The Glade 4.0

What's causing the huge price increases for group plans, anyways? It was already illegal for them to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions so they didn't get hit by that part at all.

What's causing the huge price increases for group plans, anyways?

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

RD, the numbers are right there. Should be easy enough to disprove. Why insist on basing your whole belief system on a logical fallacy?

The numbers aren't "right there". Heritage, like everyone else at this point, is estimating, averaging, assuming, etc. to come up with what they consider to be illustrative numbers.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

I see numbers "right there" in the chart. If you believe their "estimates" are incorrect, attack their "estimates" (I'm sure there are numerous ObamaCare-backers putting up their own numbers, right?), not their ideology. It's sloppy logic, and you're better than that.

It's not sloppy logic to discard a scale that repeatedly gives erroneous measurements.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Should we use the Brooking's Institute?

I would consider them more likely to be accurate (or at least less inaccurate) than Heritage, yes.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Thanks for validating Vindi's point; you're letting your confirmation bias drive your dismissal of the Heritage study. I don't really have a dog in that particular race, I'm just pointing out you're aligning with ideology not accuracy on the reporting agent for the data.

*shrug* You're welcome to think so, but there's really no comparison. Brookings may have technocratic and center-left instincts, but it aims for honest analysis. Heritage, on the other hand, is openly dedicated to advancing a conservative agenda. Those are very different sources of bias with very different implications for the credibility of the institution.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Methodology

The Heritage Health Insurance Microsimulation Model (HHIMM), in concordance with insurer data compiled by Mark Farrah and Associates, is used to create a snapshot of what it looks like to shop for insurance prior to exchange implementation. This data is used to build weighted average premiums within the rating areas, similar to the process described in the most recent release from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).[2]

First, we use expected age distribution in the individual market from the HHIMM. Next, we use census data for the county populations in order to scale up to the state level, creating something that is roughly comparable to the weighted averages presented by HHS.[3] This comparison is different from others in that, rather than comparing specific plans, it is designed to capture the difference in premium levels between the exchange and what could be acquired in the market.

This paper is meant to provide a necessary segue to HHS’s data summary, creating an apples-to-apples comparison of exchange data to what the costs are for individuals. Effectively, we have used the same methods that were employed to provide summary data on the exchange markets to prior insurance data in order to get the closest comparison.

Some state-based exchanges have data releases that are more limited than the 36 federal exchanges. For state exchanges, some premiums must be estimated. As is the case with all studies built to address the changes in exchange premiums, it is important to note that when more data becomes available, results could vary slightly.

This study considers the data as released by HHS. States with little data released are omitted from this study.[4]

This analysis represents the change in unsubsidized rate levels. The purpose of this research is to provide further details on the changing premium levels across the country. With this in mind, it is true that many people will have the opportunity to lower their personal monthly costs within the exchanges if they qualify for subsidies.

Center-left is pretty forgiving. Pro-European wealth distribution and a driving force behind the deleterious nature of multiculturalism in the United States would be more "honest" ...

Do you have a problem with that methodology? Yes or no.

Not on its face, but there's plenty of wiggle room in there, and like I said, I simply don't trust Heritage to be honest and reasonable in those gray areas.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Not on its face, but there's plenty of wiggle room in there, and like I said, I simply don't trust Heritage to be honest and reasonable in those gray areas.

Do you have a problem with that methodology? Yes or no.