Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
They aren't rants, they are reality of people who think with their heart and not their brain. We don't need ACA to solve the healthcare problem but rather a bipartisan approach that actually solves the problem vs. simply getting people covered. I prefer tax cuts and welfare payments to allow people to buy their own insurance and catastrophic coverage provided to those who truly cannot afford insurance not exchanges, not forced insurance, and certainly not Federal Govt. involvement. This remains a state and local issue tat can be solved without ACA
LOL.
Hates Obamacare.
Doesn't understand the relationship between Obamacare and the ACA.
What the hell does ACA have to do with Medicare?
You don't seem to get it at all. Yes, I do hate Obamacare(ACA) because it violates every principle of personal responsibility, states' rights, and neighbor helping neighbor but ACA should have nothing to do with Medicare as that program is for retirees. It does seem to me that you have no idea what Medicare is
See virtually every bullet of "policies [that] have contributed to the Medicare spending growth slowdown" directly above your question? Those are all from Title III of the ACA ("Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care"). Except the bullet about better fraud enforcement, that's Title VI of the ACA ("Transparency and Program Integrity").
What does the ACA have to do with Medicare? It's one of the largest Medicare reforms ever passed.
Yeah. Medicare is a purer form of socialism than the capitalist ACA!
Other than that, let's all just note that your lack of understanding about the ACA and its deep involvement with Medicare shows that you have virtually no understanding about anything anyone has been discussing in this long,long thread.
It just reminds me that opposition to the ACA correlates strongly with ignorance about the ACA.
Your post reminds me of the very strong ignorance on the part of people like you regarding Medicare. Tell me Medicare reform was the reason you supported ACA? LOL, Medicare should never be part of ACA as it was a totally separate program funded by individuals and employers through payroll taxes.
So first you say the ACA has nothing to do with Medicare, and then you say the ACA SHOULD have had nothing to do with Medicare.
Next I expect you to tell us that the government needs to keep its damn dirty hands out of your Medicare. LOL.
View attachment 67187085
Once you wander off your boilerplate statements about 'liberals', you really have no clue what you're talking about. Amazing.
Medicare has nothing whatsoever to do with ACA, it was established as a retirement insurance program, ACA was created to insure the uninsured.
Medicare has everything to do with the ACA. The ACA is not just a coverage program. It was a comprehensive health reform law. The coverage expansion and market reforms are Title I (and part of Title II). There are ten titles in total.
The law also reformed Medicare and Medicaid, invested in developing/training more health care professionals, boosted the nation's public health and prevention infrastructure, sped up certain FDA approvals, etc.
Medicare has been (and is being) reformed significantly to improve care quality and drive down cost growth nationwide. Preliminary results on both fronts have been promising. Again, see the bullets on policies that have slowed down Medicare cost growth above. All are policies enacted under the ACA.
Just like a typical govt. employee or liberal who believes we need a massive Federal Entitlement program to solve a problem that is a personal responsibility issue as well as a state issue.
Yep, stand by both statements. Why don't you just admit who you are and admit you have no understanding of ACA or Medicare and want to link the two because that is the only way you can sell it or at least try to sell it because that will never happen with any Conservative or anyone else who understands personal responsibility, states' rights, and neighbor helping neighbor.
How is improving hospital quality a "personal responsibility issue"? Or restoring market dynamics to the health insurance and care sectors? Or implementing better care delivery models? Or removing perverse incentives from provider reimbursement methodologies?
Your slogans don't make any sense. Think before trying to shoehorn them in.
So please tell me how a Federal Govt. that has created an 18.2 trillion dollar debt is going to monitor hospital quality?
It is amazing how the same people who were against the Bush Medicare Part D program are now so high on ACA. Medicare Part D did actually lower costs by putting people in charge of their healthcare expenses. Save money get a rebate.
Hospital Compare.
This isn't hypothetical, it's real.
A government program can lower costs for people as long as market incentives are built into it? Wow, who knew.
It's almost as if you just discredited every point you've ever made.
Hospital Compare.
This isn't hypothetical, it's real.
A government program can lower costs for people as long as market incentives are built into it? Wow, who knew.
It's almost as if you just discredited every point you've ever made.
Medicare Part D did actually lower costs by putting people in charge of their healthcare expenses.
All good entitlement programs started with good intentions but none of them ever reduced costs and simply create dependence.
Too many doctors are dropping Medicare, why?
Figure 1: Percentage of Physicians Accepting New Patients with Medicare and Private Insurance, 2005-2012
Approximately 90% of all office-based physicians report accepting new Medicare patients. The percentage of physicians who report accepting new Medicare patients is similar to the percentage of physicians who report accepting new privately insured patients. In addition, the share accepting new Medicare patients has been relatively stable over the 2005-2012 period and shows a slight increase in 2011-2012 based on initial NAMCS data. Beneficiary reports of access to care, including the ability to find a physician and see a doctor in a timely manner, are also favorable. Again, these results are comparable to reports by patients with private insurance and have been stable over time. Overall, Medicare beneficiary access to care has been consistently high over the last decade and continues to be high today.
Mmhmm.
The problem is you don't understand Medicare Part D just like you claim I don't understand ACA.
Mmhmm.
Obviously you have no concept of what incentive means show me the incentive in ACA to create savings of healthcare costs
Corrected to say incentive for patients to save money in their healthcare expenses like they have with ACA
A market. Those in the marketplaces who are subsidized receive a flat dollar amount that's tagged to a particular point in the market, the second cheapest silver plan. That subsidy can be applied to any plan but its value doesn't scale with them--if a person buys a cheaper plan, the premium they personally pay out of their own dollars is lower. If they buy a more expensive plan, what they pay is higher.
Plans thus have every incentive to sell the cheapest plan (not dissimilar from the concept of competitive bidding in more government-heavy programs like Part D--the difference is sellers are bidding directly for consumers' business in the open market) and consumers have a personal financial incentive to buy the cheapest plans. The incentive is stronger under the ACA than it is under Part D.
This dynamic is why premiums have been way below expectations ("Private Premiums Under Affordable Care Act 15% Below Forecast, Says CBO") and it's a big part of why the ACA's expected cost has fallen dramatically: "Obamacare will cost less than thought."
Meanwhile, when it comes to actually shopping for health services, people are increasingly price sensitive because of the cost-sharing in their insurance plans, e.g., deductibles and the like. They're incentivized to use lower-priced health care providers, which puts downward pressure on health care price growth (which is at about the lowest level ever right now).
You've admitted that a government program structured in this way can be expected to save money. The only thing left to do is take that one last step and admit the obvious: the ACA has and will save money.
Let me know when you achieve that utopia that liberals believe exists with govt. programs?
By the way, private insurance offers the same thing and we didn't need ACA to make those programs available to others as well. A tax credit program would do the same thing and allow people to save money by keeping more of that tax credit if they saved money. Those not paying taxes would be eligible for true help from the state and local communities
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?