The ACA is not a win for insurers. The ACA is not devastating to insurers.

[cthulu2016]

There is hyperbole on both sides of the argument.

In light of the ACA being upheld the stock market knocked down health insurers by a few percent, predicting a slight decline in future profits. And after a day to think about things, those stocks are back to roughly where they were before the decision. It looks like the ACA is actually sort of neutral for insurers. Close to a wash.

Since the SCOTUS decision was a true surprise it was not priced into the market in advance. In fact, a 75% chance of the ACA being ruled unconstitutional was priced into the market.

If either extreme view of the ACA's effect on insurers was correct the market reaction to the SCOTUS decision should have been a lot more extreme in one direction or the other. The ACA appears to be what it was designed to be and negotiated to be—a very slight net negative for the insurance industry.

A lot of the confusion about this arises from confusing the bill that was passed with hypothetical bills that did not pass. The insurers spent big money lobbying against "socialized medicine." They viewed a public option as something that would, indeed, be very bad for them in the long run. And they won. There was no public option.

The money spent lobbying successfully limited the ACA to a bill that was not extremely damaging to insurers. What passed was a mixed bag for insurers. Government subsidies for people to buy their product is good for them. The 80% rule limits their profitability.




So regarding the above, my personal favorite cat-toon, there is no universal healthcare, but the bowl of dicks is a much smaller bowl than if the SCOTUS had decided differently.

[KurtNYC]

1. they can't deny coverage to pre-existing conditions

that seems damaging compared to the way they operate now.

[cthulu2016]

2. Yes, there are some features they don't like

And some features they do like

[KurtNYC]

9. but that's a game changer

avoiding high payouts was how they made money. Now what?

[warrior1]

3. what's always bugged me about the teabaggers

complaint about not wanting to pay for other people healthcare, with their mistaken belief that it would be under ACA, is that they are paying now for other people who do not have health care.


Obama needs to message this better in the coming weeks.

[cthulu2016]

4. Assuming teabaggers are paying for anything

I generally assume that teabag types have never paid taxes.

And given their age range, they are all on medicare.

[railsback]

5. The ultimate goal of the ACA is single payer

States are encouraged to set up their own systems, as some are doing now, and it WILL SPREAD. This is what happened in Canada, and its what will happen here. The slow phase out is appropriate, as there are millions in the industry who would be affected if the private insurance companies were suddenly dropped like a hot potato. We will work it out. In the meantime, we have some major fixes to a seriously flawed system. Millions more will be covered. People need to start looking at the big picture.

[Lex]

7. I believe this is true.

I wish the "penalty" money were used to force-place health insurance of some kind (even minimal) on those who wish NOT to buy coverage. That would eventually lead to single payer.

[Laelth]

6. This argument assumes that "the market" reflects the truth of the matter.

It assumes that, in the aggregate, the smart people who move the big money around in the market are 100% correct in their assessment of the law's likely effect.

I don't buy that argument. "The market" has been wrong, time and again, about a lot of things. The ACA may be one of those. Or it may not be. Only time will tell, but I trust my gut on this a lot more than I trust the collective wisdom of "the market."

-Laelth

[Lex]

8. + 10000

[cthulu2016]

10. Oh my...

This really sums up a certain kind of intellectual nihilism.

X is fallible (correct) hence X contains no useful information (false), and thus my gut instincts are better than X (absurd).

This is the same level of argument that creationists use. First, grossly misstate what is being said (nothing in the OP requires or expects 100% accuracy, so your claim that such is necessary is just false). Then substitute something of no value (your gut, in this instance, but the bible would have also worked) as less fallible, without any reason whatsoever except that it is what you think.

[Laelth]

11. That's not quite fair.

I did not say that "the market" contained no useful information. On the contrary, I said the market may be right on this subject. On the other hand, and this is the point that's absent from the OP's logic, the "the market" may be wrong, as it has been, time and again, throughout history.

I can't help that I trust my gut on this. That's just reality. Sorry if that fact offends anyone's trusted authorities. I am reticent to grant much authority to "the market."

-Laelth

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. I used to teach people to "trust their gut".

I was teaching a class on "Violence in the workplace".

I told them, "If you get a feeling that someone in the parking garage (for instance) is dangerous, stay away from them. On the one hand, you may be wrong, and end up embarrassed. On the other hand you may be dead, injured, raped."