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

[twa]

The 40% was rate increases, not costs

The deflection to somebody benefiting when the rate increases is amusing in it's indifference to those paying the 40% more.

 

 

The people that passed this garbage are already running from it and delaying parts to avoid the political hit.

 

The hounds are coming though 
 

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

 

He is certainly confused on both who and what is posted.

[JMS]

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

I apologize if I misunderstood your point... From your post number 1921

 

Larry there seems to be multiple topics intertwined which is confusing this conversation.

1) Health insurance costs are rising. I blame Obamacare for some of the increase. Your assertion is that Obamacare isn't to blame, or you wont accept any blame unless I prove it.

So I took that as you saying Obama care was causing us to spend more on healthcare...

Edited January 19, 2014 by JMS

[JMS]

The 40% was rate increases, not costs

40% rate increase is bogus.. you can't claim one guy see's a 40% rate increase and therefore Obamacare which is assisting in holding costs down for everybody is bad....

The reason why folks with low end insurance policies are seeing their rates go up is because part of Obamacare legislates minimum coverage for insurance... You can no longer buy insurance winch is unlikely to cover you when or if you need it. The government had to do this because the #1 cause of bankruptcies in this country were medical costs and that was for people with insurance. policies which capp'ed your coverage to 100k or 1 million were thrown out and in addition a plans ability to use legalize to deny folks coverage was curtailed. This meant some plans were discontinued and other plans made available to these folks had greater costs... About 5% of the public found themselves in that boat.. ( from my recollection)..

But the very premise doesn't make sense... Pre Obamacare Insurance companies had much more leway to gauge insuree's ... Under Obamacare overhead is capped at 80% of outlays. So an insurance company can't have more than 20% overhead ( profit, dividends, advertising, salaries, bonuses, paper clips ) in total. So their costs today are directly tied to there outlays... If outlays are therefore growing at a near historic low rate... then premiums must be too... That's just math.

 

The deflection to somebody benefiting when the rate increases is amusing in it's indifference to those paying the 40% more.

 

The people that passed this garbage are already running from it and delaying parts to avoid the political hit.

 

The hounds are coming though

I disagree.. That you can no longer buy insurance which is meaningless is a good thing.. not a bad thing...  even if 5% of the country who where paying for insurance which didn't cover them now have to pay more for insurance which does...

 

Obamacare driving down health insurance costs for small businesses in Washington

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/obamacare-driving-down-health-insurance-costs-for-small-businesses-in-washington/2013/07/26/f90ee0a6-f5f0-11e2-9434-60440856fadf_story.html

Edited January 19, 2014 by JMS

[twa]

The 40% increases are not bogus,nor limited to one guy.

 

Try selling that holding down costs to the "whole" line to those paying the bill

 

The cap on profits line ignores shifting costs and fees to subsidize others and political gimmicks. 

[chipwhich]

I apologize if I misunderstood your point... From your post number 1921

 

So I took that as you saying Obama care was causing us to spend more on healthcare...

 

JMS,

 

Obamacare is causing us to spend more on healthcare.  My insurance rates were marked up with an Obamacare tax to pay for the exchanges.

 

Also you can't have a position without understanding the position.

Rates aren't rising at rapid levels because High Deductible plans are rapidly becoming the norm.  I kept my rates for my company in check this year by raising my deductibles from $2400 to $4000 and switching health plans.  Next year I will raise the deductible again to get yet lower rates.  Just passing the cost to the employee.

Edited January 19, 2014 by chipwhich

[JMS]

The 40% increases are not bogus,nor limited to one guy.

 

Try selling that holding down costs to the "whole" line to those paying the bill

 

So that's what the conservative argument boils down too today....   Holding down costs for the whole doesn't matter...

It's how the law effects the outliers, that's the only thing which counts?

 

The cap on profits line ignores shifting costs and fees to subsidize others and political gimmicks.

It's not a "cap" on profits. It's a cap on overhead, which includes profits.   And I don't know what you are reffering too when you talk about subsidies..    Subsidies are paid by the federal government not the insurance companies...

 

Unless you are saying the subsidies will make OBAMA care cost more... which is still wrong...   We know Obamacare saves money.  It saves hundreds of billions over the short term and trillions over the long term.    How can you save money when millions of Americans get subsities for their coverage?   Simple...   before Obamacare we had 50 million folks uninsured.. when they got sick it impacted everybody..    Obamacare reduces that number by 30 million Americans.   The government is basically laying off the risk of those 30 million into existing private and public insurance plans.    It costs the premium, but it saves the big hit when they get sick...  Just like you pay your insurance so you won't be bankrupted when you get sick... same premise.

[JMS]

JMS,

 

Obamacare is causing us to spend more on healthcare.  My insurance rates were marked up with an Obamacare tax to pay for the exchanges.

 

As a nation we spend more than 3 trillion  dollars a year on healthcare....  what kind of tax did they clip you for given the exchanges  probable cost less than .000001% of our national healthcare cost... which would be about 30 million I'm guessing...  ok let's be generous..    .00001%...  300 million.

 

 

 

 

Also you can't have a position without understanding the position.

Rates aren't rising at rapid levels because High Deductible plans are rapidly becoming the norm.  I kept my rates for my company in check this year by raising my deductibles from $2400 to $4000 and switching health plans.  Next year I will raise the deductible again to get yet lower rates.  Just passing the cost to the employee.

(1) you always had an option of raising your deductible and passing more expense to the employee. That's not something which is specific to Obamacare.

(2) Obamacare actually is better if that is your policy because it ensures at least the plan will cover your employees after they get sick... It won't bankrupt folks who have insurance anymore by capping coverage or denying coverage for some illnesses.

 

 

[chipwhich]

 

As a nation we spend more than 3 trillion  dollars a year on healthcare....  what kind of tax did they clip you for given the exchanges  probable cost less than .000001% of our national healthcare cost... which would be about 30 million I'm guessing...  ok let's be generous..    .00001%...  300 million.

 

My point being, and I just threw out one example, is that Obamacare has a cost, and my example isn't the only one.  I don't know the total cost, but rates are higher because of it.

 

 

(1) you always had an option of raising your deductible and passing more expense to the employee. That's not something which is specific to Obamacare.

(2) Obamacare actually is better if that is your policy because it ensures at least the plan will cover your employees after they get sick... It won't bankrupt folks who have insurance anymore by capping coverage or denying coverage for some illnesses.

 

I am not blaming HD plans on Obamacare.  The rapid growth in high deductible plans over the past couple of years are the reason behind the slow growth in rates.  It's really easy to read a generic article that says health care rates only increased by 3.6% without understanding the why.  I happen to pay my employees deductible, but one of the largest contractors in my industry SAIC Leidos just rolled out their new health care plan and laid the deductible in the lap of the employees.  So rates are lower and the working class foots yet another bill.  Again, that's not because of Obamacare, but Obamacare is really pushing these plans as the norm.  And the deductibles are just getting higher.  At some point somethings gotta give.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/high-deductible-insurance-plans-become-more-common/2012/06/01/gJQAbNlt9U_story.html

 

I never implied removing the cap on coverage was a bad thing.  I also never implied helping people from going bankrupt is a bad thing.  I would be curious to see actual numbers on people going bankrupt due to health care or capped coverage.  But that's really for another thread.

[twa]

Your misconceptions on saving money and preventing bankruptcy will become plain as time goes along.

 

just like keeping your plan and the other lies.

 

of course you can always just change the accounting methods to make up for it.

[Larry]

I disagree.. That you can no longer buy insurance which is meaningless is a good thing.. not a bad thing... even if 5% of the country who where paying for insurance which didn't cover them now have to pay more for insurance which does...

I would assert that it's certainly possible to argue how desirable various kinds of mandated coverage are.

For example, coverage for birth control. Is the country really better off, now that people are required to buy birth control insurance?

I'd certainly say it's reasonable to assert either way. (And I suspect that we will never know conclusively, one way or the other. Debating the desirability of that clause, IMO, will always simply be a matter of opinion.)

I have trouble with the notion that mandating coverage generates HUGE cost increases, and NO benefit.

But, weighing whether the benefits (which definitely exist) justify the costs (which definitely exist)? IMO, that's certainly a debate that ought to be had.

[Larry]

The 40% increases are not bogus,nor limited to one guy.

However, his statistic (which, I'll point out, is a bit of an apples and oranges thing. You're talking about the price of health insurance, and he's talking about total health spending) does at least IMPLY that they aren't TYPICAL, either.

Although it is possible that both of your claims are true, even for just one person.

If Person X has his insurance rates go up by $5000, but his insurance now pays him $5000 for a procedure that wasn't covered, before, then his PREMIUMS went up, but his TOTAL SPENDING didn't.

[twa]

The increases will become more typical if the law is implemented,they are now largely only in the individual market.

 

unless he keeps delaying mandates and issuing exemptions.

 

Covered procedures are more likely to shrink than expand ....just like the provider networks

[Larry]

JMS,

Obamacare is causing us to spend more on healthcare. My insurance rates were marked up with an Obamacare tax to pay for the exchanges.

Also you can't have a position without understanding the position.

Rates aren't rising at rapid levels because High Deductible plans are rapidly becoming the norm. I kept my rates for my company in check this year by raising my deductibles from $2400 to $4000 and switching health plans. Next year I will raise the deductible again to get yet lower rates. Just passing the cost to the employee.

He is posting statistics for total health care spending, for the nation as a whole. And that statistic shows spending, while going up, is going up at a rate that is historically low.

Now, I suppose it's possible that this might not be Good News.

If we create a hypothetical world where the government outlaws all policies with deductibles smaller than $10,000, then it's certainly possible that people would cut back on seeing the doctor or things, and perhaps total spending would go DOWN. But, it would go down, because people were self-rationing, and were avoiding using health care.

Spending, in that hypothetical, would go down. But would that be a Good Thing?

[chipwhich]

He is posting statistics for total health care spending, for the nation as a whole. And that statistic shows spending, while going up, is going up at a rate that is historically low.

 

Read my lips.

High Deductible Health Plan

 

All you have to do is talk to any representative from the major health providers and they will tell you the high deductible plans are successful in keeping people from going to the doctor unless the really have to.  In the old days you drop a $20 spot on the doc, hit the pharmacy and drop a $20 there.  Boom.  On the high deductible plan the drug alone could cost you hundreds of dollars.

 

So yeah medical spending has gone down because now people have to spend their own money until the deductibles are met.  Don't ask me, ask your insurance rep.

[Larry]

Read my lips.

Read my post.

Then see if you can agree with me without being insulting.

[chipwhich]

Read my post.

Then see if you can agree with me without being insulting.

 

Larry, seriously it wasn't meant as an insult.  I was doing my best Bush impression.

 

Yes the insurance reps are saying people are self rationing going to get medical care and in addition they are now looking to take generic meds whenever possible, when before there were those who would refuse anything but the actual drug.

Edited January 19, 2014 by chipwhich

[Larry]

Never heard of an insurance policy that would allow you to demand the name brand, if a generic was available. (Well, unless you paid for it yourself.)

[chipwhich]

Never heard of an insurance policy that would allow you to demand the name brand, if a generic was available. (Well, unless you paid for it yourself.)

 

I might be mistaken in that would be my employees who get paid their deductible so its free to them.

[Larry]

But, now the question that can actually be rationally debated. (Well, at least I hope).

Is people self-rationing health care a net good for the country?

I assume that at least part of the answer depends on what they're choosing to skip.

I assume that most would agree that skipping your cancer screenings because you don't want to pay for them may well cost you, and society, in the long run.

(That's why one part of Obamacare of which I approve, is the part which mandates that diagnostic procedures have to be paid in full, even before the deductible is met. I assume that it's better for society in the long run, if people don't skip their screenings.)

But, if a consumer with a sniffle and a mild fever decides not to bother going to the doctor, because he doesn't want to pay for it, or for some other reason, is that really bad for society?

I might be mistaken in that would be my employees who get paid their deductible so its free to them.

You are aware that your employees are far from typical health care consumers, aren't you?

They're people who the insurance company thinks are self-rationing, because of the deductibles. (And the insurance company prices these employees, based on the assumption that they'll self-ration). But who actually have zero-deductible insurance, because you're paying it for them.

They're being changed, as if they were high-deductible consumers. But they're behaving like zero-deductible consumers.

[JMS]

My point being, and I just threw out one example, is that Obamacare has a cost, and my example isn't the only one.  I don't know the total cost, but rates are higher because of it.

 

Only Obamacare doesn't have a cost.   The entire plan is a net positive.   The Congressional Budget Office is the gold standard for measuring the cost of government programs and they say Obamcare will save us hundreds of billions over the short term and Trillions over the long term.   And that hasn't changed since they initially determined that.

 

Even the Republicans Acknowledge this when they took control of congress in 2011.   The GOP wrote new rules for Congress  requiring that all new spending bills would have to be offset with spending cuts.   Only the Republicans wrote one exception.   If they repealed ObamaCare they would not require themselves to come up with the hundreds of billions it would cost...  

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/us/politics/05rules.html

 

NY Times,  January 4, 2011

 

Congress to Return With G.O.P. Vowing to Alter Rules

 

Members offering bills for new programs will have to explain how they will pay for them, not by raising new revenues but by finding other ways to cut costs.

 

.....

 

A big exception will be the bill to repeal the health care law that House Republicans plan to bring up next week. That bill will not be subject to amendments, nor will Republicans have to abide by their own new rules that compel them to offset the cost of new bills that add to the deficit; the health care repeal and tax cuts are not subject to this new rule.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/us/politics/05rules.html

 

Paul Ryan's budget cuts....   spent money to repeal Obamacare..

 

 

Washingtonpost 2011

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-ryan-budget-plan/2011/04/05/AFIaZpnC_blog.html

Fact-checking the (2011) Ryan budget plan

 

Mysteriously, though Ryan relies on the CBO to vouch for his plan, he appears to ignore CBO estimates that a repeal of the health care law would lead to an increase in the deficit. Instead, a substantial part of his claimed deficit reduction — $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years — comes from repealing the health care law. Where do those numbers come from? Ryan does not explain, and his spokesman did not respond to a query.

 

 

Paul Ryan's third Budget 2013...  Relies on Obamacare savings..

 

 

Forbes 2013.

Paul Ryan's (2013) Plan to Balance the Budget in Ten Years Relies on...Obamacare?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/03/16/paul-ryans-plan-to-balance-the-budget-in-ten-years-relies-on-obamacare/

Edited January 20, 2014 by JMS

[Larry]

Only Obamacare doesn't have a cost.   The entire plan is a net positive.   The Congressional budget office is the gold standard for measureing the cost of government programs and they say Obamcare will save us hundreds of billions over the short term and Trillions over the long term.

1) The CBO says that Obamacare contains enough taxes, to cover it's spending. That means it doesn't increase the deficit. That doesn't mean no cost.

2) And the CBO doesn't even look at how much the consumer will spend. They only look at what the government will spend.

If nothing else, face it: Every single mandate in Obamacare costs something. You can't mandate that insurance companies cover some condition, even something as trivial as birth control, and assert that it will cost nothing.

 

Covering birth control cannot possibly cause the health insurance of everybody in the country to go up by 40%.  And it doesn't have zero benefits for consumers. 

 

But it absolutely positively costs something. 

 

[chipwhich]

Only Obamacare doesn't have a cost.   The entire plan is a net positive.   The Congressional budget office is the gold standard for measureing the cost of government programs and they say Obamcare will save us hundreds of billions over the short term and Trillions over the long term.

 

Even the Republicans Acknowledge this when they took control of congress and they wrote a policy statement that all new spending bills would require them to be offset with spending cuts.   Only they wrote one exception.   If they repealed ObomaCare the GOP wrote an exception they would not require themselves to come up with the hundreds of billions it would cost...  

 

I love tail chasing conversation.

 

Me: Hey my insurance went up because of Obamacare.

You: No it didn't.

Me:  I provide example rates went up to pay for exchanges.

You:  Well that's marginal

Me:  Well I just showed you OC has a cost.

You:  Partisan politics.

 

Obamacare cost me money this year, not sure what conversation you are having.

[twa]

The CBO  projection is also based on a number of assumptions.....things have not worked as projected so far in a number of ways

[chipwhich]

But, now the question that can actually be rationally debated. (Well, at least I hope).

Is people self-rationing health care a net good for the country?

I assume that at least part of the answer depends on what they're choosing to skip.

I assume that most would agree that skipping your cancer screenings because you don't want to pay for them may well cost you, and society, in the long run.

(That's why one part of Obamacare of which I approve, is the part which mandates that diagnostic procedures have to be paid in full, even before the deductible is met. I assume that it's better for society in the long run, if people don't skip their screenings.)

But, if a consumer with a sniffle and a mild fever decides not to bother going to the doctor, because he doesn't want to pay for it, or for some other reason, is that really bad for society?

 

Well yes this is a conversation we could have.  Do I think people went to the doctor too much?  Yes.  Do I think some self rationing is good?  Yes.  Do I think Obamacare making certain checkups free is good?  Yes.  Do I think high deductible plans are good insurance plans?  No.  Do I think Obamacare will cause those plans to run rampant to keep "costs" down.  Yes.

 

 

You are aware that your employees are far from typical health care consumers, aren't you?

They're people who the insurance company thinks are self-rationing, because of the deductibles. (And the insurance company prices these employees, based on the assumption that they'll self-ration). But who actually have zero-deductible insurance, because you're paying it for them.

They're being changed, as if they were high-deductible consumers. But they're behaving like zero-deductible consumers.

 

Yes, but they aren't "cheating" the system so to speak.  The insurance company doesn't care who pays the deductible as long as it doesn't cost the insurance company money.

[chipwhich]

2) And the CBO doesn't even look at how much the consumer will spend. They only look at what the government will spend.

 

This.  Two different conversations.

Edited January 19, 2014 by chipwhich