The CMS links to the total picture...If you want to talk just about the amount withheld from my paycheck then yes.. The increases haven't been as much as in the past..Health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years, currently at a 50 yr low. Thanks, in part, to the ACA.
So are they wackos too? Must be quite the dilemma for you.
I guess the private component of health care costs isn't important since you ignored that one yet again.
but that is only half the story..
My deductibles, co-pays and medication costs have gone up more then any other time I can remember..
Proclaiming that ACA is saving money is great if you only talk about half of the cost..
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 aka "Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act" (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Johnny Rock
- Start date
The growth in health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years. Funny how you're very selective about when you bring up "the worst recession since the great depression", how that slowing of growth in spending was "inherited" by Obama, or how much of the ACA hasn't even taken place yet and projections are for spending growth to ramp up again in future years.Health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years, currently at a 50 yr low. Thanks, in part, to the ACA.
So are they wackos too? Must be quite the dilemma for you.
I guess the private component of health care costs isn't important since you ignored that one yet again.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Right. That's why I didn't suggest that the ACA was entirely responsible for the slowed growth in health care spending, only that it was "in part" due to the ACA.The growth in health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years. Funny how you're very selective about when you bring up "the worst recession since the great depression", how that slowing of growth in spending was "inherited" by Obama, or how much of the ACA hasn't even taken place yet and projections are for spending growth to ramp up again in future years.Health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years, currently at a 50 yr low. Thanks, in part, to the ACA.
So are they wackos too? Must be quite the dilemma for you.
I guess the private component of health care costs isn't important since you ignored that one yet again.
Right. That's why I didn't suggest that the ACA was entirely responsible for the slowed growth in health care spending, only that it was "in part" due to the ACA.The growth in health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years. Funny how you're very selective about when you bring up "the worst recession since the great depression", how that slowing of growth in spending was "inherited" by Obama, or how much of the ACA hasn't even taken place yet and projections are for spending growth to ramp up again in future years.Health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years, currently at a 50 yr low. Thanks, in part, to the ACA.
So are they wackos too? Must be quite the dilemma for you.
I guess the private component of health care costs isn't important since you ignored that one yet again.
So predictable.
timschochet
Footballguy
Whoever you're quoting, this article is a disaster. And you, matttyl, should know that, since you already admitted to me that you realized that Obamacare was a fait accompli.
First off- let's be clear about something- Marco Rubio only added his name to this in order to win himself some clout with the Tea Party, as he desperately wants the nomination. He knows there won't be any shutdown (hopefully) but the fact that he was for it makes him look good, and puts him to the right of other "establishment" candidates. Still, it's playing with fire.
Second, the writer's argument that fighting public resignation about Obamacare is "already working" is absurd. Only extremists at this point believe we can get rid of Obamacare. The rest of us know it's here to stay.
Finally, the writer claims he wants to change the image of the GOP as being the "party of no." And in order to do that, he favors threatening to shut down the government. Brilliant argument.
It's time for Republicans to move on already- fight the battles that can be won.
jonessed
Footballguy
The growth in spending has slowed because the economy still sucks. Trying to attribute it to a healthcare law that largely hasn't been implemented yet is asinine.The growth in health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years. Funny how you're very selective about when you bring up "the worst recession since the great depression", how that slowing of growth in spending was "inherited" by Obama, or how much of the ACA hasn't even taken place yet and projections are for spending growth to ramp up again in future years.Health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years, currently at a 50 yr low. Thanks, in part, to the ACA.
I guess the private component of health care costs isn't important since you ignored that one yet again.
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Guess I'll just take your word for it, and dismiss the muti-layered studies and analysis from the Kaiser Foundation showing that while much of the recent slowed growth is due to the recession (77%), almost a quarter of the slowed growth is a result of structural changes in the health care system.The growth in spending has slowed because the economy still sucks. Trying to attribute it to a healthcare law that largely hasn't been implemented yet is asinine.The growth in health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years. Funny how you're very selective about when you bring up "the worst recession since the great depression", how that slowing of growth in spending was "inherited" by Obama, or how much of the ACA hasn't even taken place yet and projections are for spending growth to ramp up again in future years.Health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years, currently at a 50 yr low. Thanks, in part, to the ACA.
I guess the private component of health care costs isn't important since you ignored that one yet again.
The Kaiser foundation should have just called you first, instead of wasting time with economists and data analysis.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Guess I'll just take your word for it, and dismiss the muti-layered studies and analysis from the Kaiser Foundation showing that while much of the recent slowed growth is due to the recession (77%), almost a quarter of the slowed growth is a result of structural changes in the health care system.The growth in spending has slowed because the economy still sucks. Trying to attribute it to a healthcare law that largely hasn't been implemented yet is asinine.The growth in health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years. Funny how you're very selective about when you bring up "the worst recession since the great depression", how that slowing of growth in spending was "inherited" by Obama, or how much of the ACA hasn't even taken place yet and projections are for spending growth to ramp up again in future years.Health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years, currently at a 50 yr low. Thanks, in part, to the ACA.
I guess the private component of health care costs isn't important since you ignored that one yet again.
The Kaiser foundation should have just called you first, instead of wasting time with economists and data analysis.
jonessed
Footballguy
Which they conclude will return us to roughly the same overall rate of growth when the economy fully recovers.They don't even attribute the remaining 23% to the ACA (shocking considering it hasn't even been implemented).Guess I'll just take your word for it, and dismiss the muti-layered studies and analysis from the Kaiser Foundation showing that while much of the recent slowed growth is due to the recession (77%), almost a quarter of the slowed growth is a result of structural changes in the health care system.The growth in spending has slowed because the economy still sucks. Trying to attribute it to a healthcare law that largely hasn't been implemented yet is asinine.The growth in health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years. Funny how you're very selective about when you bring up "the worst recession since the great depression", how that slowing of growth in spending was "inherited" by Obama, or how much of the ACA hasn't even taken place yet and projections are for spending growth to ramp up again in future years.Health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years, currently at a 50 yr low. Thanks, in part, to the ACA.
I guess the private component of health care costs isn't important since you ignored that one yet again.
The Kaiser foundation should have just called you first, instead of wasting time with economists and data analysis.
Its a good read. You should try it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Wait, are you telling me the KooKs are mad because Obama passed the healthcare law they have been pushing for 20 years?
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
No one said 23% was attributed to the ACA.Which they conclude will return us to roughly the same overall rate of growth when the economy fully recovers.They don't even attribute the remaining 23% to the ACA (shocking considering it hasn't even been implemented).Guess I'll just take your word for it, and dismiss the muti-layered studies and analysis from the Kaiser Foundation showing that while much of the recent slowed growth is due to the recession (77%), almost a quarter of the slowed growth is a result of structural changes in the health care system.The growth in spending has slowed because the economy still sucks. Trying to attribute it to a healthcare law that largely hasn't been implemented yet is asinine.The growth in health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years. Funny how you're very selective about when you bring up "the worst recession since the great depression", how that slowing of growth in spending was "inherited" by Obama, or how much of the ACA hasn't even taken place yet and projections are for spending growth to ramp up again in future years.Health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years, currently at a 50 yr low. Thanks, in part, to the ACA.
I guess the private component of health care costs isn't important since you ignored that one yet again.
The Kaiser foundation should have just called you first, instead of wasting time with economists and data analysis.
Its a good read. You should try it.
Legislation doesn't have to be fully enacted to effect behavior.
I read it. Glad you're finally educating yourself on the issue.
I find it hard to believe that you even believe the crap you write. Awful shtick.No one said 23% was attributed to the ACA.Which they conclude will return us to roughly the same overall rate of growth when the economy fully recovers.They don't even attribute the remaining 23% to the ACA (shocking considering it hasn't even been implemented).Guess I'll just take your word for it, and dismiss the muti-layered studies and analysis from the Kaiser Foundation showing that while much of the recent slowed growth is due to the recession (77%), almost a quarter of the slowed growth is a result of structural changes in the health care system.The growth in spending has slowed because the economy still sucks. Trying to attribute it to a healthcare law that largely hasn't been implemented yet is asinine.The growth in health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years. Funny how you're very selective about when you bring up "the worst recession since the great depression", how that slowing of growth in spending was "inherited" by Obama, or how much of the ACA hasn't even taken place yet and projections are for spending growth to ramp up again in future years.Health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years, currently at a 50 yr low. Thanks, in part, to the ACA.
I guess the private component of health care costs isn't important since you ignored that one yet again.
The Kaiser foundation should have just called you first, instead of wasting time with economists and data analysis.
Its a good read. You should try it.
Legislation doesn't have to be fully enacted to effect behavior.
I read it. Glad you're finally educating yourself on the issue.
snogger
Footballguy
Beginning to think the last part is true.. one minute the CBO is the holy grail and what they say is the gold standard.. the next minute it's "well it's the best we have"I find it hard to believe that you even believe the crap you write. Awful shtick.No one said 23% was attributed to the ACA.Which they conclude will return us to roughly the same overall rate of growth when the economy fully recovers.They don't even attribute the remaining 23% to the ACA (shocking considering it hasn't even been implemented).Guess I'll just take your word for it, and dismiss the muti-layered studies and analysis from the Kaiser Foundation showing that while much of the recent slowed growth is due to the recession (77%), almost a quarter of the slowed growth is a result of structural changes in the health care system.The growth in spending has slowed because the economy still sucks. Trying to attribute it to a healthcare law that largely hasn't been implemented yet is asinine.The growth in health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years. Funny how you're very selective about when you bring up "the worst recession since the great depression", how that slowing of growth in spending was "inherited" by Obama, or how much of the ACA hasn't even taken place yet and projections are for spending growth to ramp up again in future years.Health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years, currently at a 50 yr low. Thanks, in part, to the ACA.
I guess the private component of health care costs isn't important since you ignored that one yet again.
The Kaiser foundation should have just called you first, instead of wasting time with economists and data analysis.
Its a good read. You should try it.
Legislation doesn't have to be fully enacted to effect behavior.
I read it. Glad you're finally educating yourself on the issue.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
They are the best we've got.Beginning to think the last part is true.. one minute the CBO is the holy grail and what they say is the gold standard.. the next minute it's "well it's the best we have"
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
As long as you agree with them, right?They are the best we've got.Beginning to think the last part is true.. one minute the CBO is the holy grail and what they say is the gold standard.. the next minute it's "well it's the best we have"
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
No, they are the best we've got, whether I'm happy about the results or not.As long as you agree with them, right?They are the best we've got.Beginning to think the last part is true.. one minute the CBO is the holy grail and what they say is the gold standard.. the next minute it's "well it's the best we have"
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
The report talks about 23% being a result of structural changes in healthcare spending. It's pretty clear what they are referring to even though as they note, most of the ACA provisions that will affect Medicare/Medicaid aren't in effect yet. Insurance companies have been preparing for this since before the law passed, and as the other article I posted earlier pointed out employers are doing the same - pushing more costs and managed care into employee plans. Similar to what happened during the 1990s when we had a sustained period of relatively modest growth in costs.No one said 23% was attributed to the ACA.Which they conclude will return us to roughly the same overall rate of growth when the economy fully recovers.They don't even attribute the remaining 23% to the ACA (shocking considering it hasn't even been implemented).Guess I'll just take your word for it, and dismiss the muti-layered studies and analysis from the Kaiser Foundation showing that while much of the recent slowed growth is due to the recession (77%), almost a quarter of the slowed growth is a result of structural changes in the health care system.The growth in spending has slowed because the economy still sucks. Trying to attribute it to a healthcare law that largely hasn't been implemented yet is asinine.The growth in health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years. Funny how you're very selective about when you bring up "the worst recession since the great depression", how that slowing of growth in spending was "inherited" by Obama, or how much of the ACA hasn't even taken place yet and projections are for spending growth to ramp up again in future years.Health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years, currently at a 50 yr low. Thanks, in part, to the ACA.
I guess the private component of health care costs isn't important since you ignored that one yet again.
The Kaiser foundation should have just called you first, instead of wasting time with economists and data analysis.
Its a good read. You should try it.
Legislation doesn't have to be fully enacted to effect behavior.
I read it. Glad you're finally educating yourself on the issue.
matttyl
Footballguy
Can anyone say "Train Wreck"?! From Forbes-
Yet Another White House Obamacare Delay: Out-Of-Pocket Caps Waived Until 2015First, there was the delay of Obamacare’s Medicare cuts until after the election. Then there was the delay of the law’s employer mandate. Then there was the announcement, buried in the Federal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system” instead. Now comes word that another costly provision of the health law—its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs—will be delayed for one more year.
According to the Congressional Research Service, as of November 2011, the Obama administration had missed as many as one-third of the deadlines, specified by law, under the Affordable Care Act. Here are the details on the latest one.
Obamacare contains a blizzard of mandates and regulations that will make health insurance more costly. One of the most significant is its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs, such as co-pays and deductibles. Section 2707(b) of the Public Health Service Act, as added by Obamacare, requires that “a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for the any participant or beneficiary.” Annual limits on cost-sharing are specified by Section 1302© of the Affordable Care Act; in addition, starting in 2014, deductibles are limited to $2,000 per year for individual plans, and $4,000 per year for family plans.
Out-of-pocket caps drive premiums upward
There’s no such thing as a free lunch. If you ban lifetime limits, and mandate lower deductibles, and cap out-of-pocket costs, premiums have to go up to reflect these changes. And unlike a lot of the “rate shock” problems we’ve been discussing, these limits apply not only to individually-purchased health insurance, but also to employer-sponsored coverage. (Self-insured employers are exempted.)
These mandates have already had drastic effects on a number of colleges and universities, which offer inexpensive, defined-cap plans to their healthy, youthful students. Premiums at Lenoir-Rhyne University in Hickory, N.C., for example, rose from $245 per student in 2011-2012 to between $2,507 in 2012-2013. The University of Puget Sound paid $165 per student in 2011-2012; their rates rose to between $1,500 and $2,000 for 2012-2013. Other schools have been forced to drop coverage because they could no longer afford it.
According to the law, the limits on out-of-pocket costs for 2014 were $6,350 for individual policies and $12,700 for family ones. But in February, the Department of Labor published a little-noticed rule delaying the cap until 2015. The delay was described yesterday by Robert Pear in the New York Times.
Delay needed to align ‘separate computer systems’
Notes Pear, “Under the [one-year delay], many group health plans will be able to maintain separate out-of-pocket limits for benefits in 2014. As a result, a consumer may be required to pay $6,350 for doctors’ services and hospital care, and an additional $6,350 for prescription drugs under a plan administered by a pharmacy benefit manager.”
The reason for the delay? “Federal officials said that many insurers and employers needed more time to comply because they used separate companies to help administer major medical coverage and drug benefits, with separate limits on out-of-pocket costs. In many cases, the companies have separate computer systems that cannot communicate with one another.”
The best part in Pear’s story is when a “senior administration official” said that “we had to balance the interests of consumers with the concerns of health plan sponsors and carriers…They asked for more time to comply.” Exactly how is it in consumers’ interests to pay far more for health insurance than they do already?
It’s not. Unless you have a serious, chronic condition, in which case you may benefit from the fact that law forces healthy people to subsidize your care. To progressives, this is the holy grail. But for economically rational individuals, it’s yet another reason to drop out of the insurance market altogether. For economically rational businesses, it’s a reason to self-insure, in order to get out from under these costly mandates.
While insurers and premium-payers will be happy with the delay—whose legal justification is dubious once again—there are groups that grumbled. Specifically, groups representing those with chronic diseases, and the pharmaceutical companies whose costly drugs they will use. “The American Cancer Society shares the concern” about the delay, says Pear, “and noted that some new cancer drugs cost $100,000 a year or more.” But a big part of the reason those drugs cost so much is because manufacturers know that government-run insurers will pay up.
“The promise of out-of-pocket limits was one of the main reasons we supported health reform,” says Theodore M. Thompson of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society . “We have wonderful new drugs, the biologics, to treat rheumatoid arthritis,” said Patience H. White of the Arthritis Foundation. “But they are extremely expensive.”
The progressive solution to expensive problems? More subsidies. But subsidies don’t reduce the underlying cost of care. They only excuse the high prices that manufacturers and service providers already charge.
It’s one of the many aspects of Obamacare that should be repealed, if we are to combat the rate shock that the health law imposes on tens of millions of Americans. But that will require Republicans to come up with a smarter strategy than shutting down the government.
Yet Another White House Obamacare Delay: Out-Of-Pocket Caps Waived Until 2015First, there was the delay of Obamacare’s Medicare cuts until after the election. Then there was the delay of the law’s employer mandate. Then there was the announcement, buried in the Federal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system” instead. Now comes word that another costly provision of the health law—its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs—will be delayed for one more year.
According to the Congressional Research Service, as of November 2011, the Obama administration had missed as many as one-third of the deadlines, specified by law, under the Affordable Care Act. Here are the details on the latest one.
Obamacare contains a blizzard of mandates and regulations that will make health insurance more costly. One of the most significant is its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs, such as co-pays and deductibles. Section 2707(b) of the Public Health Service Act, as added by Obamacare, requires that “a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for the any participant or beneficiary.” Annual limits on cost-sharing are specified by Section 1302© of the Affordable Care Act; in addition, starting in 2014, deductibles are limited to $2,000 per year for individual plans, and $4,000 per year for family plans.
Out-of-pocket caps drive premiums upward
There’s no such thing as a free lunch. If you ban lifetime limits, and mandate lower deductibles, and cap out-of-pocket costs, premiums have to go up to reflect these changes. And unlike a lot of the “rate shock” problems we’ve been discussing, these limits apply not only to individually-purchased health insurance, but also to employer-sponsored coverage. (Self-insured employers are exempted.)
These mandates have already had drastic effects on a number of colleges and universities, which offer inexpensive, defined-cap plans to their healthy, youthful students. Premiums at Lenoir-Rhyne University in Hickory, N.C., for example, rose from $245 per student in 2011-2012 to between $2,507 in 2012-2013. The University of Puget Sound paid $165 per student in 2011-2012; their rates rose to between $1,500 and $2,000 for 2012-2013. Other schools have been forced to drop coverage because they could no longer afford it.
According to the law, the limits on out-of-pocket costs for 2014 were $6,350 for individual policies and $12,700 for family ones. But in February, the Department of Labor published a little-noticed rule delaying the cap until 2015. The delay was described yesterday by Robert Pear in the New York Times.
Delay needed to align ‘separate computer systems’
Notes Pear, “Under the [one-year delay], many group health plans will be able to maintain separate out-of-pocket limits for benefits in 2014. As a result, a consumer may be required to pay $6,350 for doctors’ services and hospital care, and an additional $6,350 for prescription drugs under a plan administered by a pharmacy benefit manager.”
The reason for the delay? “Federal officials said that many insurers and employers needed more time to comply because they used separate companies to help administer major medical coverage and drug benefits, with separate limits on out-of-pocket costs. In many cases, the companies have separate computer systems that cannot communicate with one another.”
The best part in Pear’s story is when a “senior administration official” said that “we had to balance the interests of consumers with the concerns of health plan sponsors and carriers…They asked for more time to comply.” Exactly how is it in consumers’ interests to pay far more for health insurance than they do already?
It’s not. Unless you have a serious, chronic condition, in which case you may benefit from the fact that law forces healthy people to subsidize your care. To progressives, this is the holy grail. But for economically rational individuals, it’s yet another reason to drop out of the insurance market altogether. For economically rational businesses, it’s a reason to self-insure, in order to get out from under these costly mandates.
While insurers and premium-payers will be happy with the delay—whose legal justification is dubious once again—there are groups that grumbled. Specifically, groups representing those with chronic diseases, and the pharmaceutical companies whose costly drugs they will use. “The American Cancer Society shares the concern” about the delay, says Pear, “and noted that some new cancer drugs cost $100,000 a year or more.” But a big part of the reason those drugs cost so much is because manufacturers know that government-run insurers will pay up.
“The promise of out-of-pocket limits was one of the main reasons we supported health reform,” says Theodore M. Thompson of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society . “We have wonderful new drugs, the biologics, to treat rheumatoid arthritis,” said Patience H. White of the Arthritis Foundation. “But they are extremely expensive.”
The progressive solution to expensive problems? More subsidies. But subsidies don’t reduce the underlying cost of care. They only excuse the high prices that manufacturers and service providers already charge.
It’s one of the many aspects of Obamacare that should be repealed, if we are to combat the rate shock that the health law imposes on tens of millions of Americans. But that will require Republicans to come up with a smarter strategy than shutting down the government.
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
We get that you are never going to have anything nice to say about ACA, but I don't understand why delays to make sure things are implemented as smoothly as possible are necessarily a bad thing? The dates set up in the law were more or less arbitrary markers set up by politicians and lobbyists; even to the extent that they could make informed assumptions about how fast preparations could be made, things are almost universally different in practice, That holds true whether you are talking about the public or private sector. I'd rather see the implementation managed in a thoughtful and careful manner, rather than rushing to hit congressional deadlines and causing more problems out of the gate.
drunken slob
Footballguy
Affordable Care Act, that's a clown law, bro
Sand
Footballguy
Is there any provision in the ACA that gives the executive branch the authority to delay aspects of the law?
matttyl
Footballguy
I posted the above to yet again show the lie that Obama told when he said that this would save the average American family "up to $2,500 per year" or whatever the number was. It just seems that time and time again he can not back up the statements he makes. It just shows that this law will not work the way it was promised to work. Further, how is he able to change this "law" without congressional approval?!
Recent polls done June to August of this year have 51.3% against the act, with only 39.5% in favor of it.
Recent polls done June to August of this year have 51.3% against the act, with only 39.5% in favor of it.
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
I don't believe any type of special consideration is needed for the Executive Branch to modify the timeline for enforcement of specific provisions of the law, since the enforcement falls specifically in their scope of authority.
I also don't find public opinion polls to be particularly compelling in policy discussion for many reasons. If we went by public opinion polls whatever law passed would almost certainly have contained a public option rather than the exchanges, as the public option was overwhelmingly supported in polls at the time.
How the question is asked also has a major role in determining how people answer. I think the ACA is fine as a coverage law, but it fell way short of the kind of reform I think is ultimately needed. So depending on my mood, and how the interviewer asked the question I might answer yes or no to whether I support it. More detailed surveys that go provision by provision in the law have found that most everything in the law is fairly popular - no pre-existing condition restrictions, caps on lifetime maximums, extended student coverage, etc. The part that isn't popular is the mandate. Unfortunately, that's also the only mechanism aside from Single Payer, that makes those other provisions work.
I hate coming off as a ACA backer to the extent I probably do here, but in reality it's probably going to work as a law that expands coverage and does a little (but probably not enough) to contain long-term costs. As one of the RSG's (Really Smart Guys) I like to follow on health care policy said, "the most controversial part of 'Obamacare' has always been the 'Obama' part."
It would also probably end up being a much better law if Republicans would stop acting like a bunch of petulant children and try working on improving the law rather than wasting time and money fighting the inevitable.
ETA - or even propose any kind of alternative - other than, we'll keep everything you like but get rid of the mandate, which was actually put forward with a straight face at one point.
I also don't find public opinion polls to be particularly compelling in policy discussion for many reasons. If we went by public opinion polls whatever law passed would almost certainly have contained a public option rather than the exchanges, as the public option was overwhelmingly supported in polls at the time.
How the question is asked also has a major role in determining how people answer. I think the ACA is fine as a coverage law, but it fell way short of the kind of reform I think is ultimately needed. So depending on my mood, and how the interviewer asked the question I might answer yes or no to whether I support it. More detailed surveys that go provision by provision in the law have found that most everything in the law is fairly popular - no pre-existing condition restrictions, caps on lifetime maximums, extended student coverage, etc. The part that isn't popular is the mandate. Unfortunately, that's also the only mechanism aside from Single Payer, that makes those other provisions work.
I hate coming off as a ACA backer to the extent I probably do here, but in reality it's probably going to work as a law that expands coverage and does a little (but probably not enough) to contain long-term costs. As one of the RSG's (Really Smart Guys) I like to follow on health care policy said, "the most controversial part of 'Obamacare' has always been the 'Obama' part."
It would also probably end up being a much better law if Republicans would stop acting like a bunch of petulant children and try working on improving the law rather than wasting time and money fighting the inevitable.
ETA - or even propose any kind of alternative - other than, we'll keep everything you like but get rid of the mandate, which was actually put forward with a straight face at one point.
Last edited by a moderator:
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Good posting. Why do you think that the KooK Republicans are against their own law as implemented by Obama?
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
This is a good overview of why, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, no one should be in a rush to read too much into the initial rate information coming out of the State exchanges - either the lower or higher rate assessments that have been about evenly split to this point:
Follow the title link for tables included in the story.
Follow the title link for tables included in the story.
Sand
Footballguy
Oh, please. The part that still has everyone's hair up is the mandate. Oh, sorry, the "tax".
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
I think it's fair to say that's the most unpopular part. But in terms of policy, it's not controversial at all. If the goal is universal or near-universal coverage the only two options are really a mandate or some iteration of single payer, with the government as a backstop for the otherwise uninsurable.
matttyl
Footballguy
And it seems now that the part that is upsetting all are the much higher rates (for many, understandably not all) which goes directly against the promise made by the President - as well as the name of the actual bill, "Affordable".
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
More affordable for those who formerly did not have coverage, less affordable for those who were already covered. Did anyone actually think the result would end up being any different?
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
From about 8 inches above your post:
Since no one should be speaking in absolutes, I'd say the people up in arms about rates at this point are mainly people looking for a reason to be up in arms about rates.
Quick question on the public polling aspect. I know I saw some polls in 2010 where a majority of the public was "against" obamacare but the breakdown was rather fascinating. You get into things like this from 2013:
"According to the poll, 43% of the public says it supports the health care law....Fifty-four percent of those questioned say they oppose the law, also relatively unchanged since 2010. The survey indicates that 35% oppose the health care law because it's too liberal, with 16% saying they oppose the measure because it isn't liberal enough.
Right. Let me rephrase this:
According to a recent poll, 59 percent of Americans support Obamacare, while 35 percent oppose it. Among supporters, 43 percent support the law as is, while 16 percent think it doesn't go far enough.
Is this still the case when people bring up things like 51 or 55 % of people are "against" obamacare? Not a huge deal I'm sure but I found it very interesting when first looking at it years back and it to my mind puts a different spin on trying to use polling as a data point for saying obamacare goes too far and other things.
"According to the poll, 43% of the public says it supports the health care law....Fifty-four percent of those questioned say they oppose the law, also relatively unchanged since 2010. The survey indicates that 35% oppose the health care law because it's too liberal, with 16% saying they oppose the measure because it isn't liberal enough.
Right. Let me rephrase this:
According to a recent poll, 59 percent of Americans support Obamacare, while 35 percent oppose it. Among supporters, 43 percent support the law as is, while 16 percent think it doesn't go far enough.
Is this still the case when people bring up things like 51 or 55 % of people are "against" obamacare? Not a huge deal I'm sure but I found it very interesting when first looking at it years back and it to my mind puts a different spin on trying to use polling as a data point for saying obamacare goes too far and other things.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Really?
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-health-law-consumers-20130813,0,953268.story
So:
(Again) everyone does not get to keep their plans - because some plans may become too expensive.
National health care costs are NOT going down, they are simply being assumed by the feds and being paid for by Americans. The costs remain teh same or escalate.
People who now choose to pay nothing will be facing out of pocket costs or being chased as criminals by the IRS.
It just gets worse and worse, but we're still early in it.
matttyl
Footballguy
And maybe they are up in arms because they are going to get charged 2-3x as much as before.
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
I'd just reiterate, again, that the initial rates being published aren't likely a good indicator of where the market will be even 6 months or year from when the exchanges actually go into effect. Let alone several years down the line once the market has actually begun to stabilize. Right now there is a high degree of volatility between and even within State level pricing. No one has actually had to pay a premium yet 2-3 times what they are currently paying or could potentially pay in absence of ACA today.
I'm not quoting partisan hack sites here, but non-partisan groups that study these markets very closely. I'm also not predicting that everything will be sunshine and roses, just that the histrionics of people predicting impending doom does not seem to be backed up by serious analysis or historical precedent.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Lord, it's from the Kaiser Foundation which is left to center-left.
And somehow most probably don't recall things like "ad hoc exemptions" for corporartions and politicians, IRS penalties, and "high degree of volatility" and "[rising] initial rates" when the president and his party were hawking this bag of snake oil.
And if 2-3X isn't the right number, what kind of multiplier is a average gap of $2,672 for all existing policyholders?
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
At least personally the part of this that does bother me is that the young, who are generally in the lowest wage jobs with the least amount of savings, are now mandated to take on much, much more expensive healthcare coverage to subsidize the older - the folks who are in the primes of their earning lives and (ostensibly) have had time to build a nest egg to help cover these increased expenses. (I'm right in the middle, age wise, so really not too much dog in the fight there.)
We are placing the cost burden in exactly the wrong place. So, basically, status quo for the government.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
I really don't know what you're talking about, but that $2,672 number is what KFF used as the average subsidy spread across all purchasers of individual insurance in 2014 when the exchanges go into effect. The bottom line of that particular analysis was that some purchasers will likely have higher premiums, some lower, and that while overall premiums may be higher those are, in their words, "sticker prices" that do not reflect the premium assistance subsidies.
None of that has anything to do with what I posted, which is that the premiums themselves are currently highly volatile because the market itself essentially doesn't exist yet. So whatever happens in 2014 will be subject to market effects that will drive premiums going forward.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
It does have to do with what you wrote though, whether you meant it that way or not.
People have plenty justification to be up in arms about rates because clearly they have gone up enough to create a need for a subsidy on the one hand (which is paid for by someone) and a gap on the other (because not everyone gets the subsidy).
As for the volatility, that's being cause by this forced, articifical intrusion into the market in the first place.
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
B/c the "market" was delivering such excellent results before this "gov't intrusion"?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well apparently it wasn't:
Forcing young people to spend thousands on insurance they feel they don't need or face IRS harassment.
Causing people to look to subsidies (federal aid) or other means to fill in a $2700 gap.
Causing companies to drop people from their insurance rolls at the rate they are now.
Causing some public entities/municipalities to sell public hospitals to private entities because they are about to get slaughtered on Medicare/Medicaid reductions.
Causing others (people and companies) to look at 30% increases altogether. (That's the number quoted above and oddly that's the number at our company).
Not to mention the corruption associated with corporate pals and politicians seeking "exemptions" that other normal people have to pay.
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The Grassley ® amendment to the ACA, which has basically been overriden. When it suited the Democrats to advertise that they would be voting for the bill on the basis they would be bound by its coverage precepts, that was wonderful; turned out they were never planning to live by it and merely agreed to it to try to sell the law to the public. The fact that Congressmen can get themselves out of the law with a phone call (and I doubt it was free, DC always has a price for favors...) is natural, the fact is that others cannot get out of the law so easily.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
