Progressives tout California Health care "success"

[IDBillzFan]

Is that a bad thing? Doesn't that represent less uncertainty for your business, dealing with Heathcare plans and other admin BS?

 

It's only a bad thing when you need health care. Prove to me that the level of care I get under ACA is equal to the level of care I get right now, and it'll be less of a bad thing.

 

The problem with ACA is it's sold as something that will reduce health care/insurance costs, and except for birdgog, Gene, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, you can't find anyone who believes that will be the case. Oh, and that whole "You exist, so therefore you must buy something or be fined" thing, which bothers me more than any of it.

[Doc]

I wouldn't call laying off workers and cutting hours, gaming the system. Its the market response to higher costs imposed by our government. All anger should be directed at our politicians who failed to recognize the obvious, that business owners aren't simply going to take it on the chin due to the Obama administration's good intentions. There was always going to be a response to the ACA. Getting below the 50 employee mark and cutting hours to get below the full time mark may seem cheeky, but if no such loopholes existed there still would have been a response in the form of layoffs.

 

I'm sure the Obama admin will demonize the private sector rather than take responsibility for their total lack of foresight. Greedy business owners will be blamed for the failure of the ACA. The simple economics of the matter, that the working man was always going to flip the bill for the ACA, one way or another, will be ignored.

Responding to the most fundamental and basic laws of economics and the human decision making process is not gaming the system. Any system put in place that doesn't account for these things is broken.

If you reduce hours or cut employees so you can avoid paying for their health insurance and put more money in your pocket while saddling taxpayers with the burden, it's absolutely gaming the system. Just because it's human nature and you can, it doesn't mean you should.

no, it's not a bad thing. but it would likely lead to single payer since as you say, employer sponsored plans would disappear rapidly and this is curently the source for most private insurance. i suspect that's why it's in the bill. be interesting to see which special interest groups had a hand in writing that part of the bill.

Not hard to figure out which SIG's had a hand and who they paid off.

[Alaska Darin]

but it would likely lead to single payer

And we all know that's the best way to make things easier and cheaper, said no one, ever.

[B-Large]

It's only a bad thing when you need health care. Prove to me that the level of care I get under ACA is equal to the level of care I get right now, and it'll be less of a bad thing.

 

The problem with ACA is it's sold as something that will reduce health care/insurance costs, and except for birdgog, Gene, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, you can't find anyone who believes that will be the case. Oh, and that whole "You exist, so therefore you must buy something or be fined" thing, which bothers me more than any of it.

 

iss the same commcercial insurer who contracts with providers, why would it be any less of quality? Its the payment mechanism, not the delivery of care that as question, right? I guess Aetna could agree to pay diffrernetial based on whether you hold a group plan or an exchange plan, but a hospital tends to agree to rates globally with insurance companies.

 

I do and don't think it will impact costs, it will shift them. I am of the opinion cost in healthcare will go up until a few things to happen 1.) People start dying way earlier 2.) we stop develping nascent therpies that go against #1

 

the ACA is attempting to bring more money into the system, aka young people, therby shifting the overall cost of care across a larger population... we all know that as Risk Pooling.. that is nothing new and is real core in any healthcare reform proposal. What I have been seeing as I reasearch plans both here in Colorado and in Maine, is that most plans are a premium payment, but coupled wiht a deductible of different sizes- so Cat plans as their called... I believe once you put people the postion of making hard choices, alot of people will chose to forgo care rather than pay for it.... to me, it will improvbe utilization, and that is not rationaling, that is personal financial choices.

 

To believe cost in Healthcare are going to decrease in any real sense is an unnattainable goal... the realistic goal is slowing the rate of growth, it will remain to be seen if ACA achieves that.. being a supporter I hope that is the case, but then again we don't know until the data is out after implenentation. In my view, in a for-profit healthcare system, where there are no price controls and rations for expensive care, Americans who desire care will simple have to plan their lives around it like they do car payments, home payments, etc...

Edited July 17, 2013 by B-Large

[B-Large]

If you reduce hours or cut employees so you can avoid paying for their health insurance and put more money in your pocket while saddling taxpayers with the burden, it's absolutely gaming the system. Just because it's human nature and you can, it doesn't mean you should.

 

Not hard to figure out which SIG's had a hand and who they paid off.

 

If employers cut healthcare plans and deem it up to each workers to find their own plans, it would seem logical the market for pay would correct for that. I guess workers could apply for medicaid, but the criteria for Caid is pretty low, so working persons would likely not qualify. the ACA will give them a credit to buy insurance I guess, but individuals would still be reposinble to pay the rest or pay the tax.

 

And we all know that's the best way to make things easier and cheaper, said no one, ever.

 

Single payor is easier and lower cost overall, their outcomes are typically better than ours on many indicators- it makes sense, less convoluted, less adminstrative BS, people routinely understand what is and what is not covered, and how the system works (ask the typicaly Group Plan enrollee what is and is not covered in their plan, not a clue most of them)... Medicare enrollee's like it even though they are about to find out they will be paying more out of pocket..... but Americans don't want that, so why discuss it?

[TakeYouToTasker]

If you reduce hours or cut employees so you can avoid paying for their health insurance and put more money in your pocket while saddling taxpayers with the burden, it's absolutely gaming the system. Just because it's human nature and you can, it doesn't mean you should.

No it isn't, it's just good business. Business will do what it is best incentivized to do, as the sole goal of business if profitability. If your system incentivizes that wrong things, that's the fault of the system.

[birdog1960]

just at a seminar aimed at hospital and physician execs. one of the first slides was avg health costs vs life expectency graph in various countries that i've linked here. the gist is that the US has middling life expectance at over double the cost of our nearest competitor. speaker asked who didn't believe it (if doc were there his hand would have shot up as he yelled "oooo,ooo". no one put their hand up and he said something to the effect : "good. because industry believes in these numbers and are tired of paying through the nose for poor quality". and the answer to this problem per this speaker: aco's.

 

as i posted earlier, many similar strategies have been employed with very little success. i very much doubt aco's are the answer. and if i'm correct, there will be a frantic search for another answer pushed hard by american businesses. and the one common denominator of nearly all the low cost, high quality systems currently in existence is single payer. there's only so many chances that for- profit medicine will get to solve this. i think they're almost out. doc apparently doesn't. will see...

[Doc]

No it isn't, it's just good business. Business will do what it is best incentivized to do, as the sole goal of business if profitability. If your system incentivizes that wrong things, that's the fault of the system.

It may be good business since it increases profitability, but it's still gaming a faulty system since increasing profits comes at the expense of the taxpayers. The concepts aren't mutually exclusive.

[Jauronimo]

It may be good business since it increases profitability, but it's still gaming a faulty system since increasing profits comes at the expense of the taxpayers. The concepts aren't mutually exclusive.

Its coming at the expense of the tax payers one way or another. If it wasn't reduced hours deferring the cost of healthcare insurance onto the broader tax base it would be unemployment benefits and health insurance costs. Or the higher cost of producing would simply be passed on to the customer in the form. The tax payer was ALWAYS going to eat the cost in some way as there is no free lunch.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Jauronimo

[B-Large]

just at a seminar aimed at hospital and physician execs. one of the first slides was avg health costs vs life expectency graph in various countries that i've linked here. the gist is that the US has middling life expectance at over double the cost of our nearest competitor. speaker asked who didn't believe it (if doc were there his hand would have shot up as he yelled "oooo,ooo" . no one put their hand up and he said something to the effect : "good. because industry believes in these numbers and are tired of paying through the nose for poor quality". and the answer to this problem per this speaker: aco's.

 

as i posted earlier, many similar strategies have been employed with very little success. i very much doubt aco's are the answer. and if i'm correct, there will be a frantic search for another answer pushed hard by american businesses. and the one common denominator of nearly all the low cost, high quality systems currently in existence is single payer. there's only so many chances that for- profit medicine will get to solve this. i think they're almost out. doc apparently doesn't. will see...

 

Its hard to imagine shutting down mutlibillion dollar industry like health insurance and nationalizing it... heck, half of he GOP right now rally against Medicare, would prefer to see it be gone and be privatized, or my new monkier, "ACA'ing" it.... I don't mind the idea as we are making all citzens under 65 do it, but I do worry about seniors slowing down and making decision like which plan to enroll in... well that and the Insurance Industry wants to keep Medicare right where it is.

[B-Man]

House Votes to Delay Obamacare Mandates

By Andrew Stiles

 

 

The House passed legislation Wednesday to delay Obamacare’s coverage mandates for employers and individuals. The move comes in response to the Obama administration’s unilateral decision to delay the employer mandate until 2015, conveniently beyond the upcoming midterm elections. The individual mandate, perhaps the law’s most central (and most controversial) provision, remains on track to take effect in 2014.

 

The employer-mandate delay, which would essentially codify the president’s unilateral action into law, passed overwhelming by a vote of 264 to 161, with 35 Democrats voting yes. The president has already threatened to veto the bill, calling it ”unnecessary.”

 

The individual-mandate delay passed 251 to 174, with 22 Democrats voting yes. The vote could become a political weapon for Republicans, as they are likely to accuse Democrats of protecting businesses from Obamacare’s onerous provisions, but refusing to extend those same protections to individuals and families.

[DC Tom]

 

What is this, Bizarro Congress?

[Alaska Darin]

Single payor is easier and lower cost overall, their outcomes are typically better than ours on many indicators- it makes sense, less convoluted, less adminstrative BS, people routinely understand what is and what is not covered, and how the system works (ask the typicaly Group Plan enrollee what is and is not covered in their plan, not a clue most of them)... Medicare enrollee's like it even though they are about to find out they will be paying more out of pocket..... but Americans don't want that, so why discuss it?

What a giant load of horseshit. There isn't a single instance of the government taking over something and making it more administratively or cost effective. And the conclusions that the single payer studies come to are even bigger loads of crap, brought to you mostly by big government lunatics looking to advance their agenda.

 

Governments are the reason health care costs continue to significantly outpace inflation globally. Only a complete dolt can't see it and only a bigger dolt would believe MORE government would actually fix the problem. Patently ridiculous. It's the equivalent of trying to fix a sucking chest wound with a bullet to the cranium.

[birdog1960]

hmmm...so how do ya'll interpret this move? at the extreme, one could imagine the republicans voting for this at the behest of big business (reversing the individual mandate has absolutely no chance of passing the senate). they don't want the employer mandate. maybe they don't want to be in the business of providing health care insurance at all anymore as they see no end to escalating costs. so what happens if they start backing away from employer sponsored plans? at the other extreme,maybe it's just more boner theater with a cast of really bad actors.

 

What a giant load of horseshit. There isn't a single instance of the government taking over something and making it more administratively or cost effective. And the conclusions that the single payer studies come to are even bigger loads of crap, brought to you mostly by big government lunatics looking to advance their agenda.

 

Governments are the reason health care costs continue to significantly outpace inflation globally. Only a complete dolt can't see it and only a bigger dolt would believe MORE government would actually fix the problem. Patently ridiculous. It's the equivalent of trying to fix a sucking chest wound with a bullet to the cranium.

wanna cite some data that supports your position (on health care costs and outcomes, specifically)?

 

Its hard to imagine shutting down mutlibillion dollar industry like health insurance and nationalizing it... heck, half of he GOP right now rally against Medicare, would prefer to see it be gone and be privatized, or my new monkier, "ACA'ing" it.... I don't mind the idea as we are making all citzens under 65 do it, but I do worry about seniors slowing down and making decision like which plan to enroll in... well that and the Insurance Industry wants to keep Medicare right where it is.

don't imagine "shutting down"...more like collapsing under its own unbearably expensive weight. Edited July 18, 2013 by birdog1960

[B-Large]

What a giant load of horseshit. There isn't a single instance of the government taking over something and making it more administratively or cost effective. And the conclusions that the single payer studies come to are even bigger loads of crap, brought to you mostly by big government lunatics looking to advance their agenda.

 

Governments are the reason health care costs continue to significantly outpace inflation globally. Only a complete dolt can't see it and only a bigger dolt would believe MORE government would actually fix the problem. Patently ridiculous. It's the equivalent of trying to fix a sucking chest wound with a bullet to the cranium.

 

How do you account for other countries who deliver better outcomes at half the cost we incur? Worldwide Conspiracy? Deliberate False Reporting? Magic?

 

Socialized Medicine system should cost much more based on your assertion of "Government Always Costs More"... People here are laser focused on cost and they beat us everytime in that catagory.... how is that?

 

*** I am not saying it has to be a Federal Issue, it could be a State program.

Edited July 18, 2013 by B-Large

[birdog1960]

How do you account for other countries who deliver better outcomes at half the cost we incur? Worldwide Conspiracy? Deliberate False Reporting? Magic?

 

Socialized Medicine system should cost much more based on your assertion of "Government Always Costs More"... People here are laser focused on cost and they beat us everytime in that catagory.... how is that?

 

*** I am not saying it has to be a Federal Issue, it could be a State program.

he's not gonna answer, so i'll do it for him. nearly all the highly compensated employees in these systems are paid less than in our system. hospitals, drugs, surgeries, procedures and diagnostics are reimbursed much less. less is spent on administration. there's less utilization since it's regulated. there's no profit. pretty simple. no magic necessary.

[TakeYouToTasker]

he's not gonna answer, so i'll do it for him. nearly all the highly compensated employees in these systems are paid less than in our system. hospitals, drugs, surgeries, procedures and diagnostics are reimbursed much less. less is spent on administration. there's less utilization since it's regulated. there's no profit. pretty simple. no magic necessary.

The answer, of course, is that the United States absorbs nearly 100% of the R&D and technologies costs.

[B-Large]

The answer, of course, is that the United States absorbs nearly 100% of the R&D and technologies costs.

 

and drug maker costs- you buy a viagra in Manchester, $2. Here, $35.

 

So how do you end that kind of cost shifting?

[Alaska Darin]

he's not gonna answer, so i'll do it for him. nearly all the highly compensated employees in these systems are paid less than in our system. hospitals, drugs, surgeries, procedures and diagnostics are reimbursed much less. less is spent on administration. there's less utilization since it's regulated. there's no profit. pretty simple. no magic necessary.

Try again. You're touching on a tiny fraction.

[Jauronimo]

and drug maker costs- you buy a viagra in Manchester, $2. Here, $35.

 

So how do you end that kind of cost shifting?

Price and cost are two very different things. Even though the little blue pill is priced at $2 the consumer bears other economic costs for that pill which aren't captured in the price.