Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

ObamaCare Clusterfuck: Obama failing to sell 18 to 29-year-olds. Death spiral, anyone?

Harvard Institute of Politics Poll:

Conceived by two Harvard undergraduate students during the winter of 1999, Harvard University’s Institute of Politics Survey of Young Americans’ Attitudes toward Politics and Public Service began in 2000 as a national survey of 18-to 24- year old college undergraduates. Over the last 13 years, this research project has grown in scope and mission, as we now analyze 18- to 29- year olds on a broad set of longitudinal and current events issues.

1. Most Millennials believe ACA/Obamacare Will Bring Higher Costs, Worse Care

 

Among the 18- 29- year olds currently without health insurance, less than 1/3 say they're likely to enroll in the exchange (13% say they will definitely enroll, 16% say they will probably enroll); 41% say they are 50-50 at the moment.

Obama will catapult the propaganda, for sure. But I don't know if the magic will work any more.

NOTE Also, 54% of 18 to 24-year-olds would like Obama to be "recalled." That's interesting.

NOTE Dammit, I want to hat tip somebody for this, and now I can't find the comment.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by Dromaius on

Hat-tip Dromaius ;-). You asked for linky goodness for my comment about how the young adults weren't signing up. I complied.

Submitted by lambert on

Ya know, a lot of this stuff is worth a quick hit or a post.

Information in comments is buried. People are far less likely to link to a comment, and since a post has a title, it's far more likely to show up in a search result or a feed.

Submitted by Dromaius on

Kudos to the younger set for figuring out the realities of Obamacare early on.

However, in reality we old "healthy" folks who are opting out are just as important, if not moreso. We spend more premium dollars for minimum care.

Blizzard's picture
Submitted by Blizzard on

What did you make of this from Jon Walker? He's saying that there won't be a death spiral, because with subsidies, there are about 6 million people who can get an exchange plan for free. And therefore, there will always be a sizeable enough risk pool.

Submitted by lambert on

... though I'd like to see the math done; Walker doensn't provide a link for that. This to me is the key:

The law doesn’t “unravel” if young people refuse to sign up, it just ends up somewhat more costly and less effective than the administration hoped. Of course the second they decided to go with this absurd design they guaranteed it was always going to be needlessly wasteful and inefficient.

I think that one person's "somewhat more costly and less effective" is another person's death spiral. Walker argues:

Bad enrollment is mainly just a concern for the subset of people earning too much to qualify for exchange subsidies. It could lead to higher premiums for them in the future and push some of the healthier individuals in this group out of the market, but the subsidy population will inherently serve as a floor for the risk pool. This limits how far things can spiral.

Sounds political....

Submitted by lambert on

... though I'd like to see the math done; Walker doensn't provide a link for that. This to me is the key:

The law doesn’t “unravel” if young people refuse to sign up, it just ends up somewhat more costly and less effective than the administration hoped. Of course the second they decided to go with this absurd design they guaranteed it was always going to be needlessly wasteful and inefficient.

I think that one person's "somewhat more costly and less effective" is another person's death spiral. Walker argues:

Bad enrollment is mainly just a concern for the subset of people earning too much to qualify for exchange subsidies. It could lead to higher premiums for them in the future and push some of the healthier individuals in this group out of the market, but the subsidy population will inherently serve as a floor for the risk pool. This limits how far things can spiral.

Sounds political....

Submitted by Dromaius on

But seriously, by federal estimates (which I've read many times, but can't find right now), only about half of insurees are subsidy eligible. And even with subsidies, many people will likely find insurance unaffordable because of copays and deductibles....and the risk that if they actually get a raise, the premiums won't be free anymore! So I don't think subsidies are really a safety net from the death spiral.

As for those outside of subsidy eligibility, I believe that many of those people will realize that insurance is not worth the money and will opt out (as my spouse and I are doing this coming year)...the more of that happening, the more premiums will increase, the greater the opt out. Death spiral for those outside of subsidy range.

And, the idea that subsidies will survive cuts in the near and distant future isn't realistic.

But maybe within the subsidy eligible set, the death spiral will not occur. Outside of it, it will definitely occur.

Submitted by Dromaius on

Also remember that in states that did not expand Medicaid, people who are under the subsidy threshold do not qualify for subsidies......No doubt a significant portion of those people are young and "invincible".