Fox "News" Owned by Reality
- Thread starter dan_c00000
- Start date
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
Many years ago a supervisor taught me how to effectively interact with assclowns. Tell them, GO FUCK YOURSELF.
about_average
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Posts
- 11,430
I consider an anecdote to be a true, or mostly true, statement but also a small minority, or an example of something that may or may not be widespread, but hasn't been fully examined to know how wide spread it is. It appears Hannity was just making shit up, like he typically does every show.
Last edited:
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
QUERY is our latest liberal flasher.
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
You know he's a lot like you. Except that he types more which only means he's wrong a lot more.
Have you checked out the other threads I've owned him in? It's pretty great. I do like how he claims that posting links to real stories isn't fair. This is a common right winger I'm getting my bullshit thrown in my face argument.
For example, how dare you show me a study that says all the shit I post regularly is wrong.
The Affordable Care Act’s Lower-Than-Projected Premiums Will Save $190 Billion
Insure Central Texas
SOURCE: AP/Eric Gay
A volunteer counselor with Insure Central Texas uses a chart to help explain health insurance options, Tuesday, October 1, 2013, in Austin, Texas.
By Topher Spiro and Jonathan Gruber | October 23, 2013
The Affordable Care Act is already working: Intense price competition among health plans in the marketplaces for individuals has lowered premiums below projected levels. As a result of these lower premiums, the federal government will save about $190 billion over the next 10 years, according to our estimates. These savings will boost the health law’s amount of deficit reduction by 174 percent and represent about 40 percent of the health care savings proposed by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform—commonly known as the Simpson-Bowles commission—in 2010.
Moreover, we estimate that lower premiums will lower the number of uninsured even further, by an additional 700,000 people, even as the number of individuals who receive tax credits will decline because insurance is more affordable.
In short, the Affordable Care Act is working even better than expected, producing more coverage for much less money.
Marketplace plans and tax credits
Under the Affordable Care Act, marketplaces that offer health plans to individuals are now open in every state. The federal government is operating marketplaces in 36 states, and 14 states and the District of Columbia are operating their own marketplaces. Marketplace plans offer five levels of coverage—catastrophic, bronze, silver, gold, and platinum—ranging from less generous to more generous.
Individuals with family income from one to four times the federal poverty level (about $26,000 to $94,000 for a family of four)—and who are not eligible for other qualified coverage—are eligible for tax credits to help cover the cost of a plan. The tax credit caps the amount an individual must pay for the second-lowest-cost silver plan at a certain percentage of family income, ranging from 2 percent of income at the poverty level to 9.5 percent of income at four times the poverty level.
Price competition in the marketplaces
When the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, projected premiums under the Affordable Care Act before its enactment, it theorized that increased competition would lower premiums in the individual market—but only slightly. In CBO’s view, marketplaces that organize the market—making it easier for consumers to compare choices—would encourage plans to keep premiums low to attract consumers.
CBO’s theory has turned out to be right in reality—only more so.
CBO’s projected premium levels
In March 2012, CBO projected an average family premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan of $15,400 in 2016. This family premium is equivalent to an individual premium of $5,700 in 2016. CBO projected that private insurance premiums would increase by 5.5 percent per year from 2014 to 2016, so its estimate for 2014 would be lower by that amount. In addition, the Affordable Care Act covers the cost of high-risk enrollees through 2016, but it provides greater relief in 2014 than in 2016. This reinsurance will lower premiums by more in 2014 than in 2016. Taking the estimate of $5,700 in 2016, trending it backward by 5.5 percent per year, and accounting for greater reinsurance in 2014 yields an estimate of $4,700 in 2014.
In an analysis of plans offered in the marketplaces, the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform found that new entrants into the market make up 26 percent of all insurers. These new entrants are introducing competitive pressures into the individual market. The McKinsey analysis found that new entrants tend to price their plans lower than the median premiums in their market.
Moreover, in a preliminary analysis of plans offered in 18 areas, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that premiums are lower than CBO’s projected premiums in 15 of those areas.
In March 2012, CBO projected an average family premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan in 2016. This projection is equivalent to an average individual premium in 2014 of $4,700 (see sidebar). The actual average premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan in 2014 turned out to be $3,936—16 percent lower than projected.
Impact on costs and coverage
Premiums for the second-lowest-cost silver plan are important because tax credits for individuals are based on the cost of that plan. If premiums for that plan are lower, then the cost of tax credits will also be lower.
Consider a typical individual making $30,000 a year. That individual’s premium contribution would be capped at 8.37 percent of income, or $2,512. If the premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan is $4,700, then the tax credit would be the difference between this premium and the individual’s contribution, or $2,188. But if the premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan turns out to be only $3,936, then the tax credit would be $1,424.
We estimate that a 16 percent reduction in premiums will lower the total cost of tax credits by about 21 percent. As the example above illustrates, the percentage reduction in the tax credit will often be much greater than the percentage reduction in the premium. Because the amount that individuals pay is fixed at a percentage of income, a reduction in premiums will result in a proportionally larger reduction in government spending.
In its May 2013 baseline, CBO projected that the tax credits would cost $920 billion through 2023. But CBO made this projection before data on actual premium rates became available. A 16 percent reduction in premiums will lower this cost by about 21 percent, or about $190 billion.
Another result of the reduction in premiums is that more individuals will take up coverage because it is even more affordable. We estimate that a 16 percent reduction in premiums will lower the number of uninsured by an additional 2.8 percent. Because CBO had projected a decline in the number of uninsured of 25 million by 2023, this means that an additional 700,000 people will gain coverage. (See Methodology for more information on our estimates.)
$190 billion in context
When it was enacted, the Affordable Care Act was already fully paid for and projected to lower the federal budget deficit. In its most recent estimate, CBO projected that the law would lower the deficit by $109 billion over the next 10 years. Our estimated $190 billion in savings will increase that deficit reduction by 174 percent to almost $300 billion.
Recent long-term debt-reduction plans have proposed substantial health care savings in combination with additional tax revenue. The Simpson-Bowles commission, for example, proposed $487 billion in health care savings. And in the last “grand bargain” offer that President Barack Obama made to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) in December 2012, he proposed about $400 billion in health care savings.
Our estimated $190 billion in savings represents a sizable share of these proposals’ health care savings—about 40 percent of the Simpson-Bowles plan’s savings and almost half of the president’s proposed savings.
Conclusion
In the spring, CBO will update its baseline projection of the Affordable Care Act. When it does, the agency will take into account the actual experience of premium rates for plans offered in the marketplaces in 2014—which are significantly lower than projected. We estimate that the savings to the federal government will be about $190 billion over the next 10 years. This is an important early indication that the Affordable Care Act is working even better than expected to lower health care spending and federal deficits.
Topher Spiro is the Vice President for Health Policy at the Center for American Progress. Jonathan Gruber is professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Methodology
We used the Gruber Microsimulation Model, or GMSIM, to model the impact of a 16 percent reduction in premiums for plans in the individual market. Microsimulation modeling uses evidence from health economics studies to model how individuals and employers respond to changes in policy or the environment. The Congressional Budget Office uses the same type of modeling.
The GMSIM is designed to closely match CBO estimates that have been released to date. While our estimates are not guaranteed to exactly mimic what CBO would find for a comparable reduction in premiums, our findings should provide a reasonable approximation of CBO’s findings.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
ObamaCare looks great because it increases deductibles and co-pays tho it reduces premiums. So folks will pay significantly more. The higher deductibles and copays fund the subsidies. The larger pool of payers funds Medicare and Medicaid shortages.
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
This is only somewhat accurate. It depends on the state, plans offered, and of course plan selected. The comment on "shortages" is something you pulled out of your racist ass.
As for paying a higher deductible again it depends. The goal with Obamacare was to lower the cost of health care since it's now taking up such a large chunk of the budget. Obviously, single payer or universal covered provided by the government would be better and cheaper but thanks to tiny dicked assholes like yourself this is what we've got.
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
And teahadists and republitads are always pissing and moaning about person responsibility so now everyone has to get their own health care or pay a fine. That seems pretty responsible to me. Or are you guys just a bunch of racist hypocrites?
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
ObamaCare is a tax. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
It aims to accomplish a few tasks: MEDICAID AND MEDICARE are bankrupt, and many Medicare/Medicaid recipients have exhausted their lifetime benefits, especially for inpatient psychiatric treatment. Insurance companies deny payment for conduct disorders. Too many homeless, illegals, and unemployed niggaz with caps in their asses have no insurance or Medicaid.
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
I edited your post for accuracy.
Medicare Is Not “Bankrupt”
Health Reform Has Improved Program’s Financing
Claims by some policymakers that the Medicare program is nearing “bankruptcy” are misleading. Although Medicare faces financing challenges, the program is not on the verge of bankruptcy or ceasing to operate. Such charges represent misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of Medicare’s finances.
Medicare’s financing challenges would be significantly greater without the health reform law (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA), which substantially improved the program’s financial outlook. Repealing the Affordable Care Act, a course of action promoted by some who simultaneously claim that the program is approaching “bankruptcy,” would make Medicare’s financial situation much worse.
The 2013 report of Medicare’s trustees finds that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund will remain solvent — that is, able to pay 100 percent of the costs of the hospital insurance coverage that Medicare provides — through 2026; at that point, the payroll taxes and other revenue deposited in the trust fund will still be sufficient to pay 87 percent of Medicare hospital insurance costs.[1] (The Medicare hospital insurance program is considered insolvent when revenues and trust fund balances will not cover 100 percent of projected costs.) The share of costs covered by dedicated revenues will decline gradually to 71 percent in 2047 and then rise to 73 percent by 2087. This shortfall will need to be closed through the provision of additional revenues, program changes that slow the growth in costs, or most likely both. But the Medicare hospital insurance will not run out of all financial resources and cease to operate after 2026, as the “bankruptcy” term may suggest.
The 2026 date does not applyto Medicare coverage for physician and outpatient costs or to the Medicare prescription drug benefit; these parts of Medicare do not face insolvency and cannot run short of funds. These parts of Medicare are financed through the program’s Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) trust fund, which consists of two separate accounts — one for Medicare Part B, which pays for physician and other outpatient health services, and one for Part D, which pays for outpatient prescription drugs. Premiums for Part B and Part D are set each year at levels that cover about 25 percent of costs; general revenues pay the remaining 75 percent of costs.[2] The trustees’ report does not project that these parts of Medicare will become insolvent at any point — because they can’t. The SMI trust fund always has sufficient financing to cover Part B and Part D costs, because the beneficiary premiums and general revenue contributions are specifically set at levels to assure this is the case. SMI cannot go “bankrupt.”
Health reform has significantly improved Medicare’s financial outlook. The HI trust fund is now projected to remain solvent nine years longer than before the Affordable Care Act was enacted. Under the trustees’ main projection, the Medicare hospital insurance program faces a shortfall over the next 75 years equal to 1.11 percent of taxable payroll — that is, 1.11 percent of the total amount of earnings that will be subject to the Medicare payroll tax over this period. This is much less than the 3.88 percent of payroll that the trustees estimated before health reform.
These projections underscore the importance of successfully implementing the cost-control provisions in the Affordable Care Act. While history shows that most major Medicare savings measures have been implemented as scheduled, the Medicare actuary has expressed concern that some of the ACA’s savings provisions may not be sustainable. The actuary urges reliance instead on an “illustrative alternative” projection for Medicare, which assumes that Congress will partially phase out the ACA’s reductions in Medicare payment rates between 2020 and 2034. Under this alternative projection, the projected insolvency date of the Hospital Insurance trust fund remains at 2026, but the 75-year shortfall in the fund would rise to 2.17 percent of payroll — almost twice the trustees’ official estimate, but still a dramatic improvement over the outlook before health reform.
The trustees’ finding that health reform has improved Medicare’s financial status is consistent with the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that health reform will reduce federal budget deficits — modesty in its first ten years, but substantially in the following decade.[3] Medicare is a part of the federal budget. Therefore, spending cuts or tax increases that reduce projected deficits in Medicare also help reduce projected deficits in the overall budget. Consequently, contrary to some claims, no “double-counting” is involved.[4]
The trustees’ latest projections are broadly in line with those that the trustees have issued for some time. They do not represent a striking change in Medicare’s finances. Since 1970, changes in the law, the economy, and other factors have brought the projected year of Medicare HI insolvency as close as two years away or pushed it as far as 28 years into the future.[5] The latest projection falls near the middle of that spectrum. Trustees’ reports have been projecting impending insolvency for four decades, but Medicare has always paid the benefits owed because Presidents and Congresses have taken steps to keep spending and resources in balance in the near term. In contrast to Social Security, which has had no major changes in law since 1983, the rapid evolution of the health care system has required frequent adjustments to Medicare, a pattern that is certain to continue.
Despite the financial improvements the Affordable Care Act makes, Medicare continues to face substantial long-term financial challenges, stemming from the aging of the population and the continued rise in costs throughout the U.S. health care system. The projected increase in long-term Medicare costs also contributes heavily to the challenging long-term fiscal outlook. It is essential that policymakers take further steps to curb the growth of health costs throughout the U.S. health care system as we learn more about how to do so effectively in both public programs and private-sector health care. The research and pilot projects that the ACA establishes should yield important lessons. Until these efforts bear fruit, it will be difficult to achieve big additional reductions in Medicare expenditures.
Some additional savings can be achieved over the next ten years, however, while preserving Medicare’s guarantee of health coverage and without raising the eligibility age or otherwise shifting costs to vulnerable beneficiaries. Possible measures include ending Medicare’s overpayments to pharmaceutical companies for drugs prescribed to low-income beneficiaries, increasing funding for actions to prevent and detect fraudulent and wasteful Medicare spending, restructuring Medicare’s cost-sharing and Medigap supplemental insurance (while protecting low- and moderate-income beneficiaries), and raising premiums for better-off beneficiaries.
Fiscal policy’s key goal should be to stabilize the federal debt relative to the size of the economy. But it is neither necessary nor desirable to accomplish this by radically restructuring Medicare — such as through “premium support” proposals that would convert it to vouchers whose purchasing power fails to keep pace with the cost of health care — or by severely cutting Medicare or other programs that protect Americans with low and moderate incomes.[6] Policymakers and the American public should not be driven into adopting such proposals by misleading claims that Medicare is on the verge of “bankruptcy.” Instead, we should pursue a balanced deficit-reduction approach that puts all parts of the budget on the table, including revenues.
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
Here's how Medicaid is funded.
Another case of double ownage. Keep trying james and maybe one day you'll have a fully accurate racist post!
Another case of double ownage. Keep trying james and maybe one day you'll have a fully accurate racist post!
Similar threads
