Issue Settled: The Young Are Worse Off Under ObamaCare Pricing

LifetimePremiums

This is from Chris Conover:

Thus, from the standpoint of the average young adult adversely affected by ObamaCare, I would argue that the figures using a 10% discount rate come much closer to the truth than do the figures using a 3% rate. And you can see from the chart that using that 10% rate, ObamaCare is not a good lifetime deal even for people as old as 30 [and if I had used a much higher discount rate of say, 17%, ObamaCare would turn out to be an even worse deal for young people]. For 18 year olds, ObamaCare essentially is imposing a tax of 18.3% on the premiums they would otherwise pay under the more market-oriented reforms favored by many conservatives and Republicans.

Comments (13)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Taylor says:

    “Thus, from the standpoint of the average young adult adversely affected by ObamaCare, I would argue that the figures using a 10% discount rate come much closer to the truth than do the figures using a 3% rate. And you can see from the chart that using that 10% rate, ObamaCare is not a good lifetime deal even for people as old as 30″

    If this is not good for the young, who make up the economy of tomorrow, why are we doing this?

    • Bosh says:

      Because the Obama admin believes that the elderly’s health care is more important than the welfare of young people.

      • Baldwin says:

        Universal Healthcare programs force governments to make those kind of utilitarian value judgments.

  2. Levin says:

    “For 18 year olds, ObamaCare essentially is imposing a tax of 18.3% on the premiums they would otherwise pay under the more market-oriented reforms favored by many conservatives and Republicans.”

    So they are universally considered an adult, and because of that they are given an extra 18.3% tax on their life style, this is legalized theft.

  3. David says:

    “Many economists think U.S. society has a long-run discount rate (i.e., social rate of time preference) of 3% since that figure is comparable to the inflation-adjusted rate of return on long-term U.S. Treasury bills. But individual rates of time preference typically are much higher than societal rates, with double-digit rates not being at all uncommon in the vast literature that has sought to estimate their size.”

    Why are they much higher than 3%? Typically 3% is the norm, this is the first I have heard different.

  4. Levin says:

    “About 3.7 million of those ages 18-34 will be at least $500 better off if they forgo insurance and pay the penalty.”

    Wow, that is a substantial amount of people. There is no way those people are going to pay the full insurance premiums. ObamaCare will just push this nation into more debt.

    • Lennon says:

      Yes, and that causes the U.S. to increase inflation, which harms the economy over the long-run.

      • Duveaux says:

        Also, it could decrease the U.S. credit rating over the long term.

        • Pa-ul says:

          That decreases the U.S.’ national security, because there has never been a war throughout history that hasn’t force the the U.S. federal government to take out loans and go into debt, so we won’t have the money in a war to win.

  5. Bubba says:

    The Society of Actuaries also made this prediction.

  6. steve says:

    And that same 18 y/o could not get insurance at all under the GOP plan if they had asthma.