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

[twa]

True or false question. Isn't it awfully difficult to decrease the debt without decreasing the deficit first? It seems one sort of follows the other.

 

 

 

True

 

 

True or false  ....the deficit has not been reduced except when compared to select years.(namely the massive bailout)

 

healthcare spending is rising as well....imagine that

True or false question. Isn't it awfully difficult to decrease the debt without decreasing the deficit first? It seems one sort of follows the other.

 

 

 

True

 

 

True or false  ....the deficit has not been reduced except when compared to select years.(namely the massive bailout)

 

healthcare spending is rising as well....imagine that

[The Sisko]

 

Quoted from: http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-about-debt-and-deficits-2013-10#ixzz327LrhWwU

• The United States has indeed incurred a significant debt load over the last decade — $17 trillion in total. About $6 trillion of this is owed to the government itself.
• This absolute amount of debt is much less meaningful than the debt as a percentage of GDP, which is now about 73% (after netting out the amount that the government owes to itself. Including the intra-government debt, it's just north of 100% of GDP).
• That's the highest level of debt the country has carried since just after World War 2, but it is not an unsustainable level of debt. The country's lenders are not panicking and demanding higher interest rates, and the hypothesized "point of no return" of ~90% of GDP that was talked about frequently a few years ago has been shown to have been the product of a calculation error. More debt is not good, necessarily, but it's also not devastating.
• The country's deficit — the amount we're adding to the debt every year — has dropped sharply and is expected to be only 4% of GDP this year. That's down from a peak of almost 10% a few years ago.
• Contrary to popular perception, our deficit is expected to continue to shrink for the next couple of years, until it reaches only 2% of GDP in 2015.
• This shrinking deficit, combined with the growth of the economy, will reduce our debt to GDP ratio over the next few years. Our debt-to-GDP is expected to fall to 68% by 2016.
• After 2016, the projected growth of healthcare, Social Security, and other social-program spending will begin to expand the deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio again.
• Over the following several decades, under current law, the projected growth of these social programs will balloon the deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio — to the point where our debt really will become unsustainable.

In other words, again, contrary to what you may be hearing from your favorite politician on TV...

* We do NOT have a near-term debt or deficit problem. Our current debt load is sustainable, and the deficit and debt-as-a-percent-of-GDP are expected to shrink in the next few years. We do not need to cut near-term spending, no matter how strenuously people tell you we do.

 

* We DO have a long-term debt and deficit problem. We do have to reduce the expected deficits from Medicare, Medicaid, and other spending from 2016 onward, either by reducing the spending of these programs or raising revenue to pay for them (or a combination of both.)

 

See above. We all know (even you, in private when you're not trolling....unless you troll yourself, who knows?) that a combination of reasonable cuts to social and other programs coupled with reasonable revenue increases is the way to solve this alleged "crisis". To define what I'd call reasonable, I'd say about a 1:1 ratio would probably work since it seems that's roughly the amount caused by tax cuts:

 

Unfortunately neither of the two parties was willing to sign on to the Obama/Boehner "grand bargain" that was at least a start to that process. Unless the economy and hence revenues start growing at a much greater rate, it's going to be a lot worse down the road and at that point it probably really will be a crisis. I'm actually hoping that the GOP is in full control when it happens (like they had under W. when they massively cut and balanced the budget....oh, wait) because I'd like to see them cut taxes (which as we all know raises revenue, right? *Hint* WRONG!) and entitlements like they want to so that we can see where the American public's heart really lies. Even though it's almost impossible that I'll get that wish, it is something to hope for.

[twa]

Anything is sustainable if ya keep the debt rolling 

 

New O-Care regs slash fees for some unions

Read more: http://thehill.com/regulation/healthcare/200041-new-o-care-regs-slash-fees-for-some-unions#ixzz327STykaO 
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

[Larry]

True or false  ....the deficit has not been reduced except when compared to select years.(namely the massive bailout)

False.

The word "reduced" does require the comparison between two numbers.  That's an inherent characteristic of the word. 

However, unless specified otherwise, it means "compared to the previous".

Nothing "select" about it.

 

Now, if someone were demanding that, instead of comparing it to the previous, we compare it to something else, then they would be comparing it to select years. 

 

But wait.  Isn't that what you're doing? 

 

----------

 

But, to try to tear things away from twa's attempt to divert the discussion away from Obamacare by posting deceptive sound bite after deceptive sound bite, knowing that they're unrelated and intentionally deceptive, in the hopes that people will waste a bunch of time pointing out that his deceptive sound bites are deceptive, let's actually stick to the topic of the thread. 

 

healthcare spending is rising as well....imagine that

 

 

Yes, I assume that it is. 

 

I suspect that gravity is also still working, that the Earth is continuing to orbit the Sun, and that water is still wet. 

 

It also, last few years, has been growing at a historically low rate. 

 

But then, you knew that, which was why you decided not to support your claim (what's the matter?  Couldn't find a source that didn't mention the historically low rate of growth?), and instead pull your second time this evening to attack Obamacare because it has not met an impossible-to-achieve goal. 

 

No, Obamacare has not single-handedly balanced the federal budget, eliminated all disease, caused total health care costs to go down, eliminated death, or destroyed all life in Texas. 

Edited May 19, 2014 by Larry

[chipwhich]

 

It also, last few years, has been growing at a historically low rate.

 

As I told you before, that is because of the introduction of high deductible plans.

 

Keep kicking that can though.

[twa]

Why has the historically slow spending growth grown faster as ACA has been implemented?

 

watch and learn, lies only get ya so far

 

add

http://www.healthcanal.com/surgery-rehabilitation/50722-michigan-surgery-study-shows-worse-health-more-problems-and-higher-costs-among-medicaid-patients.html

Michigan surgery study shows worse health, more problems and higher costs among Medicaid patients

12/05/2014 21:57:00

Detailed analysis of hospital data may have implications for hospital finances as Medicaid expands in many states

Edited May 19, 2014 by twa

[Larry]

Why has the historically slow spending growth grown faster as ACA has been implemented?

watch and learn, lies only get ya so far

I sincerely promise that, if I wanted to learn how far lies would get someone, I would be looking to the Republican Party, and you, for my studies.

Detailed analysis of hospital data may have implications for hospital finances as Medicaid expands in many states

Wow, look! A study which reveals that poor people tend to have worse health than richer people, .....

ANN ARBOR, Mich. — Surgery patients covered by Medicaid come into their operations with worse health, do worse afterward, stay in the hospital longer and find themselves back in the hospital more often than those covered by private insurance, a new analysis by University of Michigan Medical School researchers finds.

..... And twa wants us to conclude that this is Medicaid's fault.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Larry

[Larry]

As I told you before, that is because of the introduction of high deductible plans.

Keep kicking that can though.

Actually, the things I've read say that the primary reason for it is the poor economy.

Which is one reason why I didn't attempt to assign a reason for it. (See my recent post about the difficulty of trying to assign credit or blame solely to Obamacare).

But I'm certain that you will be jumping up to attack the person kicking the "Obamacare is bad because it has not completely eliminated the growth in health care spending" can, (you know, the point I was actually making, instead of the one I didn't make, but you wish I did), real soon, now. You being such a stickler for argument accuracy, and all.

[chipwhich]

Actually, the things I've read say that the primary reason for it is the poor economy.

Which is one reason why I didn't attempt to assign a reason for it. (See my recent post about the difficulty of trying to assign credit or blame solely to Obamacare).

But I'm certain that you will be jumping up to attack the person kicking the "Obamacare is bad because it has not completely eliminated the growth in health care spending" can, (you know, the point I was actually making, instead of the one I didn't make, but you wish I did), real soon, now. You being such a stickler for argument accuracy, and all.

 

Well the only thing keeping my health care costs for my company down are increasing the deductible year after year for the last 2 years, and 3 years for this years renewal.  Push the deductible costs to the patient.  But I am certain you will deny that it's true.  Why?  Because you don't have any facts.  But you read the rags.

 

In ASF posts terms, my health care costs are jumping $ 130,000 this year.  Stuff it democrats.  See how that works?

[Larry]

Well the only thing keeping my health care costs for my company down are increasing the deductible year after year for the last 2 years, and 3 years for this years renewal. Push the deductible costs to the patient. But I am certain you will deny that it's true. Why? Because you don't have any facts. But you read the rags.

I observe that when your schtick consists of attacking things I haven't said, apparently it saves time to invent things that you claim I'm GOING to say, so you can attack them.

[AsburySkinsFan]

ASF, if you wan't to join the discussions. Please post a fact. There is no such thing as a deductible of $2.51 for a hernia sergia in ANY health care plan whether it's from the ACA or not.

How 'bout I scan the receipt and post it for you.

BTW, calling me a liar when you weren't sitting beside me as I paid that deductible is foolish on your part.

Maybe next time you might ask a question, because I know what I paid and I know what I was told by the hospital employee who registered my wife.

So unless you're going to say that you were sitting behind me and over-heard something different, I'd put a sock in it.

Edited May 19, 2014 by AsburySkinsFan

[twa]

..... And twa wants us to conclude that this is Medicaid's fault.

 

I think you would recognize savings assumptions based on insuring more are probably overestimated....now or or later(when reality intrudes) doesn't matter.

 

medicaid's fault rotflmao

[Larry]

How 'bout I scan the receipt and post it for you.

BTW, calling me a liar when you weren't sitting beside me as I paid that deductible is foolish on your part.

Maybe next time you might ask a question, because I know what I paid and I know what I was told by the hospital employee who registered my wife.

So unless you're going to say that you were sitting behind me and over-heard something different, I'd put a sock in it.

Just a guess, I suspect that he is trying to point out that it is extremely unlikely that your policy contains a deductible of $2.51. This is such because deductibles tend to be round numbers, and much larger. (Like, $500 - $5,000)

It is much more likely that you had a $2.51 copay, or a fee for something that was uncovered.

At least, I assume that that is his problem with your claim, because that's what I read, when I read your post.

(I simply didn't feel a compulsive need to attack somebody who said something positive about Obamacare, for using the wrong word.)

Edited May 19, 2014 by Larry

[mcsluggo]

Well the only thing keeping my health care costs for my company down are increasing the deductible year after year for the last 2 years, and 3 years for this years renewal.  Push the deductible costs to the patient.  But I am certain you will deny that it's true.  Why?  Because you don't have any facts.  But you read the rags.

 

In ASF posts terms, my health care costs are jumping $ 130,000 this year.  Stuff it democrats.  See how that works?

 

and what what keeping costs down for your company each of the OTHER 25 or so years that health care costs have been increasing way faster than inflation?

[chipwhich]

How 'bout I scan the receipt and post it for you.

BTW, calling me a liar when you weren't sitting beside me as I paid that deductible is foolish on your part.

Maybe next time you might ask a question, because I know what I paid and I know what I was told by the hospital employee who registered my wife.

So unless you're going to say that you were sitting behind me and over-heard something different, I'd put a sock in it.

 

 

ASF, your statement had as much value as this statement I am about to make.  My health care costs company wide are going up 100K this year.  Shove it left.

See what I did there?  I made a statement that has ZERO context.

and what what keeping costs down for your company each of the OTHER 25 or so years that health care costs have been increasing way faster than inflation?

 

Nothing.

But High Deductible plans aren't Obamacare.

I observe that when your schtick consists of attacking things I haven't said, apparently it saves time to invent things that you claim I'm GOING to say, so you can attack them.

 

That's your usual schtick.  You always claim to never say anything and commit to nothing.

[Larry]

Deleted

Edited May 19, 2014 by Larry

[skinsmarydu]

So, hubby called to check on the colonoscopy, to make sure that the polyp removal was really free...after speaking to his doctor's office and Humana, IT WAS. Totally free.

Shove that, chip.

Sorry dude, you just keep saying stuff you wish other people could, but they can't, because they'd be lying if they said things weren't better for them. (My emphasis on "them" is firm.) I honestly wish you hadn't used your free will to put yourself in a crappy situation.

Because you know we all have free will.

[twa]

w/o getting in the middle,  ....perhaps the physician got wise and did not list the polyp removals?

 

or maybe they changed the  rules....again 

 

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/10/obamacare-covers-screening-colonoscopies-catch.html

 

The Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare) makes an effort to get more people to get preventive care screening by requiring that there be no deductibles or co-pays for defined screening and prevention services. Sounds good. But there may be a catch, as I soon learned.

 

..

A check at healthfinder.gov stated that colonoscopy was covered by the ACA and that, “if your doctor finds polyps inside your colon during testing, these growths can be removed before they become cancer.”

I decided to call the doctor’s billing office to check. After the clerk talked to her supervisor she called back to say that I was correct that there was to be no deductible if it was a simple “screening” colonoscopy. But since the doctor had found and removed a polyp it became a therapeutic procedure. Medicare and Medigap (and apparently commercial insurers as well for those under 65) do not recognize this as a preventive screening procedure under the ACA guidelines. Hence I was on the hook for the remaining $65.52.

By chance I was at a breakfast shortly after with a senior person at Blue Cross who confirmed that, yes, this was the rule. I also received a facility charge (nurses, procedure room, equipment, cleaning, etc.) of $695; Medicare reduced that to $391. This left a Medigap portion of $78.15 but again it was my responsibility to pay.

Finally were the anesthesiologist’s bills totaling $975. Medicare reduced that to $150, paid $65 leaving me with a bill of $66. So altogether it cost me just under $250 to have the colonoscopy and the peace of mind that all is in order. Not a bad value.

[skinsmarydu]

w/o getting in the middle,  ....perhaps the physician got wise and did not list the polyp removals?

That's why I made a point of saying he spoke to both...jeez. It's not like he ignored the bill that said "this is not a bill". He still went and researched, talked to folks in both offices(technically 3 if you count calling his primary care dude, who was elated at the final outcome!).

What physician doesn't list absolutely everything they can get away with? On the flip side, I got charged $44 for an ear irrigation, but whatevs...if I was still on an 80/20 plan, my physical would've cost me at least $200 (w/labwork) instead of $25.

Wow.

edit, add: I guess premiums make up the rest? Maybe that's why Medicare is different? (don't know since I'm not old yet, lol)

Edited May 19, 2014 by skinsmarydu

[twa]

my plans always paid 100% for a yearly checkup.

 

after looking more, they changed the policy on polyp removal last year

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/20/heres-one-way-obamacare-changed-today/

 

I'm waiting now to see if I have to get a PCP referral to see a eye specialist,or if the optometrist referral is all I need.

 

rules are a pain

[skinsmarydu]

Hopefully it's something that can be solved easily, twa.

[twa]

Hopefully it's something that can be solved easily, twa.

A bullet is cheap 

 

just age and injuries,time for a rebuild

[chipwhich]

So, hubby called to check on the colonoscopy, to make sure that the polyp removal was really free...after speaking to his doctor's office and Humana, IT WAS. Totally free.

Shove that, chip.

Sorry dude, you just keep saying stuff you wish other people could, but they can't, because they'd be lying if they said things weren't better for them. (My emphasis on "them" is firm.) I honestly wish you hadn't used your free will to put yourself in a crappy situation.

Because you know we all have free will.

 

SMD, here is the thing, I don't lie in what I post.  And I have never said anything untrue about you.  1)  Unless you recently enrolled in Obamacare, you don't have it.  Telling me to shove it isn't kind    2)  It is free because you have good insurance.  3)  What you have is what we all have, it's called insurance.  You also misrepresent my opinion on Obamacare.  But you don't read what I wrote you spew emotions

 

But I still love you.

Now when you buy one of these high deductible doozies off the ACA website and get that same procedure done, call me.

What ASF posted earlier had no context just as your post has no context as related to Obamacare.  If ASF bought a policy from the ACA website and it had a deductible, let's say $1000 then he already paid his deductible, and the deductible remaining was $2.

Now I know you won't read what I write and discuss, you will just emotionally hammer me

[Wrong Direction]

Mike Pence on a Medicaid alternative.

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303908804579564101526792442

[The Sisko]

w/o getting in the middle,  ....perhaps the physician got wise and did not list the polyp removals?

 

or maybe they changed the  rules....again 

 

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/10/obamacare-covers-screening-colonoscopies-catch.html

 

The Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare) makes an effort to get more people to get preventive care screening by requiring that there be no deductibles or co-pays for defined screening and prevention services. Sounds good. But there may be a catch, as I soon learned.

 

..

A check at healthfinder.gov stated that colonoscopy was covered by the ACA and that, “if your doctor finds polyps inside your colon during testing, these growths can be removed before they become cancer.”

I decided to call the doctor’s billing office to check. After the clerk talked to her supervisor she called back to say that I was correct that there was to be no deductible if it was a simple “screening” colonoscopy. But since the doctor had found and removed a polyp it became a therapeutic procedure. Medicare and Medigap (and apparently commercial insurers as well for those under 65) do not recognize this as a preventive screening procedure under the ACA guidelines. Hence I was on the hook for the remaining $65.52.

By chance I was at a breakfast shortly after with a senior person at Blue Cross who confirmed that, yes, this was the rule. I also received a facility charge (nurses, procedure room, equipment, cleaning, etc.) of $695; Medicare reduced that to $391. This left a Medigap portion of $78.15 but again it was my responsibility to pay.

Finally were the anesthesiologist’s bills totaling $975. Medicare reduced that to $150, paid $65 leaving me with a bill of $66. So altogether it cost me just under $250 to have the colonoscopy and the peace of mind that all is in order. Not a bad value.

 

Although you and others might see it as the MD being able to jack up the costs, the alternative would be to not charge you for the initial screening, then go back in later for the therapeutic procedure. I don't know about you but I'd rather keep the, 'er traffic in the wrong direction up my bum to a minimum. It saves the system money as well. That's a win-win if I ever heard of one. But you just keep on thinking you're somehow being cheated by Obamacare. I know how much that means to you.

 

SMD, here is the thing, I don't lie in what I post.  And I have never said anything untrue about you.  1)  Unless you recently enrolled in Obamacare, you don't have it.  Telling me to shove it isn't kind    2)  It is free because you have good insurance.  3)  What you have is what we all have, it's called insurance.  You also misrepresent my opinion on Obamacare.  But you don't read what I wrote you spew emotions

 

But I still love you.

Now when you buy one of these high deductible doozies off the ACA website and get that same procedure done, call me.

What ASF posted earlier had no context just as your post has no context as related to Obamacare.  If ASF bought a policy from the ACA website and it had a deductible, let's say $1000 then he already paid his deductible, and the deductible remaining was $2.

Now I know you won't read what I write and discuss, you will just emotionally hammer me

 

Speaking of no context, you mentioned that your premiums went up. You do realize that you and your employees are probably getting more coverage for the additional money, right? That and the increases you'd have inevitably incurred even if Obamacare never existed are some things to take into account in the overall evaluation...among other things I'm sure. Obviously, I don't know that anyone can say whether that evens out with the premium increase but there's more to it than just "my employee premiums went up. Stuff it left!"

 

As for the "high deductible doosies" comment, in most cases the ACA increased requirements for coverage. That's why folks with the high deductible or bare bones coverage plans that didn't meet the requirements of the ACA were all up in arms that they couldn't keep their coverage. Their policies weren't going to be offered any longer because they were deemed inadequate.

 

Finally, I think there's another thing that gets overlooked in all of the "my premiums increased" and "my policy isn't being offered any longer" type stuff. While that may create short-term pain for you, it benefits the system as a whole which in turn individuals benefit from by lowered costs over the intermediate term, not to mention better health. To use the colonoscopy example from above, how much does it cost for the colonoscopy vs. treating a preventable colon cancer later? Is your life/health worth the thousand or so bucks paid at the time of the procedure?

 

Yes, in the longer term prevention really doesn't save money because even though you'd save the money by not having to pay for the colon cancer treatment, you'd then potentially live long enough to incur expensive end of life care as an older person. Simply put, dying young saves the system money. I'd challenge anyone to truthfully tell me they'd rather be dead than spend the money on the screening...which doesn't come free. Isn't that a pro-life position? Or does pro-life only apply to fetuses? 

Edited May 20, 2014 by Yusuf06