- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,993
- Reaction score
- 60,557
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
From his speech on the last page - you stopped at page 1.
"Here’s what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize. Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for – from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care."
" The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term."
S0... where is the first reduction in the deficit he promised?
Should I go to the part of promising everyone will have coverage and no pre-existing conditions would disqualify - and then link to how after 133,000 applications the Obama Administration shut all that down?
President Obama and Democratic leadership promised ObamaCare/The Affordable Healthcare Act will reduce national healthcare costs and reduce insurance premiums.
Was that a truthful promise?
Reduce them for who? Your poll is way too general
I don't know. There's this: Obamacare Bends the Cost CurveOh, I understand that. But in reference to the topic of the thread, what he said, and what was claimed he said are two different things.
Yes healthcare costs have been rising for years because of the increase in cost of medical treatment. Let's start with the education of the doctor/surgeon. Upon graduation most are left with an exuberant amount in student loans to pay back. Once he joins a practice or opens his own, he pays a very high premium for malpractice insurance. Because of the complexity of handling government Medicare and Medicaid insurance, his office needs to be big enough to provide room for a group of office workers just to handle all the paperwork. The more complex the government makes something, it always results in a greater cost passed down to the consumer. In this case, office calls and in office treatments increase to help cover the overhead of a doctor's practice. And because of the nature of many to sue, often leaves a doctor ordering unnecessary tests to cover his ass. These are just a couple of examples why insurance premiums have been increasing.Uh... Almost none of the ACA has actually started yet. Nothing about Obamacare would have affected your current copays or prescription coverage.
More to the point, insurance premiums have been rising steadily for years:
Plus, as of January 1st, you may qualify for better plans at a lower price, once the tax credits kick in. Not only that, but if your spouse has a condition that requires expensive medication all the time, he'd never get any coverage on the independent market. No insurer would have covered him with a pre-existing condition like that. ACA stops that kind of redlining.
Yeah, that does suck, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with Obamacare.
In theory. These are still for-profit insurance companies answerable to stockholders, too. That means they will try to wring every possible cent of profit they think they can get away with.Because it's insurance...the larger the pool the less the costs.
I guess your computer works now.Yes healthcare costs have been rising for years because of the increase in cost of medical treatment.
That's been the case for years. ACA also makes no changes whatsoever to medical school costs or student loans.Let's start with the education of the doctor/surgeon. Upon graduation most are left with an exuberant amount in student loans to pay back.
That's been the case for years. ACA does not alter malpractice insurance or lawsuits. It's also not a major driver of costs.Once he joins a practice or opens his own, he pays a very high premium for malpractice insurance.
Guess what? Paperwork for insurers is actually worse, because the insurers have spent years trying not to reimburse patients for procedures. The insurers have entire staffs dedicated to finding reasons not to cover someone or to pay for a procedure.Because of the complexity of handling government Medicare and Medicaid insurance, his office needs to be big enough to provide room for a group of office workers just to handle all the paperwork.
And yet, the ACA simplifies a lot of things. E.g. if I want to get insurance now, I may have to call a dozen insurers to get their rates, and I will have to hope that they do not regard my allergies as a "pre-existing condition" that prevents them from offering me insurance. If you've ever done it, you know it is a Byzantine process.The more complex the government makes something, it always results in a greater cost passed down to the consumer.
All of this has been going on for years, and has absolutely nothing to do with any increased costs you've seen over the past few years.In this case, office calls and in office treatments increase to help cover the overhead of a doctor's practice. And because of the nature of many to sue, often leaves a doctor ordering unnecessary tests to cover his ass. These are just a couple of examples why insurance premiums have been increasing.
Sort of.Central to ObamaCare are requirements that health insurers (1) accept everyone who applies (guaranteed issue), (2) cannot charge more based on serious medical conditions (this is known as modified community rating), and (3) include numerous coverage mandates that force insurance to pay for many often uncovered medical conditions.
This is incorrect. The mandate is what gets as many people as possible into the insurance pool, and is designed to discourage people from doing exactly that.This feckless set of rules allows people to forgo buying a policy until they get sick and need coverage (and then drop the policy after they get well).
Yeah, the problem with this claim is that they've been increasing premiums every year since at least 1999 anyway. If the ACA had not passed, your premiums would almost certainly be the same as they are now, if not higher.Insurers are adjusting premiums now in anticipation of the guaranteed-issue and community-rating mandates starting next year. That is why we are seeing such huge hikes in our premiums.
I guess your computer works now.
The evidence is abundantly clear that premiums have been rising since the 90s. The ACA only passed in 2010, and few of its provisions have actually gone into effect. Thus, if your insurance and/or medical costs skyrocketed in 2013, it has nothing to do with the ACA. Let's get specific, shall we?
That's been the case for years. ACA also makes no changes whatsoever to medical school costs or student loans.
That's been the case for years. ACA does not alter malpractice insurance or lawsuits. It's also not a major driver of costs.
Guess what? Paperwork for insurers is actually worse, because the insurers have spent years trying not to reimburse patients for procedures. The insurers have entire staffs dedicated to finding reasons not to cover someone or to pay for a procedure.
The ACA does not increase paperwork for Medicare/Medicaid. What it does is give the states more funds for those programs. These changes have had absolutely no effect on any changes in your premiums or pharmaceuticals for the past 20 years.
And yet, the ACA simplifies a lot of things. E.g. if I want to get insurance now, I may have to call a dozen insurers to get their rates, and I will have to hope that they do not regard my allergies as a "pre-existing condition" that prevents them from offering me insurance. If you've ever done it, you know it is a Byzantine process.
With ACA, I look on one website, I get the rates for the plans, and I'm done. If I want to figure out my tax break in advance, Kaiser's calculator gives me a good idea (Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation). Once people are used to it, it'll be easy. And that, of course, is what terrifies Republicans -- despite the core of ACA being a conservative free-market solution.
All of this has been going on for years, and has absolutely nothing to do with any increased costs you've seen over the past few years.
Sort of.
Insurers cannot redline applicants because of alleged pre-existing conditions (which are usually just a proxy for not wanting to take older applicants). This is a Good Thing, because a lot of people who actually need insurance are prevented from getting it, purely based on profit motives.
They also cannot refuse to pay for certain real medical conditions. Again, if you had one of these conditions and your insurer refused to cover it, you'd be spitting mad. That problem, again, was generated by the profit motive of insurers.
The "adjusted community rating" means that insurers have to use a very large pool as the basis for their assessments of risk. Since insurers basically have to cover these broad pools now, it makes sense.
None of these things have taken effect yet. So once again, increases in your medical costs over the past few years are not the result of the ACA.
This is incorrect. The mandate is what gets as many people as possible into the insurance pool, and is designed to discourage people from doing exactly that.
Or are you advocating for stiffer taxes for those who do not get health insurance?
Yeah, the problem with this claim is that they've been increasing premiums every year since at least 1999 anyway. If the ACA had not passed, your premiums would almost certainly be the same as they are now, if not higher.
And so far, the reality is that the new rates are coming in much lower than expected. It's going to take years to see the full effects of the ACA -- and if Massachusetts is any guide, it won't be anywhere near the disaster predicted by critics.
Plus, the ACA has in fact already required insurers to refund ratepayers when they spend too much on overhead.
So, it is inappropriate to blame a law that has not fully gone into effect, for cost increases that you were almost certainly going to see anyway.
Yes, it should. If everybody in America has health insurance and competition for customers increases, prices should drop. However, the initial adjustments especially if some people putt off getting insurance right away and hospitals not factoring in a decrease if not elimination of people showing up with no insurance and continuing to pass those costs onto the insured ultimately seen in the costs of premiums, might temporarily make premiums go up slightly.
I also expect the cost of treatment to drop as the insured will no longer be required to subsidize the healthcare of people who show up at the ER uninsured. This on top of people no longer putting off routine physicals that could easily catch problems in the early stages when they're less expensive to treat.
1) Not the fault of the ACA, not by a longshot.To recognize why healthcare has become so expensive is the key to bringing down the cost.
Starting with education, ditch the policies of the left that actually make higher learning ridiculously expensive.
Malpractice is a very small part of health care costs -- it's around 0.11% of the total. In fact, the number of malpractice suits has been falling for years, as have the payouts. (Malpractice not cause of healthcare cost | Healthcare Finance News)Tort reform would bring down the cost of malpractice insurance and also stop a lot of unnecessary medical tests.
1) I'd say that it's the seniors who have control over government, since they are well-organized and strongly defend Medicare.Reforms to Medicare and Medicaid could lessen government’s control over the poor and seniors and give enrollees the same advantages as the rest of Americans at the same time cutting the cost to seniors and the taxpayers.
Good news! The new exchanges will make it easier for consumers to directly compare plans, offered by multiple companies, with an easy-to-understand format. It puts the health insurance companies into direct competition, in a transparent fashion.Remove barriers to interstate purchase of health insurance. Creating more competition has a way of driving down costs.
1) Nothing you propose changes any of the incentives that are causing problems. E.g. Insurers will still refuse to cover people with pre-existing conditions, and/or refuse to pay for various conditions.All these suggestions would drive down the cost of medical insurance and shrink big government control at the same time.
The insurers have had years to get ready. And it hasn't cost them much -- surely much less than if, for example, a single-payer system was offered.You are also completely ignoring or should I state "blowing off" the overwhelming cost to insurance companies coming in just a few short months through guaranteed-issue and community-rating mandates.
I wonder if anyone considers that the plans are not the same anymore, so it is difficult to compare apples to oranges.
Two points about that:
1) The promise was, "If you like your plan, you can keep it." A lot of plans that people liked just fine are not ACA-compliant.
2) Yes, the plans are different and cover more, but that's small comfort for the guy who now has to pay more because his policy covers maternity care.
BS1) Not the fault of the ACA, not by a longshot.
2) No "policies of the left" specifically drove up the costs of medical school, or higher education in general -- if anything, cuts to state and federal funds for higher education drove those costs up.
Malpractice is a very small part of health care costs -- it's around 0.11% of the total. In fact, the number of malpractice suits has been falling for years, as have the payouts. (Malpractice not cause of healthcare cost | Healthcare Finance News)\
That is so much crap I don't know where to begin and needs a new thread for discussion!1) I'd say that it's the seniors who have control over government, since they are well-organized and strongly defend Medicare.
2) What "advantages" are you talking about?!? Being refused coverage? Steadily increasing premiums? Coverage for boner pills?
3) Medicare and Medicaid successfully hold down costs, because they pool all the enrollees, and thus have a very strong negotiating position with hospitals and doctors. In fact, a big problem with Medicare Part D (the prescription drug benefit) was that it prevented the government from negotiating with pharmaceuticals on prices.
Good news! The new exchanges will make it easier for consumers to directly compare plans, offered by multiple companies, with an easy-to-understand format. It puts the health insurance companies into direct competition, in a transparent fashion.
If the government Democrats wanted to strengthen the insurance sector by allowing interstate health insurance to allow a free market to provide the needed competition that would naturally lower healthcare premiums, they never would have come up with this boondoggle called Obamacare that stifles it.Nothing about the ACA prevents interstate health insurance offerings being allowed in the future.
You may be a really nice guy but you are looking through this boondoggle with rose colored glasses.1) Nothing you propose changes any of the incentives that are causing problems. E.g. Insurers will still refuse to cover people with pre-existing conditions, and/or refuse to pay for various conditions.
2) A major driver of costs is, wait for it... the insurers. The hospitals set "chargemaster" rates, which serve both as a negotiating point with insurers, and are also what uninsured people pay. Nothing about what you're suggesting changes this system. ACA at least gets more people in the pool, which gives insurers more leverage to reduce costs. Plus, with less people uninsured, fewer individuals get socked with the full chargemaster rates. It's not ideal, but it is an improvement.
The insurers have had years to get ready. And it hasn't cost them much -- surely much less than if, for example, a single-payer system was offered.
I'm also explicitly, and now repeatedly, pointing out how insurance premiums have been rising steadily since at least 1999.
And as already noted, the additional costs from covering people with pre-existing conditions are offset by the mandate. That's the whole point of the mandate -- to push more people into the risk pools. It is way too early to categorically declare that it can't work. And if not enough people sign up, they can always increase the tax penalties if absolutely necessary.
In addition, insurers in Massachusetts have worked with this exact same system for years, and they're doing fine.
So, in summary:
• Your costs were going to go up anyway. Just like they've been going up for years.
• The factors you cited are not, by a long shot, responsible for any increases in your personal health care costs over the past few years.
• The insurers will do just fine. If anything, ACA is a huge boon to them, since they get more ratepayers and don't have to worry about being wiped out by a single-payer system.
• Covering more people is a Good Thing.
That's one reason, yes.College tuition costs have gone up 945 percent since 1980. The increase in tuition places a heavy burden on young people and their families. What has made college tuition so expensive? Tuition prices are rising so quickly because of supply and demand.
That cost is likely overstated. Costs Of Defensive Medicine May Be Overstated : Shots - Health News : NPRIt isn't just the cost of malpractice insurance but the practice of defensive medicine....
Aetna, Cigna and United Healthcare have pulled out of some states; they're waiting to see how things will work out. Wellpoint / Blue Cross are in. The exchanges also now put smaller players on an even playing field with the Big Guys -- in fact, it may work out better for them, as there is now one central spot to get insurance.major insurance providers are bowing out of state exchanges such as Aetna, Blue Cross and others.
Sorry, but I've got a pretty good grasp and perspective on the issues. E.g. pretty much everything that you claim caused an increase in your own bills this year hasn't even started yet and/or won't affect your bills.You really don't have a grasp on how big government is going to destroy another private sector in the economy.
It will raise premiums, probably. But premiums are not the end of the story.
Health care costs overall for the insured will be lower as a result of better coverage and more preventative care.
That's the contradiction within the law though. Only a few people will be paying in who were able to but didn't before. Not nearly enough to cover the millions of new free-riders created by the subsidies and Medicaid expansion.
In theory. These are still for-profit insurance companies answerable to stockholders, too. That means they will try to wring every possible cent of profit they think they can get away with.
As much as it goes against my normal line of thinking, I support universal healthcare. I also think that Obamacare is just a step in that direction, though I agree with your point that it would be a mighty hurdle to overcome.I agree...the only reason I support Obamacare is because the alternative is not realistically universal healthcare. If it's repealed there's no way a more liberal bill passes...even if "Medicare for all" is insanely popular. It will be some minor reforms and back to the old way of doing business. Heck I could see deregulation efforts being pushed by the House. One of their main "reforms" for lowering prices is to allow across state lines competition...a race to the bottom as deregulated states offer cut rate prices by fly by the night insurance firms.
For insurance companies they are now getting 40 million additional policy holders and a large portion of them are younger/healthier individuals. Keep in mind...it's the government that is subsidizing the cost. The providers get the benefit of new policy holders.
Now granted not my ideal situation. If the government is going to ensure everyone is covered I'd prefer them to just play the role of insurer but hey....that's socialism.
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?