Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[gbear]

Maybe I missed it, but does covering birth control raise prices?  I  seem to remember this question from the discussion about entities wanting exceptions because they shouldn't have to pay for something they don't believe is ethical.  From memory, it was pointed out insurance pays X dollars on average for every birth.  This amount would cover X years of birth control.  Does the average births per thousand enrolled patients without birth control versus the average number of births when birth control is covered make up for the cost of providing birth control?

 

Now people will say men don't need birth control, but there are procedures many of us would like covered, and there is an on going effort to give us a daily pill like med too.  I'm always surprised the birth control issues always seem to be about the pill or abortion, and nobody ever seems to mention vasectomies. 

[Wrong Direction]

Maybe I missed it, but does covering birth control raise prices?  I  seem to remember this question from the discussion about entities wanting exceptions because they shouldn't have to pay for something they don't believe is ethical.  From memory, it was pointed out insurance pays X dollars on average for every birth.  This amount would cover X years of birth control.  Does the average births per thousand enrolled patients without birth control versus the average number of births when birth control is covered make up for the cost of providing birth control?

 

Now people will say men don't need birth control, but there are procedures many of us would like covered, and there is an on going effort to give us a daily pill like med too.  I'm always surprised the birth control issues always seem to be about the pill or abortion, and nobody ever seems to mention vasectomies. 

 

Anyone who answers this definitively will be speculating. These types of things have to play out and be studied before you can say one way or the other. I'll give it a try though.

 

1. Mandating coverage means more women will have access to birth control. - Cost increase.

2. Mandating full payment means costs will go up on the cost sharing side like 20% (basic coinsurance). - Big cost increase because there are a lot of users before this mandate.

3. Free birth control will result in a shift to more expensive brands. - Cost increase.

4. More coverage will result in less births. - Cost decrease.

5. Less births will disproportionately occur in poorer communities. - Cost decrease (government benefits for parents/kids post births).

6. Less risk of pregnancy could result in more promiscuity and thus greater incidence of STDs. - Cost increase.

7. Less pregnancy would result in less abortions. - Cost decrease.

 

It seems likely that the answer to your question will be based on a lot of variables, some of which aren't directly related to the mandate. First, how many people actually gain new access to coverage? Most plans have coverage today and the documented need for more coverage is very small. There are only so many Catholic health plans. If a lot of people in baby-making years get new access, total costs could decrease. Alternatively, if not, costs would increase, probably dramatically.

 

However, there are potentially large external variables. Look at new Medicaid enrollments "under" Obamacare for a perfect example. More than half of new Medicaid enrollments just reported occurred in states that didn't expand Medicaid. This is likely due to the fact that people are understanding they're eligible. They didn't know they could have had access all along. Similarly, because of that dramatic increase of already eligibles in those states that didn't expand, it's fair to assume that a similar activity happened in states that did expand. As a result, you have much more people on Medicaid, but only a small proportion (one estimate is 400,000 of over 4 million total) of which are newly eligible due to the expansion in the law. Indeed, the proportion of eligible people who take advantage of low income programs generally has been low forever. Awareness is key to enrollment.

 

So, back to birth control...it's possible that the mandate itself has very little potential to do anything but significantly raise costs, but the independent variable (awareness) is strong enough to significantly affect behavior in a way that significantly increases use and thus implicates some of the cost cutting possibilities.

 

Bottom line, we won't know until we look at utilization and birth rates over the coming years.

[Larry]

Bottom line, we won't know until we look at utilization and birth rates over the coming years.

And, like most things in the "science" of economics, we won't know, even then.

Because the metrics we're trying to measure are subject to a multitude of forces, making it impossible for us to isolate the effects caused by just one of them.

[Wrong Direction]

And, like most things in the "science" of economics, we won't know, even then.

Because the metrics we're trying to measure are subject to a multitude of forces, making it impossible for us to isolate the effects caused by just one of them.

 

That depends on how big the forces are and how much change there is.

 

We could theoretically estimate the direct costs pretty easily. Historical trends of birth control use are likely relatively flat, so industry data on birth control could give you a ball park figure.

 

Similarly, birth trends are slow movers. Any significant change there would likely be attributed to this mandate barring a massive disruption of some sort. I actually think this could be imputed in 1-2 years if we wanted, though other societal trends (like STDs) will always be really tough to account for. In the end, you wouldn't get an answer, you'd get a good indication though.

[mikered30]

The Obama administration is delaying enforcement of a provision of the new healthcare law that prohibits employers from providing better health benefits to top executives than to other employees, the New York Times reported on Saturday.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/18/us-usa-healthcare-executives-idUSBREA0H0JZ20140118

 

Can someone please explain how this admin can pick an choose what they want to enforce with this law?  It is like it is a constant work in progress.

[twa]

The administration can do what ever it is allowed to do.

[LadySkinsFan]

What part of the for profit healthcare system would you get rid of?

 

The profit part?  Excessive profit?  Cutting waste, fraud and abuse?

[chipwhich]

I just wish I had of done like I wanted to and bought stock in the major health care companies last year.  Obamacare is sending those puppies through the roof.  Take a look at Cigna as an example look at the 1 year price charts.

 

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ci/stock-chart

 

Come to papa.

 

Obamacare is definitely helping HC CEO's.

[Larry]

Can someone please explain how this admin can pick an choose what they want to enforce with this law? It is like it is a constant work in progress.

The same way all law enforcement agencies can chose which laws to enforce?

Just a theory.

[Larry]

I just wish I had of done like I wanted to and bought stock in the major health care companies last year. Obamacare is sending those puppies through the roof. Take a look at Cigna as an example look at the 1 year price charts.

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ci/stock-chart

Come to papa.

Obamacare is definitely helping HC CEO's.

Wow, look. Cigna went up roughly twice as fast as the NASDAQ, as a whole.

Just like its done for the last five years.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=CI&l=off&z=l&q=l&c=&ql=1&c=%5EIXIC&c=%5EDJI

Amazing, the power that Obamacare has.

[chipwhich]

Wow, look. Cigna went up roughly twice as fast as the NASDAQ, as a whole.

Just like its done for the last five years.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=CI&l=off&z=l&q=l&c=&ql=1&c=%5EIXIC&c=%5EDJI

Amazing, the power that Obamacare has.

 

You mean Cigna skyrocketed around 50% the last 12 months.

Nice try Larry.

[Larry]

You mean Cigna skyrocketed around 50% the last 12 months.

Nice try Larry.

Roughly twice the rate of NASDAQ, as a whole.

Just like it's done for the last five years.

Obviously, this must be due to Obamacare.

Nice try, chip.

[Elessar78]

What part of the for profit healthcare system would you get rid of?

For me, I'd get rid of the part where it doesn't really do much to make sick people healthier, quicker. 

 

It's a moot argument anyway, because even with the ACA, we still have a for-profit system—there's just a new player in town. 

[chipwhich]

Roughly twice the rate of NASDAQ, as a whole.

Just like it's done for the last five years.

Obviously, this must be due to Obamacare.

Nice try, chip.

 

How about Humana?

 

I mean there is a reason these health care stocks are beating the NASDAQ as a whole since Obamacare has been in process, what say you?  It's just normal 10% hikes over years?

[chipwhich]

Roughly twice the rate of NASDAQ, as a whole.

Just like it's done for the last five years.

Obviously, this must be due to Obamacare.

Nice try, chip.

 

Wow Larry it was 63%.  Yeah that has to be just normal.  No way Obamacare has a play in that. 

[Larry]

Wow Larry it was 63%.  Yeah that has to be just normal.  No way Obamacare has a play in that. 

 

And the NASDAQ, I believe, was around 30. 

 

Which makes it, I believe, pretty much twice. 

 

Like I pointed out.  Three times, now. 

 

----------

 

Maybe it's because of all those rate increases that people have been trying (without even attempting to support, even after years of trying) to blame on Obamacare (even when it hadn't even begun to take effect). 

 

----------

 

But, on an even more basic note, if you really want to try to convince people that Obamabare is terrible because any attempt to allow people who don't have insurance, to get it, will increase insurance company profits, then I guess you should have put yourself on the "I demand that Obamacare make the government supply health insurance to everybody" bandwagon, sooner. 

Edited January 19, 2014 by Larry

[chipwhich]

But, on an even more basic note, if you really want to try to convince people that Obamabare is terrible because any attempt to allow people who don't have insurance, to get it, will increase insurance company profits, then I guess you should have put yourself on the "I demand that Obamacare make the government supply health insurance to everybody" bandwagon, sooner. 

 

Larry, now you are posting something I didn't say.  Please apologize.

 

I actually feel sorry for people who are getting Obamacare and think they are getting what the rest of us has as insurance.  That's from the heart.  If the government was going to dip their toe into the insurance for all, it should have been a single payer system.  What they have done will lead to higher costs for all, including our government.

Edited January 19, 2014 by chipwhich

[Larry]

Larry, now you are posting something I didn't say. Please apologize.

I actually feel sorry for people who are getting Obamacare and think they are getting what the rest of us has as insurance. That's from the heart. If the government was going to dip their toe into the insurance for all, it should have been a single payer system. What they have done will lead to higher costs for all, including our government.

You're right. I'm ASSUMING that you keep coming into the Obamacare thread, and ranting about the fact that corporations make profits, and have CEOs, is out of a desire to link Obamacare to these supposedly undesirable facts, as a way of trying to get rid of Obamacare.

Granted, I kind if gave to assume that, because

1). You don't actually make a point, when you post the fact that corporations make profits.

2). And I can only think of one other reason for posting them: and that's to demand that it be replaced by single payer.

And when I read your posts, I don't see someone saying "it's a good idea, but it should have been better". I see someone finding any negative thing he can find, trying to blame Obamacare for all of them (without any support or reasoning at all), who not only will not admit that it's doing some good, too, but who actually tries to demand that nobody else is allowed to point out anything good, either.

[chipwhich]

And when I read your posts, I don't see someone saying "it's a good idea, but it should have been better". I see someone finding any negative thing he can find, trying to blame Obamacare for all of them (without any support or reasoning at all), who not only will not admit that it's doing some good, too, but who actually tries to demand that nobody else is allowed to point out anything good, either.

 

Well I could argue when I read your posts, and it's factual, that you never post anything wrong with Obamacare.  To read your posts it's like nothing but good has come from Obamacare, it's all roses.

 

I have never said Obamacare does no good.  Obamacare is a great option for the sickly who aren't covered.  If I were sick and uninsured I would thank the lord for Obamacare.  The problem is it's no good for everyone else....that is unless I have major medical issues.

[Larry]

Well I could argue when I read your posts, and it's factual, that you never post anything wrong with Obamacare.

Well, you could claim that. And have. I think dozens of times.

Wasn't true, those dozens of times. Not true this time. But you certainly have the ability to make the claim.

 

2) Obamacare mandates some other factor, which makes things more expensive for some people. (There was an article on here, a day or two ago, saying that Obamacare mandates that men and women must be charge the same prices. (Which, I have to say, sounds less like mandating medical coverage and more like political pandering, to me.) This supposedly means that men (who typically use less health care) will pay more, subsidizing women.)

To read your posts it's like nothing but good has come from Obamacare, it's all roses.

I'm not 100% certain, but I would bet that it would take a LOT of work, on your part, to try to find even one post in which I've claimed any specific good from this law, whatsoever. Certainly not any demonstrable net good.

Closest you can come is finding probably 50 posts, where you or twa have tried to claim that people are throwing trillions of dollars at insurance companies, sometimes even outright asserting that they are receiving absolutely nothing in return, and I point out that the vast majority of the money must be benefiting somebody, somewhere.

Remember our last exchange?

1) twa posts claims of 40% rate increases.

2) You agree with him.

3) I point out that, by law, 80% of that money is required to go to paying benefits, to somebody.

4) You spend 24 hours, and like 10 posts, trying to avoid mentioning that that money pays any benefits at all. Eventually falling back on trying to demand that I not use the word "benefits" to refer to the money that insurance companies pay to their insured.

Only one of us is trying to claim that only one side of the "pluses and minuses" must be presented. And it's you.

You don't see me demanding that you aren't allowed to use the phrase "rate increases". Or spending 20 posts trying to avoid mentioning that insurance companies make a profit.

[chipwhich]

Well, you could claim that. And have. I think dozens of times.

Wasn't true, those dozens of times. Not true this time. But you certainly have the ability to make the claim.

 

Actually Larry you are probably correct, I have no idea what your opinion is on Obamacare all I know is you argue with every one of my posts.  Why don't you clue us all in on what your opinion is.  You hate to put your flag in the sand and stand behind an opinion.

[Larry]

Actually Larry you are probably correct, I have no idea what your opinion is on Obamacare all I know is you argue with every one of my posts. .

Nope. Just the ones that are obvious attempts to push obviously unbelievable assertions.

(I'm like that. Lots of threads, my participation consists of pointing out the folks on both sides who are making obviously untrue claims.).

I don't really know enough about Obamacare to actually have an opinion on whether it's a net good or not.

And I don't think anybody else does, either.

I assume it was some good intentions, which then went through the political sausage machine. I would be amazed if it doesn't have bad parts that one politician or another slipped into the sausage. And that's before we even get into the traditional "good intentions with bad results" heading.

My main feeling on the subject, for years, has been contempt bordering on outrage at the complete dishonesty displayed by the folks who are attacking it for no other reason than partisan politics.

[chipwhich]

I don't really know enough about Obamacare to actually have an opinion on whether it's a net good or not.

 

Well that's a breath of fresh air.  Glad you are admitting it.  Now I know why you argue with me.

 

And I don't think anybody else does, either.

 

 

Now that is funny I have been saying you all don't know what your getting into, again another breath of fresh air.

 

 

My main feeling on the subject, for years, has been contempt bordering on outrage at the complete dishonesty displayed by the folks who are attacking it for no other reason than partisan politics.

 

I would guess, now I couldn't ever prove this, but I point it out to you a lot, I would guess you use the term GOP and related right wing phrases more than ANY poster on this board.  I would have never pegged you as even steven.  I have had you all wrong for some time.     I apologize.  Now I am going to go look for some posts where you defend both sides. 

[JMS]

I would have never pegged you (LARRY) as even steven.  I have had you all wrong for some time.     I apologize.  Now I am going to go look for some posts where you defend both sides. 

As a more left wing reactionary poster, I find Larry annoying too when he calls me out for my biases and perceived inaccuracies...

Your premise here is just wrong... which is what Larry is reacting too. While there are some insurance rates which have risen under Obamacare... the facts are healthcare costs since Obamacare passed are at record low increases overall. 3.7% in 2012.. So claiming healthcare costs are up by 40% is just crazy talk.

The new report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) found healthcare spending rose by 3.7 percent in 2012, the second year on record and the only years in decades healthcare costs have grown lower than the rate of GDP growth..

So claiming out of control costs associated with Obamacare is just factually inaccurate.. A more valid tact would be to say Obamacare didn't create the savings. Only that doesn't appear to be the case either.. A still more accurate complaint might be ok we reduced costs 0.1% as a ratio to GDP.. whoop de doooo... by even the most conservative estimates half of our healthcare costs are due to inefficiencies and waste built into our system... saving 0.1% as a percentage of GDP is still only modestly better than treading water. At that rate it will take us nearly 50 years to close the gap with the rest of the industrialized world in healthcare costs.

 

National Health Spending Growth Remains Low for 4th Consecutive Year

 

January 6, 2014

 

WASHINGTON — Overall national health expenditures grew at an annual rate of 3.7 percent in 2012, marking the fourth consecutive year of low growth, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of the Actuary reported today. Health spending as a share of gross domestic product fell slightly from 17.3 percent in 2011 to 17.2 percent in 2012.

“For the second straight year, we have seen overall health care costs grow slower than the economy as a whole. This is good news,” said CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner. “We will continue to work with tools given to us by the Affordable Care Act that will both help us control costs for taxpayers and consumers while increasing the quality of care.”

http://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Press-Releases/2014-Press-releases-items/2014-01-06.html

Edited January 19, 2014 by JMS

[chipwhich]

As a more left wing reactionary poster, I find Larry annoying too when he calls me out for my biases and perceived inaccuracies...

Your premise here is just wrong... which is what Larry is reacting too. While there are some insurance rates which have risen under Obamacare... the facts are healthcare costs since Obamacare passed are at record low increases overall. 3.7% in 2012.. So claiming healthcare costs are up by 40% is just crazy talk.

The new report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) found healthcare spending rose by 3.7 percent in 2012, the second year on record and the only years in decades healthcare costs have grown lower than the rate of GDP growth..

So claiming out of control costs associated with Obamacare is just factually inaccurate.. A more valid tact would be to say Obamacare didn't create the savings. Only that doesn't appear to be the case either.. A still more accurate complaint might be ok we reduced costs .1% as a ratio to GDP.. whoop de doooo... by even the most conservative estimates half of our healthcare costs are due to inefficiencies and waste built into our system... saving .1% as a percentage of GDP is still only modestly better than treading water. At that rate it will take us nearly 50 years to close the gap with the rest of the industrialized world in healthcare costs.

 

 

But I never made those claims.  You are confusing what I post with what TWA posts.