Obamacare is working

[Riot]

Obamacare will provide $1.3 billion in rebates to consumers

The Affordable Care Act is doing what it was supposed to. You won't hear that from congressional Republicans or Mitt Romney (or, probably the Supreme Court), but the provisions that have already gone into effect are working.

That includes people up to age 26 being covered by their parents' plans, free wellness exams for seniors, "doughnut hole" Medicare prescription drug savings, and insurers no longer being able deny coverage to children because of a pre-existing condition.

Here's another one. Beginning in 2011, health insurers were required to spend at least 80 percent of premiums (for small group plan, 85 percent for large groups) on actual medical care, and if they failed to meet that standard they had to pay a rebate of the difference.

They'll have to make those rebate payments by August of this year.

The Kaiser Family Foundation just finished a survey of what happened in 2011 [pdf] with that rule, the "medical loss ratio," and found that insurers will be paying $1.3 billion in rebates for 2011 including "$426 million in the individual market, $377 million in the small group market, and $541 million in the large group market."

About one-third of consumers in the individual market are going to see rebates, averaging at $127 per person.

For the group plans, the purchaser of the plan (employer or other sponsoring group) will get the rebate, and 28 percent of the small group market and 19 percent of the large group market will get the rebates (which will be much smaller per person, about $14).

But what's really interesting about the study is that is suggests that the medical loss ratio rule actually means that insurance is doing what it's supposed to do: provide health care.

As Sarah Kliff writes, experts expected that rebates, based on 2010 numbers, would have amounted to at least $2 billion. Which means that $700 million in premiums paid went where the Affordable Care Act said it was supposed to go: into providing health care coverage.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...bsp-consumers-

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Obamacare will provide $1.3 billion in rebates to consumers

The Affordable Care Act is doing what it was supposed to. You won't hear that from congressional Republicans or Mitt Romney (or, probably the Supreme Court), but the provisions that have already gone into effect are working.

That includes people up to age 26 being covered by their parents' plans, free wellness exams for seniors, "doughnut hole" Medicare prescription drug savings, and insurers no longer being able deny coverage to children because of a pre-existing condition.

Here's another one. Beginning in 2011, health insurers were required to spend at least 80 percent of premiums (for small group plan, 85 percent for large groups) on actual medical care, and if they failed to meet that standard they had to pay a rebate of the difference.

They'll have to make those rebate payments by August of this year.

The Kaiser Family Foundation just finished a survey of what happened in 2011 [pdf] with that rule, the "medical loss ratio," and found that insurers will be paying $1.3 billion in rebates for 2011 including "$426 million in the individual market, $377 million in the small group market, and $541 million in the large group market."

About one-third of consumers in the individual market are going to see rebates, averaging at $127 per person.

For the group plans, the purchaser of the plan (employer or other sponsoring group) will get the rebate, and 28 percent of the small group market and 19 percent of the large group market will get the rebates (which will be much smaller per person, about $14).

But what's really interesting about the study is that is suggests that the medical loss ratio rule actually means that insurance is doing what it's supposed to do: provide health care.

As Sarah Kliff writes, experts expected that rebates, based on 2010 numbers, would have amounted to at least $2 billion. Which means that $700 million in premiums paid went where the Affordable Care Act said it was supposed to go: into providing health care coverage.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...bsp-consumers-

I'm sure there are plenty of good things in Obamacare. But you have to weigh the pros against the cons. Who is going to pay for it? It is going to cost twice as much as he originally claimed.

"President Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office, a hefty sum more than the $940 billion estimated when the healthcare legislation was signed into law. To put it mildly, ObamaCare's projected net worth is far off from its original estimate -- in fact, about $820 billion off."

http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-...163500655.html

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm sure there are plenty of good things in Obamacare. But you have to weigh the pros against the cons. Who is going to pay for it? It is going to cost twice as much as he originally claimed.

"President Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office, a hefty sum more than the $940 billion estimated when the healthcare legislation was signed into law. To put it mildly, ObamaCare's projected net worth is far off from its original estimate -- in fact, about $820 billion off."

http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-...163500655.html

It's still going to cost less than doing nothing.

Here's a pretty decent explanation of what is and isn't covered in the ACA:

http://www.wyoprojecthealthcare.com/faq.asp

[Riot]

Oh, stop with the facts. Obamacare is a Republican-created individual self-responsibility, private health insurer corporate support giveaway - whoops - I mean a Socialist Marxist Communist plot to destroy America.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It's still going to cost less than doing nothing.

Here's a pretty decent explanation of what is and isn't covered in the ACA:

http://www.wyoprojecthealthcare.com/faq.asp

It's not going to cost less than doing nothing. It's going to cost way more. I will trust the CBO over your source.

""Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation," asserted Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner, "the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014." This accounting maneuver allowed analysts to cloak the true cost of ObamaCare, Klein alleged, making the law appear less expensive under the CBO's budget window."

"Moreover, the CBO estimates that 4 million Americans will lose their employer-sponsored health plans by 2016, a far cry from the 1-million-person figure forecasted last year. Further yet, 1 million to 2 million fewer people will be granted access to the federally-subsidized healthcare exchanges, while an additional 1 million are estimated to qualify for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Provision."

http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-...163500655.html

Obama and company intentionally mislead everyone.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It's not going to cost less than doing nothing. It's going to cost way more. I will trust the CBO over your source.

When why are you - and more specifically the Washington Post writer - ridiculously attacking the CBO which gave out the original numbers Obama used when the law was passed?

There have been two years of outstanding CBO estimates on the benefits of this law for the country, the massive decrease in health care costs, and that has not changed with the current estimate.

The CBO rehashes the budget and it's influence every single year. Things change according to current reality (other laws passed, the economy, our income as a country via taxes, etc).

Saying the original CBO numbers were false - let alone the allegation that Obama lied - is beyond ridiculous and a deliberate misrepresentation (again, going to the newspaper commentary).

Of course the cost has gone up - there are more poor people due to the economy, and the coverage of the poor has been expanded so they get health care. Guess what? The income will go up, too, and the cost of healthcare for everyone will go down. Can't ignore all facets of the law's effects simply for political expediency.

And PS, yes, Obamacare certainly costs less than doing no health care reform, leaving our health care to the whims of private companies we individually hire, companies looking to profit by not paying for our health care. It has already reduced health care costs.

I am sick of the lies about Obamacare. It's the law. It was passed by a majority of our elected representatives in Congress. And it's a long-term Republican-created and supported, "self-responsibility insure yourself" "support the private insurance companies" law, at that.

And it's a law that has been put into effect, and has been outstandingly effective, in Mass. - it's been a law already proven to work to decrease health care costs.

It's been the law for nearly two years now. It's working. It's not going anywhere. Millions are insured now, or have their health care costs decline now, or are covered for more health care now, than they were before the law. It's a good law.

What it needs, is expansion to a single payer health care system. That will start in 2014, with allowing non-profits to compete (yes, capitalistically compete in the free market) on the insurance exchanges.

[ArlJim78]

the bill is a monstrosity, the worst thing ever to come out of congress.
doing nothing would have been by far a better solution.
of course it wasn't passed to solve problems or save money as was claimed, it creates problems and costs more.
it was passed in order to assume power. thank goodness it will be stricken down.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

When why are you - and more specifically the Washington Post writer - ridiculously attacking the CBO which gave out the original numbers Obama used when the law was passed?

There have been two years of outstanding CBO estimates on the benefits of this law for the country, the massive decrease in health care costs, and that has not changed with the current estimate.

The CBO rehashes the budget and it's influence every single year. Things change according to current reality (other laws passed, the economy, our income as a country via taxes, etc).

Saying the original CBO numbers were false - let alone the allegation that Obama lied - is beyond ridiculous and a deliberate misrepresentation (again, going to the newspaper commentary).

Of course the cost has gone up - there are more poor people due to the economy, and the coverage of the poor has been expanded so they get health care. Guess what? The income will go up, too, and the cost of healthcare for everyone will go down. Can't ignore all facets of the law's effects simply for political expediency.

And PS, yes, Obamacare certainly costs less than doing no health care reform, leaving our health care to the whims of private companies we individually hire, companies looking to profit by not paying for our health care. It has already reduced health care costs.

I am sick of the lies about Obamacare. It's the law. It was passed by a majority of our elected representatives in Congress. And it's a long-term Republican-created and supported, "self-responsibility insure yourself" "support the private insurance companies" law, at that.

And it's a law that has been put into effect, and has been outstandingly effective, in Mass. - it's been a law already proven to work to decrease health care costs.

It's been the law for nearly two years now. It's working. It's not going anywhere. Millions are insured now, or have their health care costs decline now, or are covered for more health care now, than they were before the law. It's a good law.

What it needs, is expansion to a single payer health care system. That will start in 2014, with allowing non-profits to compete (yes, capitalistically compete in the free market) on the insurance exchanges.

The article doesn't say who came out with the original numbers. The bottom line is that the original numbers were way off. The cost is almost double what they originally said. The whole thing is probably going to get overturned any way.

I'm on the fence about whether the government should be able to mandate people having insurance. In California it is mandatory for drivers to have car insurance. If that is not unconstitutional, then I don't really see where mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional.

[Danzig]

again, huge difference between mandating car insurance vs health... you have to buy it to protect 'the other guy', not yourself.
the liability portions are for those who suffer damages due to your causing an accident.
comp and collision are required by the lienholder to protect their financial interest while you owe money on the vehicle. once it's paid for, you can drop those coverages.

and of course you don't pay a penalty unless you get caught driving without it. and as many as 1 in 4 ark drivers chooses to do just that.
you can always decide not to buy a car if you don't want to buy car insurance, whereas obamacare doesn't let you opt out.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

again, huge difference between mandating car insurance vs health... you have to buy it to protect 'the other guy', not yourself.
the liability portions are for those who suffer damages due to your causing an accident.
comp and collision are required by the lienholder to protect their financial interest while you owe money on the vehicle. once it's paid for, you can drop those coverages.

and of course you don't pay a penalty unless you get caught driving without it. and as many as 1 in 4 ark drivers chooses to do just that.
you can always decide not to buy a car if you don't want to buy car insurance, whereas obamacare doesn't let you opt out.

Of course you can opt out. If you choose not to purchase health insurance, you will pay an annual fee, I think the maximum is $600, which will come out of your tax refund, should you have a refund. If you don't have a refund, the gov't is not going to come after you for the money.

That money is going to be used to defray the costs of the people who choose not to purchase health insurance and yet still end up needing health care. Currently, we all pay for them- estimates of over $1000 a year from each of us, via higher health care premiums (remember, your job doesn't GIVE you health insurance- it provides it in lieu of a higher salary. It's about 20 percent of your compensation, give or take. So you're paying for people who don't have health insurance). This is just shifting the burden a little more directly onto the shoulders of those choosing not to get insurance.

If you don't have $600, you're likely poor enough to be covered under the expansion of Medicaid so it won't be an issue. Previously, depending on the state, you had to be more than just poor to qualify; you had to be pregnant or elderly or disabled.

Requiring health insurance IS protecting the "other guy" because fact is, we all pay for all of the Americans who aren't insured who end up in hospitals.

It's not an ideal solution, because "insurance" is a stupid way to deal with health, as, while it's possible to go through life never having a car accident or a house catching on fire, it's not possible to go through life never getting sick. National health care would be better, and cheaper. Unfortunately, that's not an option here. So, this is an attempt to improve our current situation, which is not sustainable, though very profitable for insurance corporations.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

again, huge difference between mandating car insurance vs health... you have to buy it to protect 'the other guy', not yourself.
the liability portions are for those who suffer damages due to your causing an accident.
comp and collision are required by the lienholder to protect their financial interest while you owe money on the vehicle. once it's paid for, you can drop those coverages.

and of course you don't pay a penalty unless you get caught driving without it. and as many as 1 in 4 ark drivers chooses to do just that.
you can always decide not to buy a car if you don't want to buy car insurance, whereas obamacare doesn't let you opt out.

Those not having Health insurance are hurting the other guy which is you and I. Hospitals still are required to treat uninsured and cannot release those that are sickest unless there is a plan in place for their longer term care. This is breaking hospitals who are forced to raise their rates on all of us that do have health insurance which forces insurance companies to raise our rates. So those without insurance are hurting us more than themselves that is why I am for mandatory health insurance.

[Danzig]

the other guy, us, is hurting regardless of the law. those within 400% of federal poverty levels are going to be getting subsidies, both to pay premiums and their stop losses will also be subsidized. that money will be coming from where? us. premiums increasing-i read that some expect them to rise 30%. we're paying for that.
and i'm also wondering about copays and deductibles for those getting subsidies...who will pay those?

obamacare is a rotten law.

single payer!! that is the only way to actually fix all this mess.

and when do fed. budgets ever come in correctly? cbo is already jacking up the price. states and medicaid already going break, how will they pay for the increases, with some states already cutting their medicaid budgets?


we can either bite the bullet and do what needs doing, or just do like we do with so many other things-kick it down the road for our kids and grandkids to worry about.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The article doesn't say who came out with the original numbers.

No, but we know what the CBO said, it was all over the news when the law was passed. The vote was delayed a few days while the CBO scored the last plan.

The bottom line is that the original numbers were way off. The cost is almost double what they originally said. The whole thing is probably going to get overturned any way.

Yes, and the original income supporting the program is off now, too - it's higher, and it attenuates those figures of "higher cost estimates" being throw about by opponents of the law.

As two lower court highly-conservative, well-respected judges wrote strong opinions supporting Obamacare as clearly constitutional, I doubt it will be overturned. We'll know in about 6 weeks.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by jms62

Those not having Health insurance are hurting the other guy which is you and I. Hospitals still are required to treat uninsured and cannot release those that are sickest unless there is a plan in place for their longer term care. This is breaking hospitals who are forced to raise their rates on all of us that do have health insurance which forces insurance companies to raise our rates. So those without insurance are hurting us more than themselves that is why I am for mandatory health insurance.

Purchasing your own health insurance, removing you from the role of public support (everyone supporting your health care) to self-support, with you paying for your own health care, is exactly why the individual mandate was created and pushed by the Republican party when they created "Obamacare" in the 1990's.

And that's exactly what it does. So strange the Republicans have turned the facts around to get people against self-responsibility (paying for your own health care) and removal of dependent but paying-capable people from support programs? They sure are good at messaging.

If the Republicans had been able to get Obamacare passed in the Gingrich/Clinton congress, as they wanted, we'd be alot better off as a country at this point in time. We wouldn't have 46 million children uninsured, with no health care. Romney went ahead and passed it in Mass, and it's vastly improved health care there, while lowering costs for everybody. It's a program proven to work.

Which is a reason why Obama adopted it - along with it being a Republican-created and long-supported program for starting to revamp private health care, without single payer.

Who would have thought that Republican hate and deliberate obstruction of this president would extend to screwing the American public, as the GOP denies support for their own health care reform in order to screw this president?

We should be ashamed, as a country, that 1/5 of our children live in poverty in America, get no health care and little food, and we have one of the highest neonatal death rates in the world.

Sad that Romney feels like he has to distance himself from his greatest achievement, Romneycare, in order to appease the Republicants on his right (i.e., the entire party). Kind of like the mantra heard during the Vietnam War, "we had to destroy the village in order to save it."

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

Sad that Romney feels like he has to distance himself from his greatest achievement, Romneycare, in order to appease the Republicants on his right (i.e., the entire party). Kind of like the mantra heard during the Vietnam War, "we had to destroy the village in order to save it."

Romneycare is an achievement?

Just how much reality tv do you watch? Be honest, glue eater.

[Riot]

Hey, Coach, I see some of your fellow anarchists were arrested for trying to bomb things today. Keep up the good work!

Originally Posted by Riot

Hey, Coach, I see some of your fellow anarchists were arrested for trying to bomb things today. Keep up the good work!

Yeah and some of your ilk are posting derby specials on backpage. Herp de dur

[Rupert Pupkin]

Obama's own doctor thinks Obamacare will be a failure:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51433