Nope. We don't really have much data coming out of the federal exchange. And to be fair, even if the early data confirmed this, it wouldn't matter if the early enrollees were more risky than expected as long as the healthier people eventually sign up. That's why it's still just a prediction. We'll have a better idea for the characteristics of this cohort when the insurance companies release prices for next year.

i'm curious as to why you think it will happen then...

the highest rates of uninsured people comes from the 26-35 range. bringing down rates of uninsured hits 'younger' people far more likely than it does other people.

SK790 wrote:i'm curious as to why you think it will happen then...

Imagine a situation where it takes 50 hours to sign up for health insurance. People with preexisting conditions and with no insurance available to them are quite certainly going to jump through these hoops. Healthy people without dependents may not. Obviously, as the website gets better, then it becomes less of a hurdle/investment for healthy people to make. It needs to be easy for these people, because they're getting a raw financial deal, and subsidizing all of the unhealthy people. :/

you can imagine that situation, but it no longer exists for most people signing up. it's fairly smooth and problem-free at this point.

also: goddamn unhealthy people

don't people who neglect to sign up for this get penalized? could those funds go to, say, keeping these rates down? also, the individual market covers like what 5% of the population? combine that with the fact that tax payers will no longer be essentially paying for medical services of the uninsured, and i really don't think seeing a massive increase in premiums is likely.

i'm sure you know way more about the nuts and bolts of how this all works, but the fact that you say there is no evidence for your prediction leaves me skeptical.

We'll see. Hopefully it doesn't happen. I'm just trying to explain why the failed rollout could have lasting repercussions.

cool, i get where you're coming from now, but, i asked you to explain why you think this is likely. i'm assuming you think it's likely because you stated it as a fact in your original post and then said you're predicting it.

Well, it's not either or. Some people will be affected by the rollout, and not bother to sign up. It's just a matter of how many, and how that affects the composition of the cohort that the insurance priced for. It's a question of magnitude. If insurance prices on the exchange next year go up by <=5%, then that would likely be interpreted as a success. If they go up 10%, that would not be a success (IMO).

think he is hoping that is the case

Werthless wrote: I'm just trying to explain why the failed rollout could have lasting repercussions.

The rollout will likely not have lasting repercussions one way or the other. Your thinking about this has gone off on a tangent from which I'm not sure you can be reeled back. In fact I'm not sure quite where to start.

Oh, I'll start here; firstly, you're thinking about this mostly from the perspective of its economics, and I can assure you economics will have fuckall to do with whatever "repercussions" there may be, short of every other female enrolled having a $1 million premie during the next 12 months - probably not even then.

Second, the economics of this tiny sliver of the ACA action is too circumscribed, in the scheme of things, to matter, regardless how often the 'serious commenters' in the popular press - and even wonky types with some economics grounding who should know better - insist it is so.

Nice to know that the affordable care act will not be judged by affordability, on either a micro or macro level. I love this view, although I'm not sure you see the humor in it.

While we're at it, let's judge the Patriot Act on patriotism.

CalvinBall wrote:think he is hoping that is the case

Yup. 50 hours, yeh, that's how long it will take.

If it's bad when people don't sign up, then I just have to wonder why the republicans are so gleeful at the low signup numbers. It's almost like they want it to fail. They just can't have it look like government can help solve society's problems. The moment it looks that way, their whole ideology falls apart.

Imagine how affordable health insurance would be if we'd just euthanize the unhealthy.

#deathpanels

Monkeyboy wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:think he is hoping that is the case

Yup. 50 hours, yeh, that's how long it will take.

If it's bad when people don't sign up, then I just have to wonder why the republicans are so gleeful at the low signup numbers. It's almost like they want it to fail. They just can't have it look like government can help solve society's problems. The moment it looks that way, their whole ideology falls apart.

You=bad at reading comprehension.

JFLNYC wrote:While we're at it, let's judge the Patriot Act on patriotism.

Also awful. That law doesnt get criticized enough.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Imagine how affordable health insurance would be if we'd just euthanize the unhealthy.

I know this is tongue in cheek, but most healthcare costs (I'm sure docsmooth has the actual numbers) are spent on end of life care. When I'm old, I'm going to try to die at home instead of in a hospital. Hey, a guy can dream!

Werthless wrote:Nice to know that the affordable care act will not be judged by affordability, on either a micro or macro level. I love this view, although I'm not sure you see the humor in it.

it'll be judged a lot of ways. the economics is among them. You persist in imagining that is the principal way something like this ought to be evaluated. You're incorrect.