question. Do you think I'm wrong in concluding that the medical loss provision of the ACA, coupled with the insurance industry's knowledge of how the program works, has an adverse impact on premium increases? If not,why not?



I provided a short, substantive response that you ignored because you disagree with it. I agree with everything you say about premiums. We have a terrible system. ACA is still better than what previously existed even though it is welfare for insurance companies. Previously people were just denied insurance. Now insurance companies have to provide insurance but they get to plunder the Federal Treasury. The only solution that doesn't kill Americans is to change to a western European style system. But you don't want to acknowledge that.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:


But you don't want to acknowledge that.


I have found that he ignores an awful lot of facts already in evidence in order to coincide with his GOP political bias.

And for what it's worth, he doesn't seem to understand how the Federal Poverty Rate (FPL) factors into the calculation of the ACA subsidies. For example, the current Federal Poverty Level (FPL) which is set at $15,650.

ie.) If you are below the FPL you are not eligible for the ACA and are on Medicaid and it is fully subsidized.

DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aunburdened said:

My advice to you, don't waste your time trying to have a debate with this moron. He can only think in terms of Dems vs. MAGA.

Cool story Yogi.

LudwigsFountain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

LudwigsFountain said:

DiabloWags said:

Sorry, but your Artificial Intelligence link indicated that "roughly half of all enrollees across all marketplaces MIGHT be in fully subsidized plans"

That claim, without any credible references is worthless.

The berth is so wide here that you could drive a White Freightliner through it.




You forgot to mention that the subsidies were increased in 2021. My post was based on this response, when I asked about the current status of ACA premium subsidies.

"Approximately half of all ACA enrollees were enrolled in fully subsidized plans as of November 2025, meaning they paid no premium out-of-pocket, with the federal government covering the full cost. Nearly all marketplace enrollees (around 93-94%) receive some level of subsidy, but a large portion of this is enhanced coverage that makes premiums zero for many low-income individuals.
  • Fully subsidized enrollees: Roughly 50% of enrollees had plans that required no premium payment as of November 2025.
  • Enrollees receiving some subsidy: Around 93-94% of all ACA marketplace enrollees received premium tax credits to lower their costs.
  • How enhanced subsidies work: Temporary, enhanced subsidies have made premiums zero for those with incomes up to 150% of the federal poverty level, while also reducing premium costs for others."
What I find frustrating about this board is that rather than engage with the main thrust of a discussion, people play gotcha by finding what 'might' be a discrepancy in an ancillary point. So let me ask you a question. Do you think I'm wrong in concluding that the medical loss provision of the ACA, coupled with the insurance industry's knowledge of how the program works, has an adverse impact on premium increases? If not,why not?



I provided a short, substantive response that you ignored because you disagree with it. I agree with everything you say about premiums. We have a terrible system. ACA is still better than what previously existed even though it is welfare for insurance companies. Previously people were just denied insurance. Now insurance companies have to provide insurance but they get to plunder the Federal Treasury. The only solution that doesn't kill Americans is to change to a western European style system. But you don't want to acknowledge that.

Sheesh. My wife taught me decades ago that it's usually a bad idea to assume you know what someone's opinion or intentions are when they' haven't been stated. I can certainly acknowledge that you have a valid opinion. I assume that the ACA has saved lives at the margin, but I don't really know. And before you assume that America pre ACA had worse outcomes than Europe dig below the surface a little. Our shorter life expectancy is usually seen as evidence, but when you control for homicides, traffic deaths and drug overdoses the gap shrinks; there isn't much of gap at older ages, when these factors are no longer as significant. And that doesn't take into account our unhealthy habits. We have higher incidence of type 2 diabetes and much higher rates of obesity. Japanese Americans have a longer life expectancy than Japanese citizens, which I've seen attributed to Japanese Americans having healthier habits than other Americans. Cancer survival rates are generally better in America. The United States does a better job of saving premature babies. This is what I remember from my readings before I retired, well before the ACA was enacted, so it may not be entirely accurate. But the point is that comparing health outcomes across countries is a complicated proposition, certainly more complex than your short, substantive response. I didn't respond because despite what I've just posted I don't have a conclusive opinion on which system saves more lives overall. And I got tired of responding to posts that when boiled down usually just amount to "I'm right and you're wrong."
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LudwigsFountain said:

dajo9 said:

LudwigsFountain said:

DiabloWags said:

Sorry, but your Artificial Intelligence link indicated that "roughly half of all enrollees across all marketplaces MIGHT be in fully subsidized plans"

That claim, without any credible references is worthless.

The berth is so wide here that you could drive a White Freightliner through it.




You forgot to mention that the subsidies were increased in 2021. My post was based on this response, when I asked about the current status of ACA premium subsidies.

"Approximately half of all ACA enrollees were enrolled in fully subsidized plans as of November 2025, meaning they paid no premium out-of-pocket, with the federal government covering the full cost. Nearly all marketplace enrollees (around 93-94%) receive some level of subsidy, but a large portion of this is enhanced coverage that makes premiums zero for many low-income individuals.
  • Fully subsidized enrollees: Roughly 50% of enrollees had plans that required no premium payment as of November 2025.
  • Enrollees receiving some subsidy: Around 93-94% of all ACA marketplace enrollees received premium tax credits to lower their costs.
  • How enhanced subsidies work: Temporary, enhanced subsidies have made premiums zero for those with incomes up to 150% of the federal poverty level, while also reducing premium costs for others."
What I find frustrating about this board is that rather than engage with the main thrust of a discussion, people play gotcha by finding what 'might' be a discrepancy in an ancillary point. So let me ask you a question. Do you think I'm wrong in concluding that the medical loss provision of the ACA, coupled with the insurance industry's knowledge of how the program works, has an adverse impact on premium increases? If not,why not?



I provided a short, substantive response that you ignored because you disagree with it. I agree with everything you say about premiums. We have a terrible system. ACA is still better than what previously existed even though it is welfare for insurance companies. Previously people were just denied insurance. Now insurance companies have to provide insurance but they get to plunder the Federal Treasury. The only solution that doesn't kill Americans is to change to a western European style system. But you don't want to acknowledge that.

Sheesh. My wife taught me decades ago that it's usually a bad idea to assume you know what someone's opinion or intentions are when they' haven't been stated. I can certainly acknowledge that you have a valid opinion. I assume that the ACA has saved lives at the margin, but I don't really know. And before you assume that America pre ACA had worse outcomes than Europe dig below the surface a little. Our shorter life expectancy is usually seen as evidence, but when you control for homicides, traffic deaths and drug overdoses the gap shrinks; there isn't much of gap at older ages, when these factors are no longer as significant. And that doesn't take into account our unhealthy habits. We have higher incidence of type 2 diabetes and much higher rates of obesity. Japanese Americans have a longer life expectancy than Japanese citizens, which I've seen attributed to Japanese Americans having healthier habits than other Americans. Cancer survival rates are generally better in America. The United States does a better job of saving premature babies. This is what I remember from my readings before I retired, well before the ACA was enacted, so it may not be entirely accurate. But the point is that comparing health outcomes across countries is a complicated proposition, certainly more complex than your short, substantive response. I didn't respond because despite what I've just posted I don't have a conclusive opinion on which system saves more lives overall. And I got tired of responding to posts that when boiled down usually just amount to "I'm right and you're wrong."


One of your arguments is the medical differences go away for older people. Of course, older people in America have Medicare, which helps my point. The other thing you don't address are the astronomically terrible financial outcomes in the U.S. Both in terms of our deficit spending and personal finance bankruptcies and personal economic wreckage caused by our system. Also our system (and especially our pre-ACA system) leads to 2 extreme differences in terms of outcomes. One group gets great government insurance, one group gets great private insurance, and one group gets left out and is underinsured, underprovided for, and at high risk of financial ruin. Looking at average outcomes is barely relevant when analyzing the disparate outcomes we get from accruing our savings in the form of American deaths from a neglected segment of the population.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aunburdened said:

LudwigsFountain said:

DiabloWags said:

Sorry, but your Artificial Intelligence link indicated that "roughly half of all enrollees across all marketplaces MIGHT be in fully subsidized plans"

That claim, without any credible references is worthless.

The berth is so wide here that you could drive a White Freightliner through it.




You forgot to mention that the subsidies were increased in 2021. My post was based on this response, when I asked about the current status of ACA premium subsidies.

"Approximately half of all ACA enrollees were enrolled in fully subsidized plans as of November 2025, meaning they paid no premium out-of-pocket, with the federal government covering the full cost. Nearly all marketplace enrollees (around 93-94%) receive some level of subsidy, but a large portion of this is enhanced coverage that makes premiums zero for many low-income individuals.
  • Fully subsidized enrollees: Roughly 50% of enrollees had plans that required no premium payment as of November 2025.
  • Enrollees receiving some subsidy: Around 93-94% of all ACA marketplace enrollees received premium tax credits to lower their costs.
  • How enhanced subsidies work: Temporary, enhanced subsidies have made premiums zero for those with incomes up to 150% of the federal poverty level, while also reducing premium costs for others."
What I find frustrating about this board is that rather than engage with the main thrust of a discussion, people play gotcha by finding what 'might' be a discrepancy in an ancillary point. So let me ask you a question. Do you think I'm wrong in concluding that the medical loss provision of the ACA, coupled with the insurance industry's knowledge of how the program works, has an adverse impact on premium increases? If not,why not?


My advice to you, don't waste your time trying to have a debate with this moron. He can only think in terms of Dems vs. MAGA.


In a two party political system, where the leader of one of those parties, which happens to wield significant power, is led by a crazy man who shills the globe for personal profit, who lies, who insults, who staged a Coup attempt, etc etc etc, it's VERY HARD to not want to decapitate that snake - which is vital to restoring any semblance of normalcy.

Please forgive the obsession to do so.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I appreciate your adding to OT in an intelligent and sane manner.

To think that any of us are going to figure out the healthcare system here is…hopeful.

I'll say this - it's not really a health care system if someone ends up taking it up the pie hole when they find themselves seeking care with a pre existing condition. That's just dumping on people because of (most often) a random unfortunate disease. Die or go bankrupt.

I think we can and should be more civilized than that.

To what extent we collectively pay for expensive treatments on seniors who are near death anyways?

To what extent the national debt is increased and put upon future citizens for current consumption?

By what measure and to what extent we are going to take from the wealthy to pay for the needy?

These are all devils in the details.



Yes, I would accept that not everyone is going to get everything. If I were president, I would probably say something like:

"We are ALL going to die, one way or another. I believe everyone should have a chance early in life, but misfortune will rule the day for every single one of us eventually. So rather than trying to beat that eventuality, I'm proposing that we focus our attention on the younger set, on America's future financial viability.

If you get certain diseases after age 60, I hope you've done well in life, because by that age, you've probably lived a full life already and should be thankful for such. We're not going to cover your illness."

If anyone wants to call that a Death Panel, tell me why it's a bad idea. It's 5am, after all, and I can likely be swayed.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

I appreciate your adding to OT in an intelligent and sane manner.

To think that any of us are going to figure out the healthcare system here is…hopeful.

I'll say this - it's not really a health care system if someone ends up taking it up the pie hole when they find themselves seeking care with a pre existing condition. That's just dumping on people because of (most often) a random unfortunate disease. Die or go bankrupt.

I think we can and should be more civilized than that.

To what extent we collectively pay for expensive treatments on seniors who are near death anyways?

To what extent the national debt is increased and put upon future citizens for current consumption?

By what measure and to what extent we are going to take from the wealthy to pay for the needy?

These are all devils in the details.



Yes, I would accept that not everyone is going to get everything. If I were president, I would probably say something like:

"We are ALL going to die, one way or another. I believe everyone should have a chance early in life, but misfortune will rule the day for every single one of us eventually. So rather than trying to beat that eventuality, I'm proposing that we focus our attention on the younger set, on America's future financial viability.

If you get certain diseases after age 60, I hope you've done well in life, because by that age, you've probably lived a full life already and should be thankful for such. We're not going to cover your illness."

If anyone wants to call that a Death Panel, tell me why it's a bad idea. It's 5am, after all, and I can likely be swayed.


I think I'd raise the age to 80 but its not a bad idea. Unfortunately it's one of the least electable positions I've ever seen.

"You people who have the highest propensity to vote. No more healthcare for you. Please vote for me"
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Of course.

But maybe that's why younger members of my extended family go around making Boomer cracks. They think the older set has been selfishly consuming more than their share, leaving the younger generations with an indebted and dirty planet. They are despondent about their futures as a result of the mess being created by these irresponsible voters.




I've seen it in my own parents. Once brave, daring, capable, they are now avoidant or fearful of death.
But I'm like, Jesus Christ, get over yourselves!





Better to adopt an attitude of gratitude.
And if you make it to age "80" you should be saying "Yippee!! I Won!"
So many don't, and therein lies life's randomizer.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://longevity.stanford.edu/americans-face-insurmountable-financial-mess-unless-congress-shores-up-social-security-and-medicare/

Something needs to be done.
Something will be done, one way or another.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Water
Healthcare

Decisions get made in similar ways

dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Of course.

But maybe that's why younger members of my extended family go around making Boomer cracks. They think the older set has been selfishly consuming more than their share, leaving the younger generations with an indebted and dirty planet. They are despondent about their futures as a result of the mess being created by these irresponsible voters.




I've seen it in my own parents. Once brave, daring, capable, they are now avoidant or fearful of death.
But I'm like, Jesus Christ, get over yourselves!





Better to adopt an attitude of gratitude.
And if you make it to age "80" you should be saying "Yippee!! I Won!"
So many don't, and therein lies life's randomizer.


Your younger relatives are correct
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.