- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Obamacare’s flaw: Young people won’t be buying health insurance

Published: Fri, January 24, 2014 @ 12:00 a.m.

Obamacare’s flaw: Young people won’t be buying health insurance

The cartoon on the edit- orial page of the Jan. 18 edition of The Vindicator is right on about older adults asking the younger generation to buy health insurance so they can get lower premiums.

Young single adults are not going to buy it.

I am speaking as a retired insurance agent. I was one of the highest producing health insurance agents in Northeast Ohio.

In all my 38 years I have had only one single person buy health insurance from me. And that was when I was a part-time agent. Young adults think they aren’t going to need it. All they wanted was car insurance because they were no longer covered under Dad’s policy.

The only young adults that bought health insurance were those who just got married, and all they were interested in was the maternity coverage, which had a nine-month waiting period.

Where President Obama ever got the idea that young adults will pay a fine if they don’t sign up for Obamacare is beyond me.

If I were a young adult I wouldn’t buy it either. What’s next? Have to buy a green car to promote going green or how about pink work clothes for cancer awareness? Then get fined because I bought a blue car or wore black pants to work? How many times do I get fined before I get jail time?

John Grantonic, Poland


176Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 3 months ago

Yes. And those that do sign up are eligible for government subsidies to pay for the inflated premiums.

John, I know you can also attest to the fact that the plans offered under the exchange are not affordable when you consider out of pocket costs, the individual plans offered were not substandard, and reaching the uninsured could have been solved with a Medicare expansion in the first place without disruption to the entire country.

Suggest removal:

2jojuggie(1602 comments)posted 1 year, 3 months ago

Another day, another dose of bad news for ObamaCare. On Thursday, Moody’s Investor Service announced it was downgrading its outlook for America’s healthcare insurance sector from “stable” to “negative,” due to ObamaCare. “While all of these issues had been on our radar screen as we approached 2014, a new development and a key factor for the change in outlook is the unstable and evolving regulatory environment under which the sector is operating,” Moody’s said. “Notably, new regulations and presidential announcements over the last several months with respect to the ACA have imposed operational changes well after product and pricing decisions had been finalized.”

Moody’s is being polite. It is no secret that President Obama has made unilateral and constitutionally suspect decisions to postpone or alter major sections of the law. His ham-fisted attempts to mitigate the political damage attending the disastrous website rollout, and his oft-repeated lie that Americans could keep their insurance policies and doctors, have wreaked havoc on insurers struggling to keep up with the massive fiscal adjustments those decisions engendered.

Suggest removal:

3lajoci(524 comments)posted 1 year, 3 months ago

You're right, John. The ACA is not as good as it could have been. Why the President did not simply expand Medicare (which could have been phased in over time, say 3 years, maybe) is beyond me.

Oh! Wait! The president did not take that route because he wanted to include private insurers like you, John, in the mix. Expanding Medicare -- which probably covers you right now, or will shortly -- would have cut private health insurance salesmen out of the market, so they were given a chance to stay in the game.

And now, lots of insurance business people like yourself are trashing the very president who tried to reform health insurance while still keeping the private insurer component. Seems now more than ever that he should have introduced the public option in the form of a Medicare expansion over 3 years, and that would have been the end of it.

Hey! Medicare's good enough for you, John, isn't it (or soon will be); it's good enough for my children's grandpa and granny; it ought to be good enough for everyone!

Don't ya agree, John? Huh? Don't ya?

Suggest removal:

476Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 3 months ago

Correction to my above comment. I see that I said Medicare when I meant Medicaid. (traveling and small screen of iPhone can hamper)

The Medicaid expansion, which covers expenses for people who qualify if their earnings are up 135% of the Federal Poverty level is not the same as Medicare. Medicaid is paid for by state and federal funds, Medicare thru contributions by employees and employers.

The ACA, which superficially promises free stuff, affordability, and a solution to the problem of uninsured Americans cannot work unless a pool of enough healthy people enroll and pay premiums to offset those who are not as healthy.

We are seeing the transition of moving more people into the exchange as people are forced into the plan through the loss of individual and employer funded plans and toward a single payer health system.

The plan all along is for a single payer health system as Reid, Pelosi and Obama have stated.


Suggest removal:

5lajoci(524 comments)posted 1 year, 3 months ago

"The plan all along is for a single payer health system as Reid, Pelosi and Obama have stated."

Oh Dear Lord! If only this were true!

This whole mess COULD have been averted if the President had summoned the political courage to simply phase-in Medicare-for-All in increments of a year, i.e., cover everyone 55+ immediately, followed by everyone 45+ after a year, followed by everyone 35+ after 2 yrs., followed by EVERYONE after 3 years!

Of course, this would have been the alternative to immediately proclaiming Medicare-for-all, in order to give the private, for-profit insurance industry time to adjust (i.e., find other businesses to transition to).

There it would have been! BOOOOOOM! DONE!

Suddenly, in 3 years, America would have entered the 21st century pantheon of developed countries, and plans would be set for the President's face to be added to Rushmore in high relief! Right next to George, Thomas, Teddy, and Abe!

Still a viable option, though. Still could be done.

It's really the very best way to go!

Suggest removal:

6billdog1(2999 comments)posted 1 year, 3 months ago

And our countries brightest and most intelligent have spoken. Hahahahahahahahahhahahaha.

Suggest removal:

7billdog1(2999 comments)posted 1 year, 2 months ago

I personally don't care if they don't buy health insurance. If they can't provide proof of health insurance and are involved in an accident, then the hospital shouldn't have to provide them service. I'm tired of irresponsibility based on it's only gooberment money. Somehow the stupid see responsibility as always somebody elses. No insurance, no care for injuries or illness.

Suggest removal:

8lajoci(524 comments)posted 1 year, 2 months ago

So, birdseed: how does your Medicare and Social Security avoid the label "Communism?"

Or do you define "Communism" as the government benefits somebody else gets?

You're over 65; when will you renounce your Social Security and Medicare in the spirit of rejecting these government handouts?

Just asking . . .

Suggest removal:

976Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 2 months ago

lajoci, Medicare and Social Security are not handouts. They are paid into a trust fund by you and your employer by a tax of more than 15% of your earnings.

Medicaid and Obamacare are entirely different programs.

Suggest removal:

10dontbeafool(1313 comments)posted 1 year, 2 months ago

yeah, Repubs are NEVER trying to due away with Social Security and other programs. Thank God Bush didn't succeed in trying to eliminate Social Security by making everyone go into the stock market. We all know how reliable that is.

Suggest removal:

11lajoci(524 comments)posted 1 year, 2 months ago

So let me get this straight (without the name-calling and misrepresentation that seem to be the tactics of some on this blog):

If a people living under a Communist government, supported by the taxes of its citizens, supply health insurance and old-age pensions to themselves, that's bad; if we in America, through our government by way of taxes, supply health insurance (Medicare) and old-age pensions (Social Security) to ourselves, that's good?

The former at least admits to being Communist; the latter pretends to be what?

Seriously, just answer the question without name-calling, personal attacks, vitriol, and ordinary, garden-variety nastiness.

(Let's see if we can have an actual discussion and not a mud fight.)

Suggest removal:

12lajoci(524 comments)posted 1 year, 2 months ago

"redistribute to those who REFUSE TO WORK"

Who are these people who "refuse to work?" And what is being "redistributed" to them?

Answer: There is nothing being distributed to them.

Welfare, as we knew it, ended in the '90's under Clinton.

So, are you referring to unemployment insurance?

Social Security disability payments?

Medicaid for low income people?

What, specifically?

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2015 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes