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

[chipwhich]

Obamacare didn't increase the pool of high deductible insurance plans available?

 

Huh... I thought the complaint from the right was that the exchanges were filled with plans that sucked because they had high deductibles.  Interesting.

 

I have to stop with this thread.  I stopped once before and it was for the greater glory that I did.  I just reminded myself that this thread is nothing but an outlet for right wing propaganda and for self-pats-on-the-back.

 

TSF,

 

You confuse 2 costs, unless you can come to term with those costs, you will always be thinking it's a political argument.

 

High deductible plans keep premiums down.  So whoever you want to give credit to, so be it.

 

The PROBLEM is that low premiums don't account for peoples out of pocket costs.

 

So my deductibles have gone from $1200/$2400 to $2000/$4000.  Premiums look great.  How will you like it when your law firm takes you from a copay only system to a $4000 deductible plan?  The premiums for the firm will be fabulous.  It's the employee who suffers.

I really don't get how hard of a concept this is.

[twa]

But if I didn't buy it, then it didn't cost me (or anybody else) anything.

 

Not if you didn't need the widget no.

 

we could even restrict availability of the widget and claim to have reduced total spending on the widget....would the cost of the widget then be different?

[Larry]

Not if you didn't need the widget no.

we could even restrict availability of the widget and claim to have reduced total spending on the widget....would the cost of the widget then be different?

Now you're trying to confuse the TOTAL cost of all widgets, and the MSRP of a SINGLE widget.

[twa]

Now you're trying to confuse the TOTAL cost of all widgets, and the MSRP of a SINGLE widget.

 

now ya get it 

[GibbsFactor]

TSF,

 

You confuse 2 costs, unless you can come to term with those costs, you will always be thinking it's a political argument.

 

High deductible plans keep premiums down.  So whoever you want to give credit to, so be it.

 

The PROBLEM is that low premiums don't account for peoples out of pocket costs.

 

So my deductibles have gone from $1200/$2400 to $2000/$4000.  Premiums look great.  How will you like it when your law firm takes you from a copay only system to a $4000 deductible plan?  The premiums for the firm will be fabulous.  It's the employee who suffers.

I really don't get how hard of a concept this is.

 

NY Law Firms started talking about doing this right after Obamacare passed and it's still on the table for some very large and prominent NY Law Firms.  I'm sure DC headquartered firms and any other SMBs (the biggest of lawfirms are under 4000 employees) will start considering the same.   

 

Existing healthcare plans will change.  It will be too expensive not to.

[chipwhich]

NY Law Firms started talking about doing this right after Obamacare passed and it's still on the table for some very large and prominent NY Law Firms.  I'm sure DC headquartered firms and any other SMBs (the biggest of lawfirms are under 4000 employees) will start considering the same.   

 

Existing healthcare plans will change.  It will be too expensive not to.

 

Yeah everyone will end up in a high deductible plan eventually, you can't afford to avoid it.

 

It's not a political argument just a factual reality.  It does skew the cost of premiums for the last few years.  Sure they look better but don't tell the whole story, which is insurance companies are passing off the costs of care to people until they really need it.  Those costs don't show up in the stats.

Edited January 28, 2014 by chipwhich

[Tulane Skins Fan]

TSF,

 

You confuse 2 costs, unless you can come to term with those costs, you will always be thinking it's a political argument.

 

High deductible plans keep premiums down.  So whoever you want to give credit to, so be it.

 

The PROBLEM is that low premiums don't account for peoples out of pocket costs.

 

So my deductibles have gone from $1200/$2400 to $2000/$4000.  Premiums look great.  How will you like it when your law firm takes you from a copay only system to a $4000 deductible plan?  The premiums for the firm will be fabulous.  It's the employee who suffers.

I really don't get how hard of a concept this is.

 

I'm not confusing those two costs.  You are lecturing me when you should be trying to understand me.

 

TSF,

Suspect I share your opinion of "tort reform". But I confess I don't see where you get your assertion that it's unconstitutional.

 

Well, the 7th Amendment says that congress shall make no law that infringes on the right of an individual to a jury trial in a civil case.  Putting a cap on damages infringes on the right because a jury decides the value of your case, unless Congress presets it.

 

Also, the GOP just did this whole big debate about how the commerce clause didn't apply to Obamacare because health insurance isn't across state lines.  John Roberts' opinion agreed with that.  He said commerce clause doesn't permit the obamacare mandate or empower the federal government to regulate healthcare because its not interstate commerce.  This applies to any federal law trying to regulate health insurance.

 

So, in conjunction with the 7th amendment specifically prohibiting it, there is no power for congress to enact federal tort reform.

[chipwhich]

I'm not confusing those two costs.  You are lecturing me when you should be trying to understand me.

 

Sorry, I am listening now.

 

I think we can discuss this without trying to protect our party.  Which I don't.

 

So premiums are going down.  Out of pocket costs are going up.  What can we conclude from those two points?

Edited January 28, 2014 by chipwhich

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Sorry, I am listening now.

 

I think we can discuss this without trying to protect our party.  Which I don't.

 

So premiums are going down.  Out of pocket costs are going up.  What can we conclude from those two points?

 

No, go back and listen.  Healthcare costs are going down.  Not premiums.  

 

Look, you guys are cherry-picking a lot of stats.  As I said about thirty pages ago in this thread, we won't know if Obamacare worked or not today, or tomorrow.  We may not know a year from now.  But you are comparing apples to oranges all over the place to say certain things went up.

 

Healthcare costs and premiums have ALWAYS gone up.  Well, for the last 25 years or so they have been going up faster than the rate of inflation.  That is the problem.  The point to Obamacare was to bend the cost curve, not to send premiums diving down.  But to SLOW the rate.  The other point of Obamacare was to make health insurance ACCESSIBLE to everyone.  

 

I don't see anyone saying that its definitive that out of pocket costs are going up.  I don't see anyone saying its definitive that premiums are going up or down.  It does appear that everyone is agreeing that healthcare costs are slowing since the inception of Obamacare.  It also seems patently obvious that millions of people have obtained new access to healthcare insurance that they otherwise wouldn't have had.  Based on what we think we know today: 1) Obamacare seems to have (although not definitively) slowed the cost of healthcare, i.e. bent the curve; and 2) made healthcare more accessible.

 

We won't know FOR YEARS if this has lowered premiums from what they otherwise would have been, or from what they actually were (an actual lowering of the numbers).  We also won't know if people have seen their deductibles go up, on average, FOR YEARS.

 

So, again, I'm tired of this thread.  You guys largely don't understand healthcare, which is true of probably 100% of this board, myself included.  But you talk about it like you are geniuses in it, mixing all types of statistics and misquoting people every which way. 

 

Just take a breath, relax and recognize that Obamacare has not ruined your life.

[Wrong Direction]

No.

 

The new GOP plan that came out today has a couple things going for it, and it looks largely like Obamacare.  Already saying it may not get GOP support to get through the house.  But, some interesting stuff.

 

Of course, they include tort deform that has nothing to do with health insurance costs, and has no constitutional viability at all, but hey.

 

I suspect it only looks like ObamaCare if federal control of the healthcare system isn't a major problem for you. I've included a couple of links below if anyone's interested in reading some conservative cases in favor of what the R's proposed. Personally, I recommend people read the conservative case for something so you know the arguments in favor.

 

Opinion Piece

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/369556/gop-introduces-comprehensive-obamacare-alternative-patrick-brennan

 

Coburn description

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=871b0ef8-7705-4f72-aef2-e81d01b9c009

 

Coburn FAQ

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=a7d4414d-3405-472d-9367-6c2f4ed1d581

[chipwhich]

TSF,

 

It's because you ignore the fact that when someone is faced with paying 100% out of pocket due to a deductible makes them more likely to only go to the doctor when they REALLY need to.  Which makes health care spending go down.

 

High deductibles are a deterrent to going to the doctor.

 

Again, why this is so incomprehensible to you is head scratching.

 

Insurance companies realized by putting the onus on the covered to pay the cost of a procedure you then make it less likely the covered will spend the money unless it is truly necessary.

Edited January 28, 2014 by chipwhich

[Wrong Direction]

 

It does appear that everyone is agreeing that healthcare costs are slowing since the inception of Obamacare.  

 

 

Everyone agrees that the slow in healthcare costs predates the ACA, and CMS stated that it was due to economic conditions, not the ACA.

 

[Edit: Link to publication citing this:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/1/67.full.pdf+html]

 

 

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was enacted in March 2010, had a minimal impact on overall national health spending growth through 2012.

 

Edited January 28, 2014 by Wrong Direction

[Wrong Direction]

TSF,

 

It's because you ignore the fact that when someone is faced with paying 100% out of pocket due to a deductible makes them more likely to only go to the doctor when they REALLY need to.  Which makes health care spending go down.

 

High deductibles are a deterrent to going to the doctor.

 

Again, why this is so incomprehensible to you is head scratching.

 

Insurance companies realized by putting the onus on the covered to pay the cost of a procedure you then make it less likely the covered will spend the money unless it is truly necessary.

 

For what it's worth, the National Health Expenditures report accounts for all health spending (personal, employer, government) and reports aggregate growth rates, with sub rates available. I'm 99% sure of this.

 

In the aggregate, growth rates have been low. However, lower growth rates pre-date the ACA and the provisions that have been implemented have small effects on aggregate costs. You'd be more interested in a comparison of costs between:

 

1. people who were covered in a private plan pre and post the ACA, to see rates.

2. people who were covered in a private plan and then moved to an exchange plan.

3. breakdowns in cost sharing between employers and individual members, over time.

 

That data may become available, but TSF is right that the ACA's specific effects are unknown to date and will likely remain unknown to the public for another 2ish years since next year's NHE report will only report 2013 data (e.g., pre-implementation).

[Tulane Skins Fan]

TSF,

 

It's because you ignore the fact that when someone is faced with paying 100% out of pocket due to a deductible makes them more likely to only go to the doctor when they REALLY need to.  Which makes health care spending go down.

 

High deductibles are a deterrent to going to the doctor.

 

Again, why this is so incomprehensible to you is head scratching.

 

Insurance companies realized by putting the onus on the covered to pay the cost of a procedure you then make it less likely the covered will spend the money unless it is truly necessary.

 

Ah, that is the reason now?  You did a scientific survey on that?

 

Oh, and Obamacare plans have been in place for 28 days now!  28 days and you are claiming that those high deductible policies are responsible for the slow in growth that predates those plans?

 

This is nonsense.  Total and utter nonsense.

 

You dont understand the effects of Obamacare on costs, whether it be premiums or total healthcare costs because no one does.  Just let it go.

 

Let me try this one more time: if you want to COMPARE how Obamcare changed things, you have to understand not only Obamacare's effects (which no one does), but you must also understand the old system.  When you say things like "high deductibles" don't pay for a doctor's visit now, you expose that you don't understand much about healthcare payments, before or after Obamacare.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Tulane Skins Fan

[twa]

It will be interesting to watch

We know the CBO says the ACA will add a trillion in costs over the next decade, will that be considered increased health spending?

 

Will it save tax dollars elsewhere or lower personal health spending though,or just be a Robin Hood tax increase?

 

what and how we measure is fun......who gets the bill is even funner

[Tulane Skins Fan]

It will be interesting to watch

We know the CBO says the ACA will add a trillion in costs over the next decade, will that be considered increased health spending?

 

Will it save tax dollars elsewhere or lower personal health spending though,or just be a Robin Hood tax increase?

 

what and how we measure is fun......who gets the bill is even funner

 

Just checking... the CBO is legitimate now?

[twa]

The CBO is a guess, hopefully a educated one.....same as the GAO

 

It would be more accurate if we could eliminate the human factor.....we could even save money too.

[chipwhich]

Ah, that is the reason now?  You did a scientific survey on that?

 

Oh, and Obamacare plans have been in place for 28 days now!  28 days and you are claiming that those high deductible policies are responsible for the slow in growth that predates those plans?

 

This is nonsense.  Total and utter nonsense.

 

You dont understand the effects of Obamacare on costs, whether it be premiums or total healthcare costs because no one does.  Just let it go.

TSF,

 

This is where our conversation started.

 

chipwhich, on 28 Jan 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

"Well that certainly is an opinion.

 

Cost of healthcare has slowed because of the increase in High Deductible plans.  Not because of Obamacare."

 

You seem to twist what I say into your own pretzel.

 

I was simply discussing why health care spending has slowed.

 

And while Obamacare plans have been in place for 28 days, the effects of Obamacare have started way before now.

 

 

Let me try this one more time: if you want to COMPARE how Obamcare changed things, you have to understand not only Obamacare's effects (which no one does), but you must also understand the old system.  When you say things like "high deductibles" don't pay for a doctor's visit now, you expose that you don't understand much about healthcare payments, before or after Obamacare.

 

Funny I just sat through my mid year review for my companies health care.  I have been buying the health care for my employees for 7 years.  I think I understand how it works.

 

I am intimately involved with what gets paid for in doctors visits, what a deductible is.

Edited January 28, 2014 by chipwhich

[Kilmer17]

CBO Director: Obamacare ‘Creates a Disincentive for People to Work’

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-director-obamacare-creates-disincentive-people-work_778760.html

 

Testifying before the House Budget Committee yesterday, Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf said of Obamacare, “[T]he act creates a disincentive for people to work.” He declared, “y providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low income and then withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, the act creates a disincentive for people to work—relative to what would have been the case in the absence of that act.”

 

 

Great News!!!!!!

[Larry]

Certainly seems believable.

Anybody know what the relationship is, between people's income and the subsidy?

For every dollar more I make, does the subsidy go down by a dollar? Ten cents? One cent?

I also wonder how aware people are, of any thresholds. If there's a situation where, if some guy gets a 10 dollar raise, his insurance goes up 50 bucks, then is that person aware that he's close to that threshold?

[Mad Mike]

CBO Director: Actually, Obamacare Will Reduce Unemployment

 

 

One day after multiple media outlets misinterpreted a CBO report on Obamacare, Elmendorf clarified the CBO's position during the hearing. The federal agency, Elmendorf said, had found Obamacare “spurs employment and would reduce unemployment over the next few years."

 

“When you boost demand for labor in this kind of economy, you actually reduce the unemployment rate, because those people who are looking for work can find more work," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) asked Elmendorf.

“Yes, that’s right,” Elmendorf responded.

 

Another Tea Party lie exposed.

[Kilmer17]

I think it's the broader point that is most important.

 

Why do we have govt programs that make it MORE likely for people to need Govt programs?

 

Govt programs should exist to help people transition OFF Govt help.

 

A person sitting at home isnt helping the economy grow.

CBO Director: Actually, Obamacare Will Reduce Unemployment

 

 

Another Tea Party lie exposed.

Bull****.  He got beaten up by the Obama administration and is in desperate backtrack mode.

 

It may reduce the rate, because the people who dont need to work because the Govt is providing everything, wont count on the unemployment numbers.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Kilmer17

[TradeTheBeal!]

The child is taking it's first steps.  So young and unsteady.  

[twa]

that the projection changed from 800K to 2 Million is not troubling at all

 

the medicaid cost is gonna jump

[Mad Mike]

Bull****.  He got beaten up by the Obama administration and is in desperate backtrack mode.

 

It may reduce the rate, because the people who dont need to work because the Govt is providing everything, wont count on the unemployment numbers.

 

I'm calling bull*** on you. From the report...

 

 

 

Although CBO projects that total employment (and compensation) will increase over the coming decade, that increase will be smaller than it would have been in the absence of the aCA. The decline in full-time-equivalent employment stemming from the ACA will consist of some people not being employed at all and other people working fewer hours; however, CBO has not tried to quantify those two components of the overall effect. The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in business’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking, but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).

 

What that means is that those who can afford to can retire and open up jobs for the millions of unemployed workers who need one.

 

Claiming "He got beaten up by the Obama administration" is your personal conspiracy theory.