Mandate Delay = Savings?

[Yagents]

Ok, only in DC.

If you pass the law, the deficit will shrink
If you cover more people, the cost of coverage will go down
If you don't penalize people, and they don't buy insurance......then we save money.

looks like we save money in every scenario

CBO: Mandate delay would save $36 billion | BenefitsPro

 

[AllenChicago]

October 21, 2013

Due to the ongoing Healthcare.gov website disaster, the Whitehouse is considering delaying the individual mandate.

Story: White House won't rule out delay of ObamaCare individual mandate | Fox News

Delaying the Individual Mandate without extending Open Enrollment doesn't make sense? I haven't been thinking much about it's implementation after learning how misleading and convoluted this law is overall.
ac

 

[Yagents]

You can't make insurance companies take on additional risk by extending open enrollment. If there is no penalty, and people are not going to buy, it doesn't matter when OE ends.

 

[AllenChicago]

You can't make insurance companies take on additional risk by extending open enrollment. If there is no penalty, and people are not going to buy, it doesn't matter when OE ends.

Even though only a small fraction of the expected enrollees are signing up, you feel that those who do enroll during an extended enrollment period will be doing so because they need to use the insurance for immediate medical care. Is that what you're saying, YAgents?

 

[SamIam]

I agree with Yagents

 

[Yagents]

Yes, either Sep event or health event

 

[AllenChicago]

Yes, either Sep event or health event

Well, the SEP option is always available, but the Health event is what would strangle the goose.

Since most people (except the extreme law-abiders) are not being persuaded to buy health insurance, due to the mandate penalty being so impotent, granting "mandate relief" wouldn't affect enrollment one way or the other would it?

 

[RayNY]

The bigger issue is Guaranteed Issue. Guaranteed issue without the mandate is an open invitation to extreme adverse selection.

You can't make companies take on additional risk by removing the mandate, the prices of these products will basically double if the mandate was removed. It's no secret at all that the only new people that would purchase in a mandate-free environment are people who have a reasonable expectation of requiring care in the near future, providing a return on their investment (and a requisite LOSS to the insurer). No one wants to pay in when they know they can pay 100% out of pocket and still spend less than premium, let alone premium+deductible.

 

[AllenChicago]

Does anyone here actually have prospects that are buying/have bought 2014 plans because they want to avoid the 1% penalty next year?

 

[pahealthquotes]

Does anyone here actually have prospects that are buying/have bought 2014 plans because they want to avoid the 1% penalty next year?

we have 20 year olds lined up around the block.