Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/24/government-forecasters-sig...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jage
United States
Greensboro
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gelrod wrote:
That would be way more interesting if it was a neutral source and not a Rubio ad.


argumentum ad hominem
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
galad2003 wrote:


It does, in part because the headline isn't so one-sided. Every other private insurer is staying in, and even the one which is pulling out, and which presumably has as literally its principle competence forecasting risk, was caught just as off-guard as the government forecasters. This isn't a case of government being worse at risk assessment than private industry, as the headline from the OP implies, it's a case of everyone underestimating the need for health care because the lack of readily available insurance has masked it for so long.
6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
gelrod wrote:
That would be way more interesting if it was a neutral source and not a Rubio ad.


Meh...facts are the same either way. If one were to discount it because it was a Rubio ad (I'm not much of a fan of him btw) that would be a mistake.

Of course you didn't say you were.


Ferret
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
rinelk wrote:
galad2003 wrote:


It does, in part because the headline isn't so one-sided. Every other private insurer is staying in, and even the one which is pulling out, and which presumably has as literally its principle competence forecasting risk, was caught just as off-guard as the government forecasters. This isn't a case of government being worse at risk assessment than private industry, as the headline from the OP implies, it's a case of everyone underestimating the need for health care because the lack of readily available insurance has masked it for so long.


Um...at best that's only one skew on the issue.

The article clearly notes that the problem is a.) the much larger pool of sick and/or old people signing up than expected and b.) the much smaller number of young healthy folks signing up than expected.

Has nothing to do with the "availability of insurance" other than the fact that it's too expensive to be affordable now.



Ferret
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
Ferretman wrote:
rinelk wrote:
galad2003 wrote:


It does, in part because the headline isn't so one-sided. Every other private insurer is staying in, and even the one which is pulling out, and which presumably has as literally its principle competence forecasting risk, was caught just as off-guard as the government forecasters. This isn't a case of government being worse at risk assessment than private industry, as the headline from the OP implies, it's a case of everyone underestimating the need for health care because the lack of readily available insurance has masked it for so long.


Um...at best that's only one skew on the issue.

The article clearly notes that the problem is a.) the much larger pool of sick and/or old people signing up than expected and b.) the much smaller number of young healthy folks signing up than expected.

Has nothing to do with the "availability of insurance" other than the fact that it's too expensive to be affordable now.



Ferret


Only one skew? Are you saying that there's only one way the headline you posted was deliberately deceptive, or are you saying that it was one legitimate perspective among many? Because, if it's the second, you're flatly wrong. When the private industry based on forecasting makes the same mistake as government, attributing the error to government is wrong. It's a bad explanation which calls attention to a demonstrably irrelevant quality for purely ideological purposes.

As for availability, you're right that it's partly about price, but not now. The masking effect has to have been an issue before the ACA went into effect, otherwise it wouldn't have been available for use in the forecasts which turned out wrong. In order for there to be older, sicker people taking advantage of these insurance options now, it must have been the case that those who were uninsured who are benefitting from them now were older and sicker than we expected, right? We'd expect health insurance to be a high priority for the old and sick, so the fact that they still weren't getting it suggests that it was either even more cost-prohibitive than expected, or issues like disqualification for pre-existing conditions were even more widespread than expected. The second these really was an issue of availability of insurance.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
rinelk wrote:
galad2003 wrote:


It does, in part because the headline isn't so one-sided. Every other private insurer is staying in, and even the one which is pulling out, and which presumably has as literally its principle competence forecasting risk, was caught just as off-guard as the government forecasters. This isn't a case of government being worse at risk assessment than private industry, as the headline from the OP implies, it's a case of everyone underestimating the need for health care because the lack of readily available insurance has masked it for so long.


Um...at best that's only one skew on the issue.

The article clearly notes that the problem is a.) the much larger pool of sick and/or old people signing up than expected and b.) the much smaller number of young healthy folks signing up than expected.

Has nothing to do with the "availability of insurance" other than the fact that it's too expensive to be affordable now.



Ferret


There are healthy old people and very sick young people.

Prior to the ACA, using computers insurance companies got so good at cutting off anyone who had any kind of illness that over half the country was concerned about it.

Insurance companies want to collect premiums from healthy customers and deny coverage to them when they get sick.

Further- the cash negotiated price is often extremely close to the "deductable" charged by insurance companies so I've long suspected that you are really paying full fare for anything except emergencies. For emergencies- we get collectively overcharged by huge margins. Insurance pays out in those cases. Anything chronic- you are paying full fare.

Since insurance companies got so good at denying coverage to people who were sick, a different approach was required. Romney had proposed a good one. It was scuttled as much as possible by pure partisan spitefulness under the new "policy of 'NO'" adopted by the republicans after Obama was elected.

Sad. Perhaps we'll get single payer out of it eventually.

In the mean time, if you have elite skills (until you are laid off to outsourcing) or are in the top 10%, grats on your great health care.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
jageroxorz wrote:
gelrod wrote:
That would be way more interesting if it was a neutral source and not a Rubio ad.


argumentum ad hominem

It seems to me that Conservatives are a little quicker to throw out information because it comes from a "liberal Media source" than liberals are likely to do the same for info from a conservative source.

In other words both sides do it and I think conservatives are a little worse about it.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.