The Affordable Care Act is Coming Home to Roost

[boyst]

If im wrong im wrong. If the numbers of uninsured goes up, or if the cost curve continues the current trend ill admit im wrong. Right now i think obamacare will be an improvement but I'd be prepared to admit im wrong if the evidence shows otherwise

it will be an improvement and the number of insured will go up % wise. That is hardly an issue or the point being debated. The debate lies on how that coverage will be attained. Employers will no longer contribute to employee plans in the fashion in which they do - which was functional and perfectly fine. The rising healthcare costs were due to multiple reasons - insurance premiums a part of that. An idiot could go get a boob job and have one nipple 1/8" lower on the left then right and sue for thousands to settle out of court and get some winnings. Torte reform is a much bigger deal then ObamaCare, but it doesn't suite Obama or his socialist ways because it holds the individual responsible and that is not what the almighty Obama wants. He knows he and his party of puppets rely on the suckling piglets who would starve without their momma's milk.

[Rob's House]

I have no idea but i thought if you were 89 you'd be medicare, or if you were on welfare on medicaid. Again I'm more interested in the big picture than anecdotes.

 

Yeah, anecdotes are only useful when you're trying to con the electorate into letting you pass massive government power grabs. They're utterly meaningless otherwise.

 

Besides, it's like the fella says, if you want to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs.

[keepthefaith]

First of all the data is OECD data, about as reputable as you can get. Second the one of the ways Obamacare will reduce cost is by improving the risk pool of the insured and reducing uninsured visits to hospitals when they actually require primary care.

 

Here is an article about costs falling as a result of affordable care: http://www.nytimes.c...pagewanted=all

 

What is the life expectancy in the US of the uninsured? If your only yardstick of the effectiveness of healthcare is life expectancy and if the uninsured live to be in their 70's, then why bother insuring them?

[DC Tom]

If im wrong im wrong. If the numbers of uninsured goes up, or if the cost curve continues the current trend ill admit im wrong. Right now i think obamacare will be an improvement but I'd be prepared to admit im wrong if the evidence shows otherwise

 

What cost curve? Absolute dollars spent, total percent of GDP, per capita expenditures, per capita out-of-pocket expenditures, public expenditures?

 

And what if the number of uninsured goes down, but access to care declines as well?

[JuanGuzman]

When im talking cost curve im looking for a slowing or diminishing rate of growth Im in real per capita healthcare spending, ideally broken out by major payers e.g., private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. I'd also be interested on where the spending is occurring at hospitals, clinics etc.

 

On your access question im not familiar with the metrics but if there was good measurement for access id be interested to see what happens. My guess is total access will rise significantly

[DC Tom]

When im talking cost curve im looking for a slowing or diminishing rate of growth Im in real per capita healthcare spending, ideally broken out by major payers e.g., private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. I'd also be interested on where the spending is occurring at hospitals, clinics etc.

 

"Diminishing rate of growth in real per-capita healthcare spending?" So you're metric for success isn't saving money, or getting better care for the same amount, but making sure the growth in expenditures slows relative to what it would have been otherwise? Or, to put it another way, using your earlier comparative chart, you consider "success" as the discrepancy between the US and Norway getting worse, but not too quickly.

 

On your access question im not familiar with the metrics but if there was good measurement for access id be interested to see what happens. My guess is total access will rise significantly

 

Let's go with "wait time for service," since it seems to be a common colloquial measure. Or we could go with doctors or hospital beds available per 1000 people.

 

You really think the ACA is going to increase the number of doctors available to the public? While increasing the public's use of doctors?

 

You're an idiot.

[Nanker]

Obviously the way to cut the cost of health care is to simply not go to the doctor, never have an operation, and for heaven's sake stop buying health care insurance! Think of the massive drop in health care costs if we got even 50% of Americans to do that. Of course, the 30 million illegal immigrants would still go to the hospitals for their primary care. After all, they can't be denied health care if they can't afford to pay for it... es la ley! But if the rest of us cut back on our spending on silly annual physicals and bandaids and aspirin - just think of the impact that would have on those charts!

 

On a more serious note, it would be nice if our government rolled up its sleeves and forced the governmental-controlled agencies in the rest of the world (Canuckistan included) to pony up more for the US invented and manufactured ethical pharmaceuticals instead of stiffing the US citizens with nearly the full cost of drug discovery and development. Fargin' parasites.

[IDBillzFan]

Was busy yesterday and missed Sebelius' conference call pushing out deadlines and begging insurance companies to please help all the people who think they have coverage come January 1 -- but don't -- and show up with receipts in hand to insurance companies who have absolutely no record of their existence.

 

In three weeks, the budget deal is going to seem ingenious. Because the first weeks of January are going to make the Obamacare rollout look like an iPhone launch.

 

Watch this video from Special Report yesterday.

 

This is going down as one of the biggest presidential cluster!@#$s of all time.

[B-Man]

Peeling the onion of fail (continued):

 

White House in Obamacare Panic Mode? Administration Announces Steps to Maintain Insurance Coverage as Worries About Disruptions Mount.

 

 

 

 

Another layer.

 

OBAMA WINS POLITIFACT’S “LIE OF THE YEAR:”

 

And meanwhile, its 2009 Lie Of The Year — “Death Panels” — turns out to be true. Of course, everyone who was paying attention knew all along that “Death Panels” was true, and “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” was a lie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another layer.

 

Report: Less Than 15 Percent of Obamacare ‘Enrollees’ Are Actually Covered.

 

Obamacare administrators are counting people who’ve browsed the website and placed a plan in their virtual shopping cart — but who never finished the process by checking out — as “enrolled.” That’s a bogus metric. It’s even more bogus when you recall the last point in bold. People are not covered unless and until they’ve made their first premium payment.

 

 

 

It’s Potemkin enrollees all the way down.

[B-Man]

Barack Obama ✔ @BarackObamaFollow

 

May your days be merry and bright, and may your Christmas include a conversation about health insurance. http://OFA.BO/Kwa9Sq

 

 

 

They just don't know any other way.................pathetic.........reeks of desperation.

 

Remember, your children don't want gifts, they want debunked @OFA talking points.

 

 

Come January, some won't know what hit them...............

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

They just don't know any other way.................pathetic.........reeks of desperation.

 

Remember, your children don't want gifts, they want debunked @OFA talking points.

 

 

Come January, some won't know what hit them...............

 

 

Isn't this guy supposed to be a good community organizer?

[Azalin]

 

 

Isn't this guy supposed to be a good community organizer?

I heard he was a community organizer, but I never heard anything about him being good at it.

[OCinBuffalo]

Are you really that stupid. You can't be that stupid, but maybe you are... First of all I'm not being critical of the U.S. I'm applauding OBAMA and the U.S. introducing the affordable care act because it is a major improvement on the status quo. also talk about going off topic, this argument is about an improvement to the U.S. health system and not whether nato countries are helped by having America's large military as a friend (they are).

Anyway just look at the chart below, the U.S. spends hell of a lot more than any country on health spending yet the outcomes in terms of life expectancy are pretty abysmal, (ideally you'd like to strip out car accidents and heart disease from this analysis because those are more prevalence in the U.S.) but the basic premise is the U.S. doesn't get much health care bang for their buck. Also not to mention the huge number of people who are uninsured in the U.S.

By the way when I am talking about administrative costs I'm not talking about care providers (e.g., your wrong example of doctors and techs), I'm talking about insurers trying to verify that a client didn't have a pre-existing condition, or a doctors office going back and forth with an insurer to see if the patient has insurance and what treatments it will cover etc. I think Harvard estimates that about 30 per cent of health spending in the U.S. goes to admin costs whereas single insurer countries that number is less than half of that.

 

A couple of other things random responses to all the illogical stuff you through in there. First I love free trade (why did you say I hated it?), I support it fully. I'm not a socialist either so don't call me one. I support free trade based on evidence and theory. And I support using government dollars for health insurance based on evidence and theory as well. Exercising basic logic really.

 

I actually do look forward to the next couple years leading up to the 2016 election, I will be periodically checking to PPP forum, I expect to see Obamacare being vindicated by a bending of the health care cost curve, signing up uninsured, improving health outcomes and becoming a very popular program. If Affordable Care fails to deliver on those I will admit that i was wrong, like I said obamacare is not with out faults (I can think of a number of improvements I'd like to see made to it) but right now I see ACA as a huge improvement. Looking forward to seeing it evolve over the next few years....

 

I hope that you'll be big enough to admit that you were wrong if Obamacare succeeds.

The point, nitwit, is that you wouldn't have any money for any spending on any healthcare system

 

....if you actually paid for your own defense. And you are calling me stupid?

 

Not only is this relevant, it supesedes whatever crap you say next.

 

Your socialist dream is subsidized directly by the USA. If it wasn't for us, there would be no national health care system in your, or any other, country. You'd be spending that $ on a real Navy and a real air force, instead of lining up behind ours...like little ducklings following their mother.

 

Waddle Waddle Juan Guzman!

 

We spend a lot of $, but, if you had cancer, and the personal $ to fight it? Don't lie to yourself: Your ass is coming here, and I don't think you'll be whining about "adminstrative costs" that could have been saved...when we cure you. I figure it would take about 6 months, after you've been cured, for you to go back to your nonsense about how Canada's system is better.

 

****************************************************************

Seperate point.

 

Yeah, I'm the idelogue...so much so, that I never listen to anybody about anything, looking for something I can pick up/learn. I never talk to Ze Germans about health care(which means next week Wed. I don't have to get up at 2 am, yeah!) I never pay attention to the foreign press, so I completely missed this little gem from yesterday:

 

http://www.telegraph...ssary-pill.html

 

When my immigrant wife first came to Britain, it took her ages to understand our GP system. If I fell ill, I had to wait days to see the doctor. But if she felt sick, the same doctor would see her that afternoon as she was categorised as a private patient (and paid a modest £50 for the privilege). As far as she could work out, it was a Russian-style system of bribery: the official system doesn’t work, but you can bypass it with a few backhanders.

That's what you have, that's what they have, and you dare to act like both it and you are superior?

 

:lol: :lol:

 

Get a f'ing grip on reality pal.

 

I'll make it simple for you: just like with EVERYTHING, socialism dehumanizes.

 

But, it doesn't do so instantly. Too bad. If it did, we'd all recognize it for the cancer that it is, and eradicate it, as we must. However, over time, socialism is the reason the doctor has no oxygen. It's the reason the maggots find their way into the surgery. The maggots get comfortable, because everybody there is: comfortable.

 

There's no reason to work harder, because the government won't pay you more. So, why check for the maggots?

There's no reason to work smarter, because if you do, the government rolls out more "rules", that regulate and tax away whatever you might have earned.

 

In fact there isn't even "earn" anymore, there's only what "they give you". So, why bother investigating how we got the maggots, and what we can do to avoid them, as there's no personal reward for doing any of that. And, is anybody going to fire us? So what if they did? More public assitance an a new job in a few months.

 

Even the reward of "The only person who need know I'm doing the right thing is me"...again...over time...wears down. The enthusiam is worn down by the years of utter mediocrity that is being enforced everywhere one looks.

 

Productivity stagnates and slowly declines. We all just do the same thing we did yesterday, then get in our cars and drive home. We get lazy, we get complacent. Why should we look for maggots? The government isn't paying us enough as it is, and, if we did look for maggots, it's not like we'd get a reward for finding them.

 

 

With Obmacare?

 

Why look for a cheaper plan? Why try to get a better one? The insurance companies are going to take whatever the government gives them, so they have no incentive to build cheaper or better plans, and, since the government has "deemed" the features of the plans, and what they will pay(ahem, I mean subsidize).

 

The grand socialist vision, can be best explained by a single line from The Incredibles:

When everyone's super...no one will be!

 

Instead of having super doctors like we currently have, the kind your country can't produce, ever, Obamacare means: no one will be.

Instead of having super managers/RNs like we currently have, the kind your country marginalizes, always, Obamacare means: no one will be.

And instead of having super consultants, the super consultants will do what we always do: overcharge for marginal work in another industry.

Edited December 14, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Man]

"Many in New York’s professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama’s health care plan."

 

"But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, if they can find it."

 

It is an uncomfortable position for many members of the creative classes to be in. “We are the Obama people,” said Camille Sweeney, a New York writer and member of the Authors Guild. Her insurance is being canceled, and she is dismayed that neither her pediatrician nor her general practitioner appears to be on the exchange plans. What to do has become a hot topic on Facebook and at dinner parties frequented by her fellow writers and artists.

 

“I’m for it,

” she said.

“But what is the reality of it?

”

Isn't that cute? For it, but what is it?

 

Dear, sweet, oh-so-creative Camille the Writer, seemingly flipping the old Groucho Marx lyric:

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2013 by B-Man

[keepthefaith]

 

Why look for a cheaper plan? Why try to get a better one? The insurance companies are going to take whatever the government gives them, so they have no incentive to build cheaper or better plans, and, since the government has "deemed" the features of the plans, and what they will pay(ahem, I mean subsidize).

 

 

This is the most basic failure of Obamacare. Government now knows best and the choices of health insurance are now more restrictive than ever.

[B-Man]

 

Obamacare Has Lost the Uninsured

 

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released this week asked uninsured individuals whether or not they thought the law was a good idea. Just 24 percent said they thought it was. In contrast, half the uninsured polled said they thought it was a bad idea. As the Journal points out, that represents an 11 point drop in support for the law amongst the uninsured since September. The same poll also finds that 56 percent of the uninsured believe the law will have a negative effect on the U.S. health care system.

 

Let that sink in: What that means is that regardless of how bad the old system—the system that for whatever reason left them uninsured—was, a majority of people without health coverage now think that Obamacare makes it worse.

 

That’s more than a political problem. It’s a policy problem—a threat to the law’s viability, especially when combined with other recent poll numbers showing that young people, who are crucial to the law’s coverage scheme, are rejecting the law as well. A Harvard Institute of Politics Poll released earlier this month found that 56 percent of young adults age 18-29 don’t approve of the health law. Only 29 percent of uninsured young adults said they expected to enroll.

[JuanGuzman]

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2013/12/us-ranks-near-bottom-in-efficiency-of-health-care-spending.htmlS ranks near bottom among industrialized nations in efficiency of health care spending. EurekAlert: A new study by researchers at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health and McGill University in Montreal reveals that the United States health care system ranks 22nd out of 27 high-income nations when analyzed for its efficiency of turning dollars spent into extending lives.

 

The ... U.S.'s inferior ranking reflects a high price paid and a low return on investment. For example, every additional hundred dollars spent on health care by the United States translated into a gain of less than half a month of life expectancy. In Germany, every additional hundred dollars spent translated into more than four months of increased life expectancy.

 

The researchers also discovered significant gender disparities within countries.

 

"Out of the 27 high-income nations we studied, the United States ranks 25th when it comes to reducing women's deaths," said Dr. Jody Heymann, senior author of the study and dean of the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. "The country's efficiency of investments in reducing men's deaths is only slightly better, ranking 18th." ...

 

"While there are large differences in the efficiency of health spending across countries, men have experienced greater life expectancy gains than women per health dollar spent within nearly every country," said Douglas Barthold, the study's first author...

 

 

[DC Tom]

http://economistsvie...-spending.htmlS ranks near bottom among industrialized nations in efficiency of health care spending. EurekAlert: A new study by researchers at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health and McGill University in Montreal reveals that the United States health care system ranks 22nd out of 27 high-income nations when analyzed for its efficiency of turning dollars spent into extending lives.

 

The ... U.S.'s inferior ranking reflects a high price paid and a low return on investment. For example, every additional hundred dollars spent on health care by the United States translated into a gain of less than half a month of life expectancy. In Germany, every additional hundred dollars spent translated into more than four months of increased life expectancy.

 

The researchers also discovered significant gender disparities within countries.

 

"Out of the 27 high-income nations we studied, the United States ranks 25th when it comes to reducing women's deaths," said Dr. Jody Heymann, senior author of the study and dean of the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. "The country's efficiency of investments in reducing men's deaths is only slightly better, ranking 18th." ...

 

"While there are large differences in the efficiency of health spending across countries, men have experienced greater life expectancy gains than women per health dollar spent within nearly every country," said Douglas Barthold, the study's first author...

 

Explain how the ACA addresses spending efficiency.

[3rdnlng]

Explain how the ACA addresses spending efficiency.

 

JuanGuzman's head explodes. Slight bump n Global Warming and Global Intelligence.

[Nanker]

That's okay. He can afford to wait six months to get it fixed... for free!