>>>You seem to be under the impression that it's a dead horse -- a myth that the GOP wants you to believe.
>
>Of course it's a dead horse in the absence of taxpayer bailouts insulating policyholders from costs. When they pull out of states, insurers' explanations invariably include uncertainty over billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Meanwhile a coalition of 18 states plus D.C. is suing the government to compel continuation of insurer subsidies to the tune of about $10B to insurers in 2018. There's already a federal win that's expected to be appealed. But why are all these people doing all these things, if not for reliance on billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts every year?
>
>>>CBO says it will stabilize and those who say it will implode completely forget or ignore Medicaid.
>
>Not sure why you'd say I'm forgetting or ignoring Medicaid. It's unclear whether you mean the ACA's Medicaid expansions being converted to block payments rather than 100% federal reimbursement, though the Supreme Court had already made expansion optional anyway- or the mere presence of Medicaid, or some other unexpected attribute. AFAICS none of it has anything to do with ACA plans and premiums. Whatever can you mean?
>
>As for CBO: you know I prefer actual quotes to paraphrases... so here's an exact quote from CBO:
>
>"Under current law, most subsidized enrollees purchasing health insurance coverage in the non-group market are largely insulated from increases in premiums because their out-of-pocket payments for premiums are based on a percentage of their income; the government pays the difference."
>
>And there it is again: the CBO assessment of stability relies on "the government paying the difference."
>
>I won't belabor the point, except that the previous administration's subsidies were set by them to expire in 2017.
>
>I have seen credible research from Matthew Fiedler who analyzed effect of premium increases on enrollment. According to his graphs, premium increases had little effect on sign-ups, nowhere near enough to meet the definition of a death spiral. However, once again the figures rely on taxpayer insulating policyholders from premium increases. We'll see what happens re the average 34% premium rises predicted for next year.
>
>>>But yeah the individual mandate is a key part of this so the GOP will do what they can to screw that up so they might someday actually be able to show a path to failure. If you can't find one - then make one I guess.
>
>In this post I've provided 3 examples plus your own CBO example, confirming reliance on taxpayer subsidy for ACA plans to survive. It's as if somebody keeps painting a rotting shower wall, insisting there's no rot because look how perfect the paintwork is- and unless the GOP agrees to keep providing pots of paint, any rot will be the GOP's fault.
>
>Seems to me there's a better question here: ask yourself why average 34% premium rises are necessary in a nation that already pays way more per capita than anybody else in the free world, for healthcare that ranks last every year in Commonwealth Institute comparisons with other nations.
>
>Finally, think about this: until now, isn't it great business for insurers if workers and other healthy people are on business or other private plans while sick people are in ACA plans... because resulting ACA plan losses are covered by the taxpayer? You won't find a better example of socialization of losses and privatization of profits- and what do you think happens when the taxpayer stops the bailouts? Individual mandate or not, it's a dead horse, surely?

Think about this - do you want the taxpayer to pay hospital bills for people who don't have insurance or pay for the insurance, or just let people die? As I said before I don't think there is any point in us discussing this further.