SEVERUSMAX
Benevolent Master
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Posts
- 28,995
So much for "affordable" health care under Obama. Gee, thanks, Mr. President. 
20,000 dollars for least expensive plan in 2016.
- Thread starter SEVERUSMAX
- Start date
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
The TRIAL is coming. A nice new war will ruin us. Ruin usually takes the form of TOO MUCH DEBT, TOO MANY ENTITLEMENTS, LESS PRODUCTIVITY, and a BLACK SWAN (a disaster no one anticipated, say 911).
BusyAfternoon
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Posts
- 2,041
ObamaCare's Broken Promises
Every one of the main claims made for the law is turning out to be false.
As the federal government moves forward to implement President Obama's Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services is slated to spend millions of dollars promoting the unpopular legislation. In the face of this publicity blitz, it is worth remembering that the law was originally sold largely on four grounds—all of which have become increasingly implausible.
• Lower health-care costs. One key talking point for ObamaCare was that it would reduce the cost of insurance, especially for non-group insurance. The president, citing the work of several health-policy experts, claimed that improved care coordination, investments in information technology, and more efficient marketing through exchanges would save the typical family $2,500 per year.
That was then. Now, even advocates for the law acknowledge that premiums are going up. In analyses conducted for the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado, Jonathan Gruber of MIT forecasts that premiums in the non-group market will rise by 19% to 30% due to the law. Other estimates are even higher. The actuarial firm Milliman predicts that non-group premiums in Ohio will rise by 55%-85%. Maine, Oregon and Nevada have sponsored their own studies, all of which reach essentially the same conclusion.
Some champions of the law argue that this misses the point, because once the law's new subsidies are taken into account, the net price of insurance will be lower. This argument is misleading. It fails to consider that the money for the subsidies has to come from somewhere. Although debt-financed transfer payments may make insurance look cheaper, they do not change its true social cost.
• Smaller deficits. Increases in the estimated impact of the law on private insurance premiums, along with increases in the estimated cost of health care more generally, have led the Congressional Budget Office to increase its estimate of the budget cost of the law's coverage expansion. In 2010, CBO estimated the cost per year of expanding coverage at $154 billion; by 2012, the estimated cost grew to $186 billion. Yet CBO still scores the law as reducing the deficit.
How can this be? The positive budget score turns on the fact that the estimated revenues to pay for the law have risen along with its costs. The single largest source of these revenues? Money taken from Medicare in the form of lower Medicare payment rates, mostly in the law's out-years. Since the law's passage, however, Congress and the president have undone various scheduled Medicare cuts—including some prescribed by the law itself.
Put aside the absurdity that savings from Medicare—the country's largest unfunded liability—can be used to finance a new entitlement. The argument that health reform decreases the deficit is even worse. It depends on Congress and the president not only imposing Medicare cuts that they have proven unwilling to make but also imposing cuts that they have already specifically undone, most notably to Medicare Advantage, a program that helps millions of seniors pay for private health plans.
• Preservation of existing insurance. After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of health reform in June 2012, President Obama said, "If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your insurance." This theme ran throughout the selling of ObamaCare: People who have insurance would not have their current arrangements disrupted.
This claim is obviously false. Indeed, disruption of people's existing insurance is one of the law's stated goals. On one hand, the law seeks to increase the generosity of policies that it deems too stingy, by limiting deductibles and mandating coverage that the secretary of Health and Human Services thinks is "essential," whether or not the policyholder can afford it. On the other hand, the law seeks to reduce the generosity of policies that it deems too extravagant, by imposing the "Cadillac tax" on costly insurance plans.
Employer-sponsored insurance has already begun to change. According to the annual Kaiser/HRET Employer Health Benefits Survey, the share of workers in high-deductible plans rose to 19% in 2012 from 13% in 2010.
That's just the intended consequences. One of the law's unintended consequences is that some employers will drop coverage in response to new regulations and the availability of subsidized insurance in the new exchanges. How many is anybody's guess. In 2010, CBO estimated that employer-sponsored coverage would decline by three million people in 2019; by 2012, CBO's estimate had doubled to six million.
• Increased productivity. In 2009, the president's Council of Economic Advisers concluded that health reform would reduce unemployment, raise labor supply, and improve the functioning of labor markets. According to its reasoning, expanding insurance coverage would reduce absenteeism, disability and mortality, thereby encouraging and enabling work.
This reasoning is flawed. The evidence that a broad coverage expansion would improve health is questionable. Some studies have shown that targeted coverage can improve the health of certain groups. But according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Economic Research Initiative on the Uninsured, "evidence is lacking that health insurance improves the health of non-elderly adults." More recent work by Richard Kronick, a health-policy adviser to former President Bill Clinton, concludes "there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the U.S."
The White House economic analysis also fails to consider the adverse consequences of income-based subsidies on incentives. The support provided by both the Medicaid expansion and the new exchanges phases out as a family's income rises. But, as I and others have pointed out in these pages, income phaseouts create work disincentives like taxes do, because they reduce the net rewards to work. Further, the law imposes taxes on employers who fail to provide sufficiently generous insurance, with exceptions for part-time workers and small firms. On net, it is hard to see how health reform will make labor markets function better.
Some believe that expanding insurance coverage is a moral imperative regardless of its cost. Most supporters of the law, however, use more nuanced arguments that depend on assumptions that are increasingly impossible to defend. If we are ever to have an honest debate about entitlement spending, we will need to distinguish these positions from one another—and see them for what they really are, rather than what we wish they would be.
Mr. Kessler is a professor of business and law at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Every one of the main claims made for the law is turning out to be false.
As the federal government moves forward to implement President Obama's Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services is slated to spend millions of dollars promoting the unpopular legislation. In the face of this publicity blitz, it is worth remembering that the law was originally sold largely on four grounds—all of which have become increasingly implausible.
• Lower health-care costs. One key talking point for ObamaCare was that it would reduce the cost of insurance, especially for non-group insurance. The president, citing the work of several health-policy experts, claimed that improved care coordination, investments in information technology, and more efficient marketing through exchanges would save the typical family $2,500 per year.
That was then. Now, even advocates for the law acknowledge that premiums are going up. In analyses conducted for the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado, Jonathan Gruber of MIT forecasts that premiums in the non-group market will rise by 19% to 30% due to the law. Other estimates are even higher. The actuarial firm Milliman predicts that non-group premiums in Ohio will rise by 55%-85%. Maine, Oregon and Nevada have sponsored their own studies, all of which reach essentially the same conclusion.
Some champions of the law argue that this misses the point, because once the law's new subsidies are taken into account, the net price of insurance will be lower. This argument is misleading. It fails to consider that the money for the subsidies has to come from somewhere. Although debt-financed transfer payments may make insurance look cheaper, they do not change its true social cost.
• Smaller deficits. Increases in the estimated impact of the law on private insurance premiums, along with increases in the estimated cost of health care more generally, have led the Congressional Budget Office to increase its estimate of the budget cost of the law's coverage expansion. In 2010, CBO estimated the cost per year of expanding coverage at $154 billion; by 2012, the estimated cost grew to $186 billion. Yet CBO still scores the law as reducing the deficit.
How can this be? The positive budget score turns on the fact that the estimated revenues to pay for the law have risen along with its costs. The single largest source of these revenues? Money taken from Medicare in the form of lower Medicare payment rates, mostly in the law's out-years. Since the law's passage, however, Congress and the president have undone various scheduled Medicare cuts—including some prescribed by the law itself.
Put aside the absurdity that savings from Medicare—the country's largest unfunded liability—can be used to finance a new entitlement. The argument that health reform decreases the deficit is even worse. It depends on Congress and the president not only imposing Medicare cuts that they have proven unwilling to make but also imposing cuts that they have already specifically undone, most notably to Medicare Advantage, a program that helps millions of seniors pay for private health plans.
• Preservation of existing insurance. After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of health reform in June 2012, President Obama said, "If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your insurance." This theme ran throughout the selling of ObamaCare: People who have insurance would not have their current arrangements disrupted.
This claim is obviously false. Indeed, disruption of people's existing insurance is one of the law's stated goals. On one hand, the law seeks to increase the generosity of policies that it deems too stingy, by limiting deductibles and mandating coverage that the secretary of Health and Human Services thinks is "essential," whether or not the policyholder can afford it. On the other hand, the law seeks to reduce the generosity of policies that it deems too extravagant, by imposing the "Cadillac tax" on costly insurance plans.
Employer-sponsored insurance has already begun to change. According to the annual Kaiser/HRET Employer Health Benefits Survey, the share of workers in high-deductible plans rose to 19% in 2012 from 13% in 2010.
That's just the intended consequences. One of the law's unintended consequences is that some employers will drop coverage in response to new regulations and the availability of subsidized insurance in the new exchanges. How many is anybody's guess. In 2010, CBO estimated that employer-sponsored coverage would decline by three million people in 2019; by 2012, CBO's estimate had doubled to six million.
• Increased productivity. In 2009, the president's Council of Economic Advisers concluded that health reform would reduce unemployment, raise labor supply, and improve the functioning of labor markets. According to its reasoning, expanding insurance coverage would reduce absenteeism, disability and mortality, thereby encouraging and enabling work.
This reasoning is flawed. The evidence that a broad coverage expansion would improve health is questionable. Some studies have shown that targeted coverage can improve the health of certain groups. But according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Economic Research Initiative on the Uninsured, "evidence is lacking that health insurance improves the health of non-elderly adults." More recent work by Richard Kronick, a health-policy adviser to former President Bill Clinton, concludes "there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the U.S."
The White House economic analysis also fails to consider the adverse consequences of income-based subsidies on incentives. The support provided by both the Medicaid expansion and the new exchanges phases out as a family's income rises. But, as I and others have pointed out in these pages, income phaseouts create work disincentives like taxes do, because they reduce the net rewards to work. Further, the law imposes taxes on employers who fail to provide sufficiently generous insurance, with exceptions for part-time workers and small firms. On net, it is hard to see how health reform will make labor markets function better.
Some believe that expanding insurance coverage is a moral imperative regardless of its cost. Most supporters of the law, however, use more nuanced arguments that depend on assumptions that are increasingly impossible to defend. If we are ever to have an honest debate about entitlement spending, we will need to distinguish these positions from one another—and see them for what they really are, rather than what we wish they would be.
Mr. Kessler is a professor of business and law at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
So much for "affordable" health care under Obama. Gee, thanks, Mr. President.
And your source on this is CyberCast News Service which is the Christian wing of the far-right conservative media outlet Newsmax. Here's a link to your article. And here's the IRS document your article and Limbaugh are moaning about. As you can see, the $20,000 is used in one example to show how the exchange subsidy calculations work. It's just a working number. In the previous example a $5000 annual figure is used, however conservatives ignored it.
Not only that but the $20k figure is a hypothetical of what it would cost for the family of four in the example to not buy (a good-coverage plan) from an exchange, but buy a plan from an individual market. Dumbfuck conservatives are (willfully) misinterpreting this as saying that it's how much exchange plans will cost. But that's not the exchange plan rate - it's the rate the family would pay in the absence of Obamacare. And it's not even that, it's just a hypothetical number for the sake of the example.
Looks like the RW fear and hype factory is alive with this bogus figure.
Last edited:
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
“Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.”
Paul Krugman
"WE need death panels."
Steve Rattner, Car Czar in the NY Times, Beyond Obamacare
"The primary function of regulation in health care, especially as it affects the quality of medical care, is to constrain decentralized, individualized decision making."
Donald Berwick
Death Panel Czar, Party of PRO-CHOICE!
Our premiums were going to go down, our coverage was going to go up, we would keep our plan and our doctor, it wasn't going to add one thin dime to the deficit.
Then Sarah Palin was trashed over pointing out that there would be death panels.
They were lying and we that pointed out but alas,
... fools BELIEVED in the magic of
wishes
Paul Krugman
"WE need death panels."
Steve Rattner, Car Czar in the NY Times, Beyond Obamacare
"The primary function of regulation in health care, especially as it affects the quality of medical care, is to constrain decentralized, individualized decision making."
Donald Berwick
Death Panel Czar, Party of PRO-CHOICE!
Our premiums were going to go down, our coverage was going to go up, we would keep our plan and our doctor, it wasn't going to add one thin dime to the deficit.
Then Sarah Palin was trashed over pointing out that there would be death panels.
They were lying and we that pointed out but alas,
... fools BELIEVED in the magic of
wishes
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Uhhhh..., America is already all but bankrupt and once the first domino falls, they all go down.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Lying by removing quote context. A classic AJ tactic still going strong in 2013.
ChinaBandit
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Posts
- 4,281
Let me tell you this, BCBS sucks!
They have become progressively worse over the course of Obama's administration. Also, since certain states now mandate that "dependent" children of up to 27 years of age are entitled to stay insured under the parent's plan. That's right, 27 years old....
They have become progressively worse over the course of Obama's administration. Also, since certain states now mandate that "dependent" children of up to 27 years of age are entitled to stay insured under the parent's plan. That's right, 27 years old....
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
BCBS and just about every other insurer out there have been progressively charging more for less coverage for decades.
Why do you give a shit if other people's kids can stay on their insurance? What you should give a shit about is 27 year olds without insurance getting injured or ill and getting "free" medical care that the hospital passes on to the rest of us in the form of higher charges and premiums.
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
So much for "affordable" health care under Obama. Gee, thanks, Mr. President.
wait....what....but obama care is free! free healthcare is a God given right! how dare they
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
You're ranting aside, the IRS is remarkably consistent in their examples in that document. They are using a base assumption of approx. $5K/person/year.
The only question is whether that's some wild ass guess on their part or does it have some basis in reality?
Ishmael
RobDownSouth
Oh Look....
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 75,201
"Willful misinterpretation" of inconvenient facts is a core principle of both Lit Conservatives and Lit Glibertarians here (see also: AJ)
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Debunking lies with facts isn't ranting. And you're missing the point entirely. That document doesn't have anything to do with projections or calculations of how much plans will cost in 2016; the 20k is just a working number.
Furthermore the 20k figure in the example is where the family purchases an individual plan is in the absence of both an employer-sponsored plan as well as an exchange plan. There's no reason to tout that figure except to deliberately misinform and frighten people.
Chalk this up as the #1 conservative lie of the new year.
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
bronzeage
I am a river to my people
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Posts
- 49,685
I've been paying for a private major medical policy for the past ten years, and every year the premium has increased. I have exceeded the deductible only once in those 10 years, so for all practical purposes, I pay all my medical expenses out of pocket and the premiums, as well.
It seems I am in the same demographic with the twinkie eating baby boomer fat fucks who are content to sit on their asses and bitch about healthcare expenses, but expect to me to pay my premium every month, so they can get a gastric sleeve operation. These are the same people who celebrate their third coronary bypass by stopping on the way home from the hospital and getting a 24 piece Chicken McNuggets.
When I see people like this, I think $20k a year to keep them around for another 20 years is a sucker deal for all of us.
Don't expect any of our crybabies to change their lifestyle, but if healthcare premiums were indexed to actual personal health decisions(smoking, weight, diet, etc), it would make the latest protests sound like a lullaby.
It seems I am in the same demographic with the twinkie eating baby boomer fat fucks who are content to sit on their asses and bitch about healthcare expenses, but expect to me to pay my premium every month, so they can get a gastric sleeve operation. These are the same people who celebrate their third coronary bypass by stopping on the way home from the hospital and getting a 24 piece Chicken McNuggets.
When I see people like this, I think $20k a year to keep them around for another 20 years is a sucker deal for all of us.
Don't expect any of our crybabies to change their lifestyle, but if healthcare premiums were indexed to actual personal health decisions(smoking, weight, diet, etc), it would make the latest protests sound like a lullaby.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Your link says $15,745 is the current average cost of health care under family coverage. The IRS example tosses out a scenario where a family might pay $20k for silver coverage level (out of gold, silver, bronze) before exchange subsidies are factored in. The IRS is just using it as an example to illustrate benefit calculations. There's nothing outrageous or even interesting here unless you want there to be.
KyleW
King Taint Kicker
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2003
- Posts
- 16,327
RobDownSouth
Oh Look....
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 75,201
Sean
We'll see.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2005
- Posts
- 96,190
A few facts and figures showing how the US citizen gets fucked up the arse on healthcare compared to civilised countries:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country
bronzeage
I am a river to my people
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Posts
- 49,685
Fuck you. I paid for mah gastric sleeve entirely out of pocket.
You're the last of the rugged individualists.
A while back, I talked to a man who was suing his insurance company because they did not want to pay for a gastric bypass. The insurance company wanted him to go on a 12 month supervised diet, before considering surgery. This would mean weekly blood and urine tests to see if he was sticking to the diet. He would have to jump through this hoop for a year before getting his gut cut open and rearranged.
I asked him if he was going on the diet in the meantime, in case his appeal was denied. He said, "No, diets don't work." That was 2 years ago and he still weighs over 300 pounds.
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
bra_man69
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Posts
- 7,410
Fuck you. I paid for mah gastric sleeve entirely out of pocket.
Good you fat fuck watch what you eat to start with wouldn't have that problem.
Similar threads
