Is Obamacare on death's door?

[Merc14]

'Conservatives' always cry conspiracy and lies lies lies! When numbers come in that do not support their ideological worldview. If the numbers show the opposite of what their ideology predicts, then they think the numbers must be wrong. Yet they are so quick to throw up numbers that could just as equally be lies when the numbers support their free market utopian views.

There ARE many good things about the ACA, and there are many bad things. Like any system devised by mankind, it is flawed. If we were to move to a total 'free market system' for healthcare and the numbers came in showing costs were down, insurance enrollment up, etc. then the liberals would be crying "lies lies lies"! I am honestly just sick of the bickering and attempted sabotage of one party or the other's plans.

I see the CBO, after massive pressure from the regime, has scaled back from $2T to $1.56T over the next ten years, which includes starboy's years so how do we go from $900 B to $1.5T and call it less? Also starboy's numbers are patently false because they are ten years of collecting funds, including taking $1B from medicare and applying it to ACA and providing only 6 years of benefits. So yeah, conservatives get p***ed when the are being bull****ed but apparently guys like you suck it down hook, line and sinker. As far as sabotage, teh republicans are essentially powerless so all these failures are the result of the democrats getting every single thing they have asked for and failing miserably..

[+DieChecker]

'Conservatives' always cry conspiracy and lies lies lies! When numbers come in that do not support their ideological worldview. If the numbers show the opposite of what their ideology predicts, then they think the numbers must be wrong. Yet they are so quick to throw up numbers that could just as equally be lies when the numbers support their free market utopian views.

It has been my experience that this is not just true of Conservatives, but of Everyone. Every single person who feels strongly about anything.

[+DieChecker]

http://bostonherald...._s_poor_checkup

Rasmussen: Obamacare’s poor checkup

Negatives pile up faster than positives

If the law were really working, and voters were excited about it, Democratic candidates would be talking about it all the time, rather than trying to change the subject.

There’s a simple rule to evaluate contradictions like this. When the numbers and the behavior disagree, there’s something wrong with the numbers.

The first is that many people are finding out that the insurance they bought through an exchange doesn’t really ensure they’ll get medical care. There have been repeated stories of people finding out that even though they have insurance, they can’t find a doctor who will accept it. The Wall Street Journal, for example, reports that residents of New Hampshire’s capital city “have to drive to other cities to get covered hospital care.” Buying a product that doesn’t work is a sure way to create an angry customer.

Edited April 19, 2014 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

This is interesting also...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/19/business/economy/health-care-spendings-recent-surge-stirs-unease.html?hpw&rref=health&_r=0

For years, because of structural changes in the health care delivery system and the deep economic downturn, the health care “cost curve” — as economists and policy makers call it — had bent. Health spending was growing no faster than spending on other goods or services, an anomaly in 50 years of government accounts.

But perhaps no longer. A surge of insurance enrollment related to rising employment and President Obama’s health care law has likely meant a surge of spending on health care, leaving policy experts wondering whether the government and private businesses can control spending as the economy gets stronger and millions more Americans gain coverage.

The question is whether health spending might grow moderately, with a one-time bump from new Affordable Care Act enrollees, or whether it might surge, with potentially damaging consequences for the fiscal deficit and wages. Economists from both the right and left — including in the White House — have said that there is no greater threat to the government’s budget than soaring health spending.

The pace of health spending growth started falling in the mid-2000s and reached historical lows over the last five years. The recession counts for much or even most of the decline, economists think, as workers lost their jobs and their health coverage, and budget-conscious families chose to reduce their out-of-pocket spending.

But at the same time, structural changes to how health care gets delivered and paid for — changes made by the government, insurers, doctors and hospitals — also helped hold spending down. Many insurers, for example, began charging much higher co-pays and deductibles, spurring their enrollees to use less care.

So... Fantastic. This says healthcare costs have been lowered over the last several years by basically pricing care beyond what most people want to spend, which lowers the amount of healthcare going on which lowers costs.

This article does not make what is going on sound very good at all.

[Merc14]

You seem to have the same lack of understanding SS as you do with the ACA. SS is not a retirement fund. It is an insurance against poverty. And in that, it has been wildly successful.

Funny how you are so wrong about so many things yet feel free to call me stupid. Ahh, I guess that is normal democrat hubris. Here is one of your boys lamenting that the worst is yet to come with Obamacare

[Einsteinium]

Funny how you are so wrong about so many things yet feel free to call me stupid. Ahh, I guess that is normal democrat hubris. Here is one of your boys lamenting that the worst is yet to come with Obamacare

But ninja is right about social security. It WAS never intended to be a 'retirement fund' only to give seniors a basic income to allow them to escape the crippling poverty that usually came with old age back then.

And by law the social security trust fund can only invest in US Treasury securities. That is why you hear people talk about how the government 'robbed' the social security trust fund, because the fund was financing govt. debt, and always has been by law. It was intended from the start to be a pay as you go system, where the working pay for the SS of the retired at any given time.

[Harte]

But ninja is right about social security. It WAS never intended to be a 'retirement fund' only to give seniors a basic income to allow them to escape the crippling poverty that usually came with old age back then.

And by law the social security trust fund can only invest in US Treasury securities. That is why you hear people talk about how the government 'robbed' the social security trust fund, because the fund was financing govt. debt, and always has been by law. It was intended from the start to be a pay as you go system, where the working pay for the SS of the retired at any given time.

All true. The concern is, since all surplus is invested in special-issue government bonds - bonds that are not subject to any market forces - the bonds are no more than promissory notes and have no actual cash value. They only have value as an asset.

In fact, while they are an asset to the SSA budget, they are a liability to the Treasury.

All this really means is that, when a surplus exists (none in the last several years,) the government keeps the extra loot and promises to pay it back at some point in the future. They have already begun "paying it back," you might recall, what with the SSA running a deficit since 2010 (IIRC.)

Social Security has now become another government payout and is no longer "pay as you go."

This can be fixed and rather easily. Just not easily in the political sense.

Harte

[Yamato]

While govt shouldn't have a deficit, it should never keep a surplus either. If it has a surplus, it should pay the debt with it, and if it's in no debt -imagine that- it should return any surplus back to the people. That could be easily solved too, just not easily in the political sense.

Like Jobs once said, the system can only produce more of the system after all. It's the crazy ones who don't heel to the system that can actually change things.

[Harte]

While govt shouldn't have a deficit, it should never keep a surplus either. If it has a surplus, it should pay the debt with it, and if it's in no debt -imagine that- it should return any surplus back to the people. That could be easily solved too, just not easily in the political sense.

Like Jobs once said, the system can only produce more of the system after all. It's the crazy ones who don't heel to the system that can actually change things.

In principle, I would agree.

However, the SSA surplus was an engineered surplus - created to cover the system when people like me (Baby Boomers) retire.

Harte

[Startraveler]

I see the CBO, after massive pressure from the regime, has scaled back from $2T to $1.56T over the next ten years, which includes starboy's years so how do we go from $900 B to $1.5T and call it less? Also starboy's numbers are patently false because they are ten years of collecting funds, including taking $1B from medicare and applying it to ACA and providing only 6 years of benefits. So yeah, conservatives get p***ed when the are being bull****ed but apparently guys like you suck it down hook, line and sinker. As far as sabotage, teh republicans are essentially powerless so all these failures are the result of the democrats getting every single thing they have asked for and failing miserably..

I'm not sure what you're so upset about. This is good news! Not only is the ACA going to cover more people, the $3,800 benchmark plan is much cheaper than the CBO was expecting when they quoted the price tag of the law (back in 2010 and in subsequent years). So it's cheaper for both the consumer and the taxpayer than expected.

Medicare costs are also way below what the CBO was projecting they would be back in 2010. Yet quality has been going up. More, better, cheaper. Not bad at all.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Startraveler

[+DieChecker]

I'm not sure what you're so upset about. This is good news! Not only is the ACA going to cover more people, the $3,800 benchmark plan is much cheaper than the CBO was expecting when they quoted the price tag of the law (back in 2010 and in subsequent years). So it's cheaper for both the consumer and the taxpayer than expected.

Medicare costs are also way below what the CBO was projecting they would be back in 2010. Yet quality has been going up. More, better, cheaper. Not bad at all.

I think what Merc (And others) would be upset about it that you would like not to have to spend that tax money at all. To many, any cost is too much. They want the program to be cost Neutral. And I don't think there is even an illusion that the ACA is going to be cost neutral.

I posted a story a couple pages ago that said that the Medicare costs, and Insurance costs in general, are down due to the Recession, and due to infating deductables, and increasing co-pays. And not due to anything Obamacare has yet accomplished. Do you see any truth to that?

If that is true, then is the ACA exchange insurance actually affordable? If the people that buy an exchange policy have a $5000 deductable, and they just don't have that kind of cash, then all the exchange insurance is doing for them is providing preventative care, which statistically no one uses.

It may have been better to have just put everyone who wanted insurance into Medicaid.

[ninjadude]

If that is true, then is the ACA exchange insurance actually affordable? If the people that buy an exchange policy have a $5000 deductable,

Do you have trouble with statistics? 22 million are taking advantage of the ACA. some 9 million signed up. They didn't sign up because they had their arm twisted. They signed up because it is much more affordable than previously and they thirsted for coverage they could not get. Those are giant numbers not a few people here and there.

Star has posted that it's costing LESS than expected. That's a good thing. I realize the Republican ideal for health care is to die and do it quickly but that's not how our society works.

Edited April 23, 2014 by ninjadude

[+DieChecker]

Do you have trouble with statistics? 22 million are taking advantage of the ACA. some 9 million signed up. They didn't sign up because they had their arm twisted. They signed up because it is much more affordable than previously and they thirsted for coverage they could not get. Those are giant numbers not a few people here and there.

Star has posted that it's costing LESS than expected. That's a good thing. I realize the Republican ideal for health care is to die and do it quickly but that's not how our society works.

But is it more affordable due to it being an Exchange plan, or due to it having a higher deductable or higher co-payment? It it cheaper due to consolidated bargaining, or due to it being crap insurance?

How are people who could not afford $100 a month for insurance previously going to find $200 a month to make co-payments?

Who says people should Die? I just said that we might have put them all on Medicaid. Is Medicaid insurance so much worse it is like dying????

Edited April 23, 2014 by DieChecker

[Startraveler]

I think what Merc (And others) would be upset about it that you would like not to have to spend that tax money at all. To many, any cost is too much. They want the program to be cost Neutral. And I don't think there is even an illusion that the ACA is going to be cost neutral.

The ACA raises revenues, raises spending in some areas, and lowers spending in others. The net effect of those changes is to reduce the deficit.

I posted a story a couple pages ago that said that the Medicare costs, and Insurance costs in general, are down due to the Recession, and due to infating deductables, and increasing co-pays. And not due to anything Obamacare has yet accomplished. Do you see any truth to that?

In that post you 1) credit some part of the slowdown to rising cost-sharing, 2) suggest it has nothing to with the ACA, and 3) imply the ACA is pushing into plans with high cost-sharing. That's a bit muddled.

Anyway, the economy played some role in the slowdown, yet there's good reason to believe structural changes in the health industry played an important as role (e.g., see "Do Structural Changes Drive the Recent Health Care Spending Slowdown? New Evidence.") The goal now is to build on those structural changes and keep pushing the health system toward a sustainable footing, which is a major part of what the ACA is trying to do.

If that is true, then is the ACA exchange insurance actually affordable? If the people that buy an exchange policy have a $5000 deductable, and they just don't have that kind of cash, then all the exchange insurance is doing for them is providing preventative care, which statistically no one uses.

People can buy all sorts of plans--that's the point of having a market. People who want a high deductible plan can buy a bronze plan like you describe there; many bronze plans can be paired with an HSA. High deductible plans coupled with HSAs used to be a popular idea in conservative circles.

On the other hand, people can buy plans in higher metal tiers and have lower deductibles (and in the silver tier, low income people can get cost-sharing subsidies to reduce their deductible). As of the beginning of March, 82% of shoppers in the exchanges had chosen something above the bronze level.

[+DieChecker]

The ACA raises revenues, raises spending in some areas, and lowers spending in others. The net effect of those changes is to reduce the deficit.

So the overall intent of the ACA is to save more money then it costs? I'd like to see what the total of the Tax breaks to Exchange plan purchasers is going to be before I could make a judgement call on this. It is just my gut feeling, but it seems like the costs are going to be significant, and I've not seen a good breakdown on what is actually being saved.

Maybe you could find where the savings are going to be coming from for us?

In that post you 1) credit some part of the slowdown to rising cost-sharing, 2) suggest it has nothing to with the ACA, and 3) imply the ACA is pushing into plans with high cost-sharing. That's a bit muddled.

Do you think anyone has statistics on what the average Bronze/Silver/Gold plans provide? What the breakdown is for deductable and monthly cost and estimated yearly expense totals will be? It probably would have to be done on a state by state basis given the differences between states. And probably we'll not have good numbers on these things till 2 years down the road.

Are you willing to say that the Structural Changes are not of the kind that discourage people from using their healthcare, like my article suggested?

Anyway, the economy played some role in the slowdown, yet there's good reason to believe structural changes in the health industry played an important as role (e.g., see "Do Structural Changes Drive the Recent Health Care Spending Slowdown? New Evidence.") The goal now is to build on those structural changes and keep pushing the health system toward a sustainable footing, which is a major part of what the ACA is trying to do.

Your link says, "apparently not because of financial turmoil and recession but because of other factors affecting the behavior of beneficiaries and providers.” In the article I see a lot of graphs and tables that show data to support that the costs are reducing, but nothing to actually speak to what these other factors are. Could not one of the main factors be that people can't afford healthcare bills, even if they have insurance?

People can buy all sorts of plans--that's the point of having a market. People who want a high deductible plan can buy a bronze plan like you describe there; many bronze plans can be paired with an HSA. High deductible plans coupled with HSAs used to be a popular idea in conservative circles.

On the other hand, people can buy plans in higher metal tiers and have lower deductibles (and in the silver tier, low income people can get cost-sharing subsidies to reduce their deductible). As of the beginning of March, 82% of shoppers in the exchanges had chosen something above the bronze level.

The High Deductable, with an HSA, is actually the kind of plan I have today. But then isn't the point that someone can either buy a Bronze plan and pay very little per month, but have a higher deductable, or they can go with a Gold (or is it Platinum?) plan and have very low co-pays and lower deductables, and yet have to pay a significant amount each month? Either way the people have to pay a good amount for their healthcare. Yet, using the ER is still free (As long as you claim you have no insurance). How are people who couldn't afford any insurance (even a $100 a month catastrophic plan), going to pay for their healthcare?

I thought we were told these people didn't have healthcare, because it was not affordable? If they can afford $1200 a year, then they probably could have afforded it before, yet didn't buy it.

Perhaps a demographic of the people who have bought into the Exchanges would enlighten people? If most of the 9 million who bought into exhange plans are making like $40k to $60k, then that might make sense that they could afford it, but didn't like their options before.

[Merc14]

Startraveler you live in a dream world immersed only in the positive numbers generated by the oh so messed up HHS. You have yet to admit that the now close to a billion dollar website is still fundamentally flawed and inherently unsafe. I'd post links but what is the point, you don't read them. You refuse to acknowledge that the CBO's initial estimate of costs was a fraud perpetrated by the administration in that they fed in bad data, namely 10 years of revenue to cover 6 years of coverage.

Numbers are about what predicted because coverage is s far below what was projected and every agency is admitting that costs to consumers and the government will skyrocket over the next few years. Sooner or later the delayed portions of this law will have to be activated and all hell is going to break loose. I think what Obama is doing is pushing them back to a republican administration so that the democrats can blame the other side for ACA's inevitable failure.

[+DieChecker]

I think what Obama is doing is pushing them back to a republican administration so that the democrats can blame the other side for ACA's inevitable failure.

But, given that we'll likely have a Republican President in 2016, and a Republican House, and a strong possibility of a Republican Senate. It will be a easy sell to the Public and Media that the ACA needs to be revised, or toned down, or parts of it cancelled.

Look on the bright side!

Edited April 23, 2014 by DieChecker

[Merc14]

But, given that we'll likely have a Republican President in 2016, and a Republican House, and a strong possibility of a Republican Senate. It will be a easy sell to the Public and Media that the ACA needs to be revised, or toned down, or parts of it cancelled.

Look on the bright side!

I try to be brother but the media is so in the basket for the democrats that even they are getting embarrassed about themselves. Maybe when Obama is gone they will come to their senses and see what a disservice to the nation such blind obedience is but I doubt it. I won't ever quit though.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Merc14

[Einsteinium]

Startraveler you live in a dream world immersed only in the positive numbers generated by the oh so messed up HHS. You have yet to admit that the now close to a billion dollar website is still fundamentally flawed and inherently unsafe. I'd post links but what is the point, you don't read them. You refuse to acknowledge that the CBO's initial estimate of costs was a fraud perpetrated by the administration in that they fed in bad data, namely 10 years of revenue to cover 6 years of coverage.

Numbers are about what predicted because coverage is s far below what was projected and every agency is admitting that costs to consumers and the government will skyrocket over the next few years. Sooner or later the delayed portions of this law will have to be activated and all hell is going to break loose. I think what Obama is doing is pushing them back to a republican administration so that the democrats can blame the other side for ACA's inevitable failure.

Merc, what makes you so sure that your sources are accurate? You are stating that the CBO's estimate was a fraud, what if your sources are in fact the fraud? Just wondering how you can be so sure of your sources. If we cannot trust the govt. information on this, who else has access to the data that they have access to that can make reliable predictions?

[andy4]

Just a quick question for those of you who are so anti Obamacare.

If 14 million people and more with each passing day had signed up to take away Obamcare, or your favorite right, would you call that a success or a failure?

Seriously please post your favorite right which you would not want to see taken away specifically, like the right to vote, gun rights, or the right to have a drivers license etc, and then say whether the above question is true or false. Go!!

Honest answers only please, and don't say "well 14 million is low compared to the number who already have healthcare without the ACA." Let's count those numbers in too, on top of your response if 14 million and more is a success or failure. Say if 200 million already had gun rights and a law was passed to help those who didn't, and it added 14 million people and counting. And no, I'm not turning this into a gun debate, it was just an example, so please don't turn this into a gun rights thread by any means.

Edited April 25, 2014 by andy4

[andy4]

So the overall intent of the ACA is to save more money then it costs? I'd like to see what the total of the Tax breaks to Exchange plan purchasers is going to be before I could make a judgement call on this. It is just my gut feeling, but it seems like the costs are going to be significant, and I've not seen a good breakdown on what is actually being saved.

Maybe you could find where the savings are going to be coming from for us?

Do you think anyone has statistics on what the average Bronze/Silver/Gold plans provide? What the breakdown is for deductable and monthly cost and estimated yearly expense totals will be? It probably would have to be done on a state by state basis given the differences between states. And probably we'll not have good numbers on these things till 2 years down the road.

Are you willing to say that the Structural Changes are not of the kind that discourage people from using their healthcare, like my article suggested?

Your link says, "apparently not because of financial turmoil and recession but because of other factors affecting the behavior of beneficiaries and providers.” In the article I see a lot of graphs and tables that show data to support that the costs are reducing, but nothing to actually speak to what these other factors are. Could not one of the main factors be that people can't afford healthcare bills, even if they have insurance?

The High Deductable, with an HSA, is actually the kind of plan I have today. But then isn't the point that someone can either buy a Bronze plan and pay very little per month, but have a higher deductable, or they can go with a Gold (or is it Platinum?) plan and have very low co-pays and lower deductables, and yet have to pay a significant amount each month? Either way the people have to pay a good amount for their healthcare. Yet, using the ER is still free (As long as you claim you have no insurance). How are people who couldn't afford any insurance (even a $100 a month catastrophic plan), going to pay for their healthcare?

I thought we were told these people didn't have healthcare, because it was not affordable? If they can afford $1200 a year, then they probably could have afforded it before, yet didn't buy it.

Perhaps a demographic of the people who have bought into the Exchanges would enlighten people? If most of the 9 million who bought into exhange plans are making like $40k to $60k, then that might make sense that they could afford it, but didn't like their options before.

You are making massive assumptions here. "A $100 a month catastrophic plan." Yeah, if you make enough to pay $100 a month. Remember, it's income based. Do you have any statistics other than Fox News, breitbart, etc, that show it's a fixed $100 a month? If so I'd like to see that, and may even change my mind, although you shouldn't get your hopes up.

[F3SS]

Just a quick question for those of you who are so anti Obamacare.

If 14 million people and more with each passing day had signed up to take away Obamcare, or your favorite right, would you call that a success or a failure?

Seriously please post your favorite right which you would not want to see taken away specifically, like the right to vote, gun rights, or the right to have a drivers license etc, and then say whether the above question is true or false. Go!!

My favorite is free speech and it always existed for US. Free speech is a right. Obamacare is a law. It's a big difference. Not even close to the same. If it was a right we would be allowed to take advantage of it at will with no repercussion one way or the other but since it's a law I'm forced to obey it under threat of penalty. Your comparison is flawed.

[+DieChecker]

You are making massive assumptions here. "A $100 a month catastrophic plan." Yeah, if you make enough to pay $100 a month. Remember, it's income based. Do you have any statistics other than Fox News, breitbart, etc, that show it's a fixed $100 a month? If so I'd like to see that, and may even change my mind, although you shouldn't get your hopes up.

Doesn't matter if I can show such a plan or not. Obamacare removed all such plans as options for anyone.

Just a quick question for those of you who are so anti Obamacare.

If 14 million people and more with each passing day had signed up to take away Obamcare, or your favorite right, would you call that a success or a failure?

Seriously please post your favorite right which you would not want to see taken away specifically, like the right to vote, gun rights, or the right to have a drivers license etc, and then say whether the above question is true or false. Go!!

Honest answers only please, and don't say "well 14 million is low compared to the number who already have healthcare without the ACA." Let's count those numbers in too, on top of your response if 14 million and more is a success or failure. Say if 200 million already had gun rights and a law was passed to help those who didn't, and it added 14 million people and counting. And no, I'm not turning this into a gun debate, it was just an example, so please don't turn this into a gun rights thread by any means.

I don't really understand your question. Do you mean...

1. Is 14 million added a success?

2. Is 14 million openly against a Right a success?

So not supporting Obamacare is taking away everyone's Right to Healthcare? That is a bit of a stretch isn't it?

Do I call signing up 14 million out of 50 million a success? Yes. Do I believe that the whole process of implementation and legislation has been messed up? Yes. Do I think that the ACA should be dismantled and redone in any of several other ways? Yes. Do I believe that the Exchanges are going to work longterm? No. I think the many problems that have been warned against are likely to come true.

[Harte]

Just a quick question for those of you who are so anti Obamacare.

If 14 million people and more with each passing day had signed up to take away Obamcare, or your favorite right, would you call that a success or a failure?

Seriously please post your favorite right which you would not want to see taken away specifically, like the right to vote, gun rights, or the right to have a drivers license etc, and then say whether the above question is true or false. Go!!

Honest answers only please, and don't say "well 14 million is low compared to the number who already have healthcare without the ACA." Let's count those numbers in too, on top of your response if 14 million and more is a success or failure. Say if 200 million already had gun rights and a law was passed to help those who didn't, and it added 14 million people and counting. And no, I'm not turning this into a gun debate, it was just an example, so please don't turn this into a gun rights thread by any means.

I would object to that if the law required me to buy the guns for those enrollees.

Harte

[andy4]

I would object to that if the law required me to buy the guns for those enrollees.

Harte

That's a good point, but the majority of your money, as in 99%, is going to pay for yours.

Let's not turn this into a subject changing thread here, I just wanted to see what others thought about my scenario.

I would, and don't have any problem with paying a tiny sum of money over the year if it was being used to help others.