matttyl
Footballguy
Or they might consider it a mandate, and a way to avoid a tax penalty. Maybe the view it as free or nearly free to them, so then they would obviously consider it a success....only cause they aren't the ones fitting the bill.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter tommyboy
- Start date
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Lots of things you aren't including in your analysis. What about the fact that we were already paying for lots of these folks to get emergency care, and now they are now chipping in and using the health care system in more efficient ways. Every newly insured person isn't entirely new to the cost side.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
LOL at "my track record". I basically refuted all of the doomsday garbage from the anti-ACA side for the past few years. Please fill me in on all the things I've been wrong about re: the ACA that makes my "track record" questionable.
What about all the anti-ACA folks? They've been proven wrong over and over and over and over again. Is their credibility completely shot?
matttyl
Footballguy
From that link - "The pattern of coverage gains was consistent with the effects of the ACA, with major gains for persons likely to be eligible for expanded Medicaid on the basis of their income and state of residence but smaller and nonsignificant changes for low-income adults in states without Medicaid expansion. Coverage gains were significant both in states with Medicaid expansion and in those without Medicaid expansion for persons with incomes between 139% and 400% of the federal poverty level, which is consistent with tax subsidies under the ACA for private insurance in this income range, regardless of state decisions regarding Medicaid expansion."
So while the number may be 10.3M (before any cancellations during 2014 due to legal status or non-payment of premiums), it doesn't tell us how many of those were from Medicaid expansion (other people's money) or from those between 139-400% of the NPL receiving subsidies (other people's money) aside from simply saying "major gains" and "gains were significant." So of course you're going to get a whole lot of "newly insured" when a significant number of them aren't paying for it themselves. Nothing like a free lunch, huh?
If you look at this, which is a chart from your link, you'll see that really the ACA has had no real net effect on the rate of uninsured for those over 400% of the NPL (in terms of the number of people as this group was extremely likely to have coverage already). The ACA, though did have a drastic effect on those under 400% of the NPL (due to other people's money). What's really crazy is that even before the ACA, the nationwide uninsured rate among folks over 400% of the NPL was under 2%. Hasn't BFS been telling us for months that over half of the US population has a pre-exisiting condition and wouldn't be able to get coverage? The poorer you are/were, the more likely you were to go without coverage (much more likely because of price, not because of pre-ex). This just proves most conservatives point of view that this is just a transfer of wealth. If the old system really was broken, you'd see a higher uninsured rate among people over 400% of the NPL. People weren't being denied coverage, they just couldn't afford it.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Did you read this? ETA: I'll take your 10 million as an average though. The buckets are the same. Some will be ecstatic that they were finally able to get coverage. Some will see it as a problem (think of guys like BnB's son and all the crap he had to go through). I'm sure it's a mixed bag. That's why I asked for the standard by which we are measuring "success" vs "failure" which, predictably, still hasn't been defined.
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl
Footballguy
Man I really hope people look at that chart in the post above. I find it to be extremely telling.
How in the world can you look at that chart, with it's breakdown of uninsured over an income spectrum both pre-ACA and now in an ACA environment and not call this a HUGE transfer of wealth? The system before wasn't "broken" (and by broken I mean folks being uninsured) because of "pre-exisiting conditions" and "non-compliant plans" and all those things the left/media wants to use - it was "broken" because of nothing more than economics. If the entire population was over 400% of the NPL then we would have had less than 2% uninsured and the ACA wouldn't have been needed (in it's current form)- with that in mind how was this not just an economic problem? I'm not saying the economic problem is easily solved or anything like that, I'm just saying the old system wasn't "broken" for the reasons many are claiming.
The old system may have been expensive and thus unfordable for many, I get that. Trust me I'm the one showing the rates to individuals that have to pay it and I understand that many either struggled to or simply couldn't. Like I've been saying the entire time, though, those rates (which many under 400% of NPL either couldn't afford or choose not to pay in favor of other things) were the way they were because of the cost of care that they were covering were so high. I really, really hate to use this as an example, but I will - my FIL has stage 4 cancer. The last few months of his care has already added up to well into the hundreds of thousands. That just is what it is as the alternative is grim, and by grim I mean short. Why are his drugs so expensive, which then has to be filtered down to everyone else? If those drugs weren't so expensive, then everyone's coverage could be less.
To me, that's the forest through the trees.
How in the world can you look at that chart, with it's breakdown of uninsured over an income spectrum both pre-ACA and now in an ACA environment and not call this a HUGE transfer of wealth? The system before wasn't "broken" (and by broken I mean folks being uninsured) because of "pre-exisiting conditions" and "non-compliant plans" and all those things the left/media wants to use - it was "broken" because of nothing more than economics. If the entire population was over 400% of the NPL then we would have had less than 2% uninsured and the ACA wouldn't have been needed (in it's current form)- with that in mind how was this not just an economic problem? I'm not saying the economic problem is easily solved or anything like that, I'm just saying the old system wasn't "broken" for the reasons many are claiming.
The old system may have been expensive and thus unfordable for many, I get that. Trust me I'm the one showing the rates to individuals that have to pay it and I understand that many either struggled to or simply couldn't. Like I've been saying the entire time, though, those rates (which many under 400% of NPL either couldn't afford or choose not to pay in favor of other things) were the way they were because of the cost of care that they were covering were so high. I really, really hate to use this as an example, but I will - my FIL has stage 4 cancer. The last few months of his care has already added up to well into the hundreds of thousands. That just is what it is as the alternative is grim, and by grim I mean short. Why are his drugs so expensive, which then has to be filtered down to everyone else? If those drugs weren't so expensive, then everyone's coverage could be less.
To me, that's the forest through the trees.
The Commish
Footballguy
This wasn't why I asked the question though. I was asking who makes up the 10 million, but the survey admits it can't get to some of those numbers because of the way the registrations occurred.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
This is news to you?
I think you're either mischaracterizing or misunderstanding what BFS has posted. I'm fairly certain that BFS never claimed that the uninsured rate on those over 400% of the NPL was 50%. I'm guessing you mangled BFS's point, which likely was that 50% of the population has a pre-existing condition of some sort that could lead to them being denied coverage in the future if they ever had a break in coverage.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Sorry to hear about your FIL.
The reason those drugs are so expensive is that we dont leverage the weight of the marketplace to lower the drug costs. That is why the same drug sold by the same company costs so much less in Canada. We only do it in the VA.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Nope. Because we screwed 5 or 10 times that amount to do it (IF that 10m number is even true at all).
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been harping on the cost issue for years. I'm with you. The amount of GDP we're spending on health care is unsustainable.
matttyl
Footballguy
Fully agree. If we could have simply controlled the cost of care, then it would have had a two pronged approach - firstly the cost of coverage would have been reduced as it would have had to (for what it's worth I pretty much fully support the 80/20 rule) and secondly with the lowered cost of coverage more people would have been covered - a fact proven by the link Tommy posted (the higher on the income spectrum the more likely you were to be covered).I've been harping on the cost issue for years. I'm with you. The amount of GDP we're spending on health care is unsustainable.
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl
Footballguy
Truly, thank you on the first part. It's been a tough few months. Hearing the words "stage 4" can't be unheard.
I fully get why those drugs are so expensive here and in reality that's his only real option. I get that, he gets that, it just kinda "is what it is". He hits his max annual OOP, which he can afford to do, and the balance is placed back on the insurance company who then spreads the cost out to all the other policy holders via higher premiums. For him alone, it will be a few hundred grand this year, and God willing will be the same next year and hopefully the year after. He also realizes that if we're being honest about his odds, it's only likely adding a year or two for him. Maybe he'll get to see his Green Bay Packers win another title in that time, and as a football fan I think we can all agree that seeing your team win it all is "priceless", maybe. He also got to see his West Virginia Mountaineers knock off Baylor this past weekend, which was great.
I was only using him as one example, but there are many - quite of few of which don't have the "easy out" of just blaming the drug companies for their high prices. What about the $1m baby? Sure if it were your kid it wouldn't matter what the cost was, I totally get that too and I don't want to come across as heartless - but that's a cost that's then shared across everyone else. I have good friends who had a set of premi twins that were in the NICU for months with nearly half a mill in costs. To them it didn't matter, nor should it have. They would have done anything for their kids, we all would have. But the reality is that cost was then spread out to everyone else - it has to be in our system, and would still be if we went single payer or anything else.
matttyl
Footballguy
Interesting word choice to use when I showed you that the vast majority of those folks are now only insured due to other people's money. Sure some could call that progress, but I'm not sure that's the word I used.
matttyl
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
Of course they are missing the forest for the trees. I'd much rather have all that money poured into making big Pharm justify their prices to the nation. It's obscene what our gov't lets that industry get away with in this country. If ever there was a legitimate liberal cause, THAT should be it.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
The primary reason big pharma charges so much is because Congress forbids reimportation of drugs. Sure, Congress does it because big pharma pays them to forbid it, but we don't exactly need a study to make them justify their prices.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
I meant we are making progress here, as in this forum, now that some of you are finally acknowledging the numbers.
But yeah, I think it's progress, regardless. And I know you think you "showed me" that other people are essentially subsidizing the vast majority of the newly enrolled, but I've been very aware from the jump about the funding mechanisms of the ACA. I've provided links throughout that explain how this thing is paid for, thus I am very aware of how expanded coverage is funded.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Remember the days when Gunz used to talk about the 50 million+ uninsured?
Let's assumed that all the 10m never had insurance and no one dropped out of the market to pay the fine in lieu of coverage. That still leaves 40 million uninsured. If Obama had an ® behind his name, Gunz would be raising cane about what a failure this program was.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
Yeah, no real need to worry about the Republicans advancing a socially liberal reform program.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
tommyboy
Footballguy
If the ACA is so awesome how come no one likes it? http://kff.org/interactive/health-tracking-poll-exploring-the-publics-views-on-the-affordable-care-act-aca/tommyGunZ said:
Tau837
Footballguy
As has been posted previously in this thread (e.g., by Maurile), if you give insurance to people who were not previously insured, they are likely to consume more healthcare than they did while uninsured (e.g., via the ER). Yes, there is a cost borne by our Government/society for uninsured people who go to the ER. But if you insure every one of those people, the total cost will go up.tommyGunZ said:
Surely you aren't disputing that.
matttyl
Footballguy
So again, why was 98% of those over 400% of the NPL covered even before the ACA with 80% of the those between 138-400% of the NPL also already covered? How could 50% of them have been denied or "effectively" denied when 98% or 80% of them were already covered?tommyGunZ said:
I would REALLY love to see the average cost of coverage pre and post ACA for those in the 400%+ group. These changes with increase unsubsidized rates may just be "effectively denying them coverage due to sky high rates."
Last edited by a moderator:
snogger
Footballguy
North Carolina's largest health insurer said on Wednesday that 2015 rates will rise by more than 13 percent on average for buyers of individual Affordable Care Act policies.
Last edited by a moderator:
BassNBrew
Footballguy
So Tim, do you think the average wage increase in NC was 13.4 or 19.2 percent during that time period?North Carolina's largest health insurer said on Wednesday that 2015 rates will rise by more than 13 percent on average for buyers of individual Affordable Care Act policies.
timschochet
Footballguy
i have no idea. Are you suggesting that ACA is unjust unless wage increases match the level of insurance rate increases? And why are you challenging me on this anyhow?So Tim, do you think the average wage increase in NC was 13.4 or 19.2 percent during that time period?North Carolina's largest health insurer said on Wednesday that 2015 rates will rise by more than 13 percent on average for buyers of individual Affordable Care Act policies.
How much has the ACA increased the non-group market?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/10/23/now-there-can-be-no-doubt-obamacare-will-increase-non-group-premiums-in-nearly-all-states/
And the 24.4% is the increase for the ACA, not the total increase.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/10/23/now-there-can-be-no-doubt-obamacare-will-increase-non-group-premiums-in-nearly-all-states/
And the 24.4% is the increase for the ACA, not the total increase.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
"Anecdotal!"North Carolina's largest health insurer said on Wednesday that 2015 rates will rise by more than 13 percent on average for buyers of individual Affordable Care Act policies.
Stinger Ray
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
i love to read good anecdotes, but the truth is they have no more weight than bad ones do.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Here you go from as about as unfriendly of a source as possible through June.
The total, net increase in health insurance coverage (private-market and Medicaid combined) during the first half of 2014 was 8,538,237 individuals, but 71 percent of that coverage gain was attributable to Obamacare expanding Medicaid to able-bodied, working-age adults
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
While it might be true that health care cost "have not gone down in any meaningful way" the growth curve of these cost have flat lined (at least through last year - I think everyone expects a one time only spike this year) and that is most certainly a "having direct impact in the average individual's life." Now it would be fair to argue that it is nearly impossible to separate the impact from the ACA from the impact of other factors such as the economy and, as I keep saying the much more important industry wide efforts that the ACA built on - such as the move back to managed care model.
Oh, and I should say the efforts that the nation were already going through with or without the ACA rather than limiting it to the health care industry as they cut as much health insurance cost as they can while remaining competitive in the job market.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
No this ismatttyl said:
The Commonwealth Fund reported that in a survey of those who tried to buy such coverage between 2004 and 2007, 47 percent of those with health problems said they were either denied coverage, charged a higher premium or had some coverage excluded because of preexisting conditions. Twenty-six percent of those without a health problem reported the same thing.
100% of the ...
- 50 million that would be "likely to lead to a denial or significant mark-up or carve-out of benefits."
- or the 129 million with "additional common health and mental health conditions (e.g., arthritis, asthma, high cholesterol, hypertension, and obesity) that would result in an automatic denial of coverage, exclusion of the condition, or higher premiums according to major health insurers’ underwriting guidelines identified using internet searches."
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Charles Gaba:matttyl said:
Yes, that's right: I'm a hard-working, middle-class taxpayer who has run a successful small business for 15 years, and if I had investment income over $200,000 per year (remember, that's not even part of my normal income), I'd have no problem paying a few percent extra to help provide insurance coverage for those less fortunate than I am.
This is not because I'm a good and decent human being.
There's a famous quote by author John Green which has gone viral recently, in which he states,"Let me explain why I like to pay taxes for schools even though I don't personally have a kid in school: I don't like living in a country with a bunch of stupid people."
Well, here's why I'm OK with paying taxes for others to have Medicaid even though I personally have decent insurance: I don't like living in a country filled with sick people sneezing on my cheeseburger or coughing up blood on the produce at the grocery store.
Last edited by a moderator:
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Since you have no idea, the average wage didn't increase by that much. You said this would be a success if the price increase for ordinary citizens wasn't too crazy. Try compounding double digit increases for a few years and then defend this as affordable.i have no idea. Are you suggesting that ACA is unjust unless wage increases match the level of insurance rate increases? And why are you challenging me on this anyhow?So Tim, do you think the average wage increase in NC was 13.4 or 19.2 percent during that time period?North Carolina's largest health insurer said on Wednesday that 2015 rates will rise by more than 13 percent on average for buyers of individual Affordable Care Act policies.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
1. I suspect your company is self insured.
2. ACA hasn't kicked in for company plans. i.e.: You're not required to have pregnancy coverage.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
It's so unaffordable that more 10 million more are insured in year 1 than prior to the ACA.Since you have no idea, the average wage didn't increase by that much. You said this would be a success if the price increase for ordinary citizens wasn't too crazy. Try compounding double digit increases for a few years and then defend this as affordable.i have no idea. Are you suggesting that ACA is unjust unless wage increases match the level of insurance rate increases? And why are you challenging me on this anyhow?So Tim, do you think the average wage increase in NC was 13.4 or 19.2 percent during that time period?North Carolina's largest health insurer said on Wednesday that 2015 rates will rise by more than 13 percent on average for buyers of individual Affordable Care Act policies.
timschochet
Footballguy
But Bass, the individual plans are not the majority of plans. And it's only for one state. And the increase number is deceptive anyhow, since Obamacare hasn't been in practice since 2010. It's been in practice for less than a year.Since you have no idea, the average wage didn't increase by that much. You said this would be a success if the price increase for ordinary citizens wasn't too crazy. Try compounding double digit increases for a few years and then defend this as affordable.i have no idea. Are you suggesting that ACA is unjust unless wage increases match the level of insurance rate increases? And why are you challenging me on this anyhow?So Tim, do you think the average wage increase in NC was 13.4 or 19.2 percent during that time period?North Carolina's largest health insurer said on Wednesday that 2015 rates will rise by more than 13 percent on average for buyers of individual Affordable Care Act policies.
You're a smart guy, you know all this. Why are you using meaningless numbers? There is only way to know if Obamacare is too expensive, and that's to analyze the level of rate increase for EVERYONE, not just individual plans, in every state, for a 3-4 year period, (which means we can't even do this until 2018 or so) and then compare it to the increases that took place during the 3-4 years BEFORE Obamacare went into effect. And then we have to remove any outliers to be really fair in making the comparison. There is no way to do this now.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
You have to look at individual plans because they are the only ones that have been somewhat required to meet the ACA guidelines. Everyone isn't required to meet those guidelines yet, they somehow exempted the rest of the world from being ACA compliant until after the elections.But Bass, the individual plans are not the majority of plans. And it's only for one state. And the increase number is deceptive anyhow, since Obamacare hasn't been in practice since 2010. It's been in practice for less than a year.Since you have no idea, the average wage didn't increase by that much. You said this would be a success if the price increase for ordinary citizens wasn't too crazy. Try compounding double digit increases for a few years and then defend this as affordable.i have no idea. Are you suggesting that ACA is unjust unless wage increases match the level of insurance rate increases? And why are you challenging me on this anyhow?So Tim, do you think the average wage increase in NC was 13.4 or 19.2 percent during that time period?North Carolina's largest health insurer said on Wednesday that 2015 rates will rise by more than 13 percent on average for buyers of individual Affordable Care Act policies.
You're a smart guy, you know all this. Why are you using meaningless numbers? There is only way to know if Obamacare is too expensive, and that's to analyze the level of rate increase for EVERYONE, not just individual plans, in every state, for a 3-4 year period, (which means we can't even do this until 2018 or so) and then compare it to the increases that took place during the 3-4 years BEFORE Obamacare went into effect. And then we have to remove any outliers to be really fair in making the comparison. There is no way to do this now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
