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

[twa]

haven't mammograms been covered for a long while?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-11-19-1Amammogram19_ST_N.htm

[skinsmarydu]

I WOULD LIKE TO REIITERATE...

Menfolk, with ladies you care about, please encourage the screening.

Edited April 18, 2013 by skinsmarydu

[twa]

Free and reduced price mammograms have been policy for decades by both govt grants and most ins policies

but yes they are a good idea

[twa]

http://www.everydayhealth.com/healthy-living/health-actuaries-obamacare-rates-will-soar.aspx

Health Actuaries: Obamacare Rates Will Soar

But health law supporters are pushing back, noting close ties between the actuaries making the forecasts and an insurance industry that has been complaining about taxes.

The committee was discussing a study published last month by the Society of Actuaries (SOA) predicting that, thanks to sicker patients joining the coverage pool, medical claims per member will rise 32 percent in the individual plans expected to dominate the ACA exchanges next year. In some states costs will rise as much as 80 percent, the report said.

[Larry]

Wow.

If the prices (and coverage) in the exchanges are so terrible, then I bet those Republican Governors who've announced that they won't allow their citizens to see them, will be changing their minds, any day now, huh?

[@DCGoldPants]

at least Trump is still talking about it.

[aREDSKIN]

Another perspective.

"The best way to understand the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) is to realize that it confers large benefits on some people and imposes large costs on others."

f you are one of the ones who will qualify for expanded Medicaid, you will get something for nothing. Although there are quality issues and access problems, including rationing by waiting, Medicaid will probably spend $8,000 on an average family of four over the course of a year. Enrollment is like an $8,000 gift from the government.

If your income is a tad too high for Medicaid, you will get something even better. In a newly created health insurance exchange you will be able to obtain, say, a $15,000 family plan for no more than about a $600 premium. This is almost something for nothing.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2013/04/20/why-obamacare-may-cost-you-your-job-n1573067

[twa]

Wow.

If the prices (and coverage) in the exchanges are so terrible, then I bet those Republican Governors who've announced that they won't allow their citizens to see them, will be changing their minds, any day now, huh?

what are you babbling about?

the exchanges will be in place whether a state opts out or not

[Larry]

Consider a typical hotel. Almost everyone you see is earning about $15 to $20 an hour — the maids' date=' the waitresses, the waiters, the busboys, the doormen, the porters, the custodians, the groundskeepers, etc. The cost of family coverage is equal to between one-third and one-half of these workers' annual earnings. The goal of ObamaCare is to force them to obtain this insurance with no extra help from government. And this is true even if the maids are already enrolled in Medicaid![/quote']

Really? Almost everybody in the typical hotel is making $15-20 an hour? And here I assumed that they were making minimum wage. (Or, judging from the numbers who appear not to speak English, possibly less.)

And they're all carrying family coverage?

And Obamacare is going to take people who currently are on Medicaid, and force them to buy their own health insurance, without subsidy? (I would think that Republicans would love this part. If it really existed.)

----------

Now, as to the claim that you first quoted, though?

I have absolutely no doubt that Obamacare will cause increases to some people. (And that's over and above any costs increases caused, say, by mandated increases in coverage.)

When you add high-risk, high-cost people to an insurance pool, the money has to come from somewhere.

Will the cost increases be the huge, terrifying things that people are attempting to terrify people with, throwing around bogus numbers?

Well, if they were, then they wouldn't have to throw around bogus numbers, would they?

[China]

Medical Costs Register First Decline Since 1970s

 

U.S. consumers’ health-care costs fell in May for the first time in almost four decades, the latest evidence that government policies and an expansion in generic drugs are holding back prices.

 

The Labor Department’s price index for medical care — a figure that includes individuals’ outlays for insurance, medical
supplies, doctor visits and hospital stays — fell a seasonally adjusted 0.1% in May. The leading driver of last month’s drop was a 0.6% contraction in prescription-drug costs.

 

The dip came as overall inflation across the economy remained moderate, rising a seasonally adjusted 0.1% during the month, a
reflection of the slow recovery that has contained product prices and wages for years.

 

The latest turn in consumers’ medical costs, in figures released Tuesday, follows decades of steady gains in health-care costs from
technological advances and increased use of health services. The last time medical costs posted a monthly decline, the patent on the modern MRI machine was a year old and the first test-tube baby was three years from being born. That was 1975.

 

Compared with a year earlier, the medical prices index increased 2.2%. That’s higher than the overall 1.4% gain in consumer prices but still the slowest annual expansion since the 1970s.  The Labor Department’s index only intends to measure consumers’
out-of-pocket costs, but as a huge buyer of medical care the government can influence prices more broadly.

 

The effects of the federal health care overhaul — the Affordable Care Act that passed in 2010 —and constrained government payments to doctors and hospitals seems to be trickling down to consumers, both those directly purchasing insurance plans and those buying drugs and treatments.

 

“The slowing of healthcare inflation right now seems to be driven by onset of new policies,” said Alec Phillips, a Goldman Sachs GS -2.82% economist who follows health care trends. “That is probably going to be a temporary factor.” In the coming year, the next phase of the health care overhaul will expand coverage and increase subsidy payments and could, in turn, push medical costs back up, Mr. Phillips said.

 

A PricewaterhouseCoopers report released Tuesday said a soon-to-be-implemented provision of the law that penalizes
hospitals for expensive readmissions could help contain costs next year, supporting proponents’ views that the law will push down costs in the long run.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

[mikered30]

Local Governments Reeling Under ObamaCare Costs

http://news.investors.com/061913-660419-local-governments-cut-hours-to-avoid-obamacare-mandate.htm

When Regal Entertainment Group (RGC) in April blamed ObamaCare for the fact that it was cutting some of its workers' hours, backers of the law mounted a furious backlash against the theater chain, among other things filling its Facebook page with boycott threats.

"Greed and selfishness make me sick," one of them said.

Darden Restaurants (DRI) felt this intense heat last year after suggesting it might shift to more part-time work to minimize the cost of the law's mandate that companies offer coverage to all their full-time workers. CEO Clarence Otis even blamed its lowered outlook for 2013 in part on "recent negative media coverage" over "how we might accommodate health care reform."

Yet while private companies are getting all this unwelcome and hostile attention, local governments across the country have been quietly doing exactly the same thing — cutting part-time hours specifically so they can skirt ObamaCare's costly employer mandate, while complaining about the law in some of the harshest terms anyone has uttered in public.

The result is that part-time government workers — many of them low-income — face pay cuts that can top $3,000 a year, and yet will still be left without employer-provided benefits.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Local Governments Reeling Under ObamaCare Costs

http://news.investors.com/061913-660419-local-governments-cut-hours-to-avoid-obamacare-mandate.htm

 

When Regal Entertainment Group (RGC) in April blamed ObamaCare for the fact that it was cutting some of its workers' hours, backers of the law mounted a furious backlash against the theater chain, among other things filling its Facebook page with boycott threats.

"Greed and selfishness make me sick," one of them said.

Darden Restaurants (DRI) felt this intense heat last year after suggesting it might shift to more part-time work to minimize the cost of the law's mandate that companies offer coverage to all their full-time workers. CEO Clarence Otis even blamed its lowered outlook for 2013 in part on "recent negative media coverage" over "how we might accommodate health care reform."

Yet while private companies are getting all this unwelcome and hostile attention, local governments across the country have been quietly doing exactly the same thing — cutting part-time hours specifically so they can skirt ObamaCare's costly employer mandate, while complaining about the law in some of the harshest terms anyone has uttered in public.

The result is that part-time government workers — many of them low-income — face pay cuts that can top $3,000 a year, and yet will still be left without employer-provided benefits.

 

I know.... let's get rid of employer based healthcare?

[twa]

seems like they are going with the getting rid of the employer route instead

[Larry]

Oh, look! A piece of good news gets posted, and in rushes twa with a nifty chart which says absolutely nothing about the topic, but hey, it's bad.

[twa]

the participation rate has a lot to do with how much people spend on health expenses and other things

 

you are certainly buying generic drugs if it is coming out of your pocket, as well as putting off or doing w/o medical care when possible

 

but hey,don't let reality intrude

[Larry]

the participation rate has a lot to do with how much people spend on health expenses and other things

 

you are certainly buying generic drugs if it is coming out of your pocket, as well as putting off or doing w/o medical care when possible

 

but hey,don't let reality intrude

 

So, what you're saying is that your nifty chart shows that health care costs have been going down since '03, right? It being so well and demonstrably correlated with health care costs, huh?

 

In fact, I guess that according to this nifty chart,

 

 

health care costs have been going down since 2000, right? 

 

And I guess we should ignore the pesky fact that a good part of that declining participation rate is because the Baby Boomers are getting old, and retiring. Cause everybody knows that old retired people spend less on health care, right?

Edited June 20, 2013 by Larry

[twa]

boomers are not retiring in the expected numbers and are remaining in the work force

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/erbe/2009/09/03/baby-boomers-are-staying-in-the-workforce-longer

the shift to part time workers and the ever growing % of long term un/under employed COMBINED with the generic expansion are the main drivers.

 

as obamacare comes into force the metrics will change as noted in the earlier link

 

 “That is probably going to be a temporary factor.” In the coming year, the next phase of the health care overhaul will expand coverage and increase subsidy payments and could, in turn, push medical costs back up, Mr. Phillips said.

 

add

 

you do know it is consumer spending they are talking about

Edited June 20, 2013 by twa

[skinsmarydu]

boomers are not retiring in the expected numbers and are remaining in the work force

Many of them had their pension funds raided. By companies like, oh, Bain Capital. And we can get into the "over-funding" of said pensions, but if that money had still been there for their retirement, there would be a lot fewer college graduates facing unemployment...the older folks wouldn't HAVE to keep working, therefore freeing those positions up for the up & coming workforce, who would work their way up through their companies, earning THEIR pensions, retire, rinse, repeat.

[twa]

Neither companies nor investors can raid pension plans, they can of course go bankrupt or underfund them (like many states/cities have)

[skinsmarydu]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204138204576605482876191482.html

There are different ways of achieving the common goal of the 1%.

Problem is, the 99% are 'too small' to be able to do anything about it.

[Duckus]

NYT: Health Plan Cost for New Yorkers Set to Fall 50%

Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see their premiums tumble next year in New York State as changes under the federal health care law take effect, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced on Wednesday.

State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for 2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those currently available in New York. Beginning in October, individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance for as little as $308 monthly. With federal subsidies, the cost will be even lower.

Supporters of the new health care law, the Affordable Care Act, credited the drop in rates to the online purchasing exchanges the law created, which they say are spurring competition among insurers that are anticipating an influx of new customers. The law requires that an exchange be started in every state.

“Health insurance has suddenly become affordable in New York,” said Elisabeth Benjamin, vice president for health initiatives with the Community Service Society of New York. “It’s not bargain-basement prices, but we’re going from Bergdorf’s to Filene’s here.”

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/health/health-plan-cost-for-new-yorkers-set-to-fall-50.html?pagewanted=all&

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Do we know how many states have reported on the price changes after implementing Obamacare in their states?  

 

The only ones I know of are NY (now), and California, and they both reported huge drops in cost of health insurance.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Tulane Skins Fan

[twa]

using 50 percent lower on average than those currently available is deceptive.

 

what is the savings on comparable plans?(besides govt subsidies)

 

I would certainly be glad to see mine go down or someone else subsidize it.....I was shopping for a new plan the other day....ugh

[Tulane Skins Fan]

using 50 percent lower on average than those currently available is deceptive.

 

what is the savings on comparable plans?(besides govt subsidies)

 

I would certainly be glad to see mine go down or someone else subsidize it.....I was shopping for a new plan the other day....ugh

 

I don't think you have Obamacare in Texas.  Didn't Perry refuse it?

 

Why wouldn't you include government subsidies?  That's part of Obamacare.  The point is to lower the cost to the consumer.

[twa]

using 50 percent lower on average than those currently available is deceptive.

 

what is the savings on comparable plans?(besides govt subsidies)

 

I would certainly be glad to see mine go down or someone else subsidize it.....I was shopping for a new plan the other day....ugh

 

I don't think you have Obamacare in Texas.  Didn't Perry refuse it?

 

Why wouldn't you include government subsidies?  That's part of Obamacare.  The point is to lower the cost to the consumer.

the state refused to set up a exchange which means the feds will do so

 

I'd say the point is to control people  .

 

you would not include subsidies to get a apples to apples comparison on reducing health costs.

 

how much we subsidize is easily determined