health law and rising costs

[Danzig]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/h...law-costs.html



this article was carried in the sunday paper here (arkansas democrat gazette) so i did a search and found it online. have a look.

[Riot]

Now that private insurance companies will shortly have to spend 80% of their income on their clients health care costs, rather than their own profit, it surprises that companies are gouging their clients financially for as much as they can one last time before regulations on their profiteering take hold, and that a mouthpiece for private health care companies blames the government?

We need to just step up into the type of health care other first world countries have and deliver for half the cost of ours: single payer, government organized.

Screw the private companies and PhARMA stealing our money, making health care unaffordable, denying care, raising costs, making treatments and medicines unavailable. They've screwed us for years, and they won't let go.

Blaming the current administration for a Republican-based and supported, Heritage Foundation created in-concert with insurance company lobby health care plan - that gives 40 million more customers to private health care - is hilarious. This is virtually the exact plan the Republicans, lead by Newton LeRoy Gingrich, frantically pushed in the 1990's against "Hillarycare".

Carry on, Ms. Turner. I'm sure the gullible will buy your blame.

[Rileyoriley]

Instead let's give it to the government to run. After all they haven't been stealing our money and screwing us over..............oh wait.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

Instead let's give it to the government to run. After all they haven't been stealing our money and screwing us over..............oh wait.

The government does an excellent job administering Medicare. They should just make Medicare "available to all".

Hiring a private company to pay for your health care - when that private company only makes money by not paying for your health care - and they write it into the contract with you that all payment is at their discretion - is absurd beyond belief.

So absurd, that model has made our private health care system twice as expensive as every other first world country, with far less people even getting health care. The American private health care system is an expensive, abject failure. The most expensive health care in the world, only available to some.

[Riot]

Scott Frankum, of LA California, has good comments on Grace's baloney:

Scott Frankum · Los Angeles, California
Grace,

Either you don’t really know much about health reform, or you’re purposely trying to influence low-context readers with misinformation. The real story is that ACA health reform makes every health care purchase a downward driver on costs and an upward driver on quality.

It isn’t accurate to claim anything at all about “Obamacare” causing increases until 2014 when the state insurance exchanges launch in tandem with expanding coverage to 30 Million more Americans. The Kaiser statistic is about increases based on the old system. As a minimum you’re misrepresenting facts. More likely, you’re lying knowingly.

There are not 500 million in new taxes. The regulations are limited to good governance. In other times the Radical Right would have referred to the mandate as a “personal responsibility clause”. Why are you lying... to readers, Grace?

The only increases attributable to reform are between 1 and 3 percent which pay for allowing children to stay on their parent’s policy until they’re 26. Here’s the link to Factcheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/11/the...ance-premiums/.

The CBO number is 19,000 on page four, here: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc...f_Premiums.pdf And, this number is an average of premiums. The amount each business and employee pays varies by company. You’re lying about the rest.

You’re also leaving out that there will be means testing based on the federal poverty level. Many Americans will receive enough premium support to make insurance affordable. You’re also leaving out the part about how good health care is inherently cheaper than alternatives. We have to take the view of solving the real problem which is costs…..as a nation. And, to lower overall costs, everybody needs minimum health care. Otherwise, the emergency room visits and waiting to treat problems until they require surgeries will sink us under higher costs.

In the next paragraphs, to quote Reagan…”There you go, again”. Reform adds years to Medicare’s viability.

Massachusetts only worked on the expansion of coverage. It did not undertake the structural reforms that federal reform takes: electronic health records, moving from fee-for-service to pay for performance and coordinating care. You make a false equivalency.

The pre-reform health care system was destroying value. The way we know this is that costs increased 4 times faster than the cost of living over the past ten years. Federal health reform is the only way to curb cost increases. The strategy to do that is to make value = medical outcomes ÷ money spent.

So, which part don’t you like? Is it the electronic health records which remove a whole layer of costs while improving data entry errors, adverse drug reactions and the environment for tort reform? Or, do you not like the accountability that comes from knowing which doctors keep patients healthier and deliver real health care value at www.healthcare.gov? Are you upset that we’ll now pay doctors for results rather than volume? Does it alarm you that now insurance companies can’t kick us off from coverage if we have a pre-existing health condition….as 30 percent of us do?

Grace, I’m calling you out. Stop lying to the American people about reform. We can have a real debate on the merits, but you’ll have to stop lying on behalf of the insurance companies and Big Pharma…or whoever is paying you to do this disservice.

Obamacare is great if you abandon logic and simple math. He's so hawt it's gotta work. I just know it! Google told me!

[Danzig]

obamacare is a mess, plain and simple. he said over and over that the economy was job one, and then focuses on this piece of garbage legislation. it sucks, and so does the economy. i really hope that it gets tossed by the supreme court. failing that, i hope it gets shot down in congress. it's another clue regarding how awful things are right now in d.c.
not sure which piece of crap is worse, obamacare or obamadetention.

[Riot]

The acme of the 1%, the $250,000,000 net-worth private equity fund manager that won't release his income tax forms, "...but of course I won't raise taxes on capital gains" (Mitt Romney, GOP Debate Saturday 1-7-12)

Vs.

The Kenyan Communist Muslim Socialist

Which economic policy will win the 2012 election?

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

Instead let's give it to the government to run. After all they haven't been stealing our money and screwing us over..............oh wait.

Oh shut up and take your free stuff ! Besides don't you realize that those Riot charts come from Nancy Pelosi - it can't be bias or untrue.

Get on board lady it's Bush's fault and the those corporations that try and make a profit.

If anybody can run programs within the budget, efficiently and to the betterment of the human race it's the Federal Gov. and specifically the Obama Admin. This is a fact!!!

I just saw on MSNBC that they have a video of Obama walking on water - check it out !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTE3WmMnovY

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

obamacare is a mess, plain and simple. he said over and over that the economy was job one, and then focuses on this piece of garbage legislation. it sucks, and so does the economy. i really hope that it gets tossed by the supreme court. failing that, i hope it gets shot down in congress. it's another clue regarding how awful things are right now in d.c.
not sure which piece of crap is worse, obamacare or obamadetention.

What, specifically, do you not like about it? I'm not in love with it, but it's a vast improvement over the current situation, which is bankrupting people (in 2007, 62 percent of bankruptcies were linked to medical expenses, and 80 percent of people filing for bankruptcies had health insurance. Of those filing for bankruptcy who had health insurance, the average medical expenses were $18,000. That's what insurance wouldn't pay for. For those without insurance, $27,000).

The WHO rated France #1 in health care, with cost per person, per year of $3655 (11% of GDP). Japan was #10, $2696 pp, 8.4% GDP. Britain, #18, $2992 pp, 8.4% GDP. The USA was rated 37, with an average cost per person of $7,285 (15% of GDP). Stats are from 2007.

Clearly we're not getting our money's worth. We have to change the system. What we got now is costing us a lot of money, and not giving us the best care.

[Danzig]

what don't i like? mainly the exploding costs of premiums. all that 'free' stuff has to be paid for somewhere. and it is being paid for-in higher premiums.
a fix is definitely needed. but a bad fix isn't the answer.

keeping 'children' on to age 26, regardless of circumstance is a huge expense. no pre-existing conditions on any child under 18-a huge expense. 'free' testing, 'free' coverages for women. all of that is anything but free.

fat lot of good it will do to force insurers to carry more folks if those folks can't afford the coverage.

yes, we need to change the system. but this abomination isn't doing that. they should have focused on getting more people to buy it, rather than make what they're currently not buying more expensive-and make people that much more unwilling to purchase.

for many, the choice is made not to buy when offered. they don't feel coverage is a priority. many who could buy it choose not to, with the standard explanation that they never get sick, so they don't see a need.

obviously, coverage is cheaper the more who buy-and of course the healthy people would help cover those who aren't. but healthy, young adults don't wish to buy it-but now they will have to, and they will have to buy something that will suddenly cost more than what they could be buying right now.


arkansas has had a program in place for years for people who can't get coverage elsewhere because of pre-existing conditions. it's administered by the state. i'd imagine other states have similar.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

keeping 'children' on to age 26, regardless of circumstance is a huge expense.

No it's not a "huge expense". As the facts show, above, that increased premiums for those that choose to do so by 1-3%, paid for by themselves. It is no expense at all to anybody else. So, those parents have a choice: have their child have no health insurance, or having to buy insurance in the open market, vs paying 1-3% more on an existing family premium they were already paying for the child. You pay nothing for that. Neither do your tax dollars.

Facts are a terrible thing, when you suffer from Obama Sucks Derangement Syndrome.

they should have focused on getting more people to buy it,

Your lack of knowledge about the subject is showing. The exchanges are not even up and running yet. How are they supposed to "buy it" when it's not yet for sale? And you do realize that it's private insurance companies that will be selling? Not the government?

arkansas has had a program in place for years for people who can't get coverage elsewhere because of pre-existing conditions. it's administered by the state. i'd imagine other states have similar.

??? The state exchanges under Obamacares are going to be created, tailored and administered by the states. They have alot of freedom setting up the exchanges. In fact, a few states are just going right to single payer.

Face it: private insurers are trying to suck you dry before the law prevents them from further doing so, and they have you believing it isn't their fault or sole doing.

From Factcheck.org http://www.factcheck.org/2010/11/the...ance-premiums/

The Truth About Health Insurance Premiums
The new law has brought increases for some. But GOP leaders exaggerate.

Summary

Leading Republicans in Congress are blaming the new health care law for double-digit rate increases being sought by insurance companies in Washington state, New York and Connecticut. But insurance regulators, leading health care experts and the companies themselves mostly blame an old culprit: rising medical costs.

Improved benefits required by the new law are responsible for a relatively small portion of the increases. Furthermore, the increases apply mostly to those buying policies individually, not the majority who get private insurance through employers. Those with employer-provided plans won’t see as much of an increase in premiums, since many of their policies already include the required benefits, a spokesman for an insurance trade association told us.

Some Republicans have claimed the law is responsible for "whopping" premium increases, but they have misrepresented the facts in the process.

For example: ... snip ...

[Danzig]

fact check, from 1/4:

http://factcheck.org/2012/01/promises-promises/

Promises, Promises
Posted on January 4, 2012

President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign is circulating a video of promises the then-candidate made during an Iowa caucus victory speech in January 2008, claiming he kept the promises he made that night. Not quite.

To be sure, the president signed a major health care law, ended the long war in Iraq and signed multiple “middle-class” tax cuts, just as his campaign boasts.

But the health care law isn’t expected to make insurance “affordable and available to every single American,” as Obama promised. And though he pledged to be a president who “brings our troops home” from Iraq, thousands of those U.S. troops are now stationed in neighboring Kuwait. Most glaringly, he has failed at “bringing Democrats and Republicans together” as he so optimistically promised four years ago.




At the moment, the new law is making health care slightly less affordable. Independent health care experts say the law has caused some insurance premiums to rise. As we wrote in October, the new law has caused about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans because of requirements for increased benefits. Last year’s premium increases cast even more doubt on another promise the president has made — that the health care law would “lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.”

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

fact check, from 1/4:

http://factcheck.org/2012/01/promises-promises/

At the moment, the new law is making health care slightly less affordable. Independent health care experts say the law has caused some insurance premiums to rise. As we wrote in October, the new law has caused about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans because of requirements for increased benefits. Last year’s premium increases cast even more doubt on another promise the president has made — that the health care law would “lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.”

Be sure you quote all of it
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/fac...ance-premiums/

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by geeker2

Oh shut up and take your free stuff ! Besides don't you realize that those Riot charts come from Nancy Pelosi - it can't be bias or untrue.

Get on board lady it's Bush's fault and the those corporations that try and make a profit.

If anybody can run programs within the budget, efficiently and to the betterment of the human race it's the Federal Gov. and specifically the Obama Admin. This is a fact!!!

I just saw on MSNBC that they have a video of Obama walking on water - check it out !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTE3WmMnovY

How foolish of me. Of course the government has my best interests at heart.