3 say it's legal

4 say it's illegal

Stuck down 4-3-2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1970817&forum_id=2#20887936)

F

E

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1970817&forum_id=2#20888300)

If a young will only pay up to 100/mo in premiums before being priced out of the market, and an old will pay 200/mo, discriminatory pricing allows the insurance firm to capture both consumers. As the retirement deluge begins, olds will be demanding more services (because they are getting older and sicker and more sedentary) and most of them will be living off of fixed incomes, impacting their budget constraints. This drives them to seek medicare vouchers to supplement their rising HC costs. Because the fed govt cant fund medicare, they need a way to drive down olds' current premiums, in order to slow down the claims on medicare.

The mandate and non-discriminatory pricing provisions, which are inseparable -- even Obama's lawyers asked for a strikedown of the latter if the former is struck, allow firms to charge the average of these two prices, $150/mo, with the govt setting a penalty higher than the spread (say a $75/mo penalty). This has effectively forces rational youngs to write $50 checks to boomers every month; all done out of the hope but not guarantee that boomers will claim less medicare vouchers and bring down the house.

I say hope and not guarantee because Obamacare, stupidly, focused on coverage instead of costs. And there are very little preventative measures and incentive-shifting (to monitor consumption, etc.) in place to ensure that underlying medicare healthcare costs dont inflate at a rate faster than claims on medicare decrease, which means long-run premiums will rise (for everyone) even more. The ACA is severely structurally flawed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1970817&forum_id=2#20888497)