Affordable Care Act saving taxpayer money at record pace

[Quantum Windbag]

No, we're spending $794 billion to get care to 32 million Americans by modernizing Medicaid and the individual health insurance market.



The ACA isn't paid for with borrowed money.

Horseshit. It all comes from the same pool and you damn well know it. We are borrowing 40% of every dollar we spend. I don't care who or what the $794 billion is going to. It's reckless and irresponsible to spend it when you can't afford your current expenditures and you being intellectually dishonest about that doesn't change reality. Unfortunately, people like you aren't going to figure that out until our mountain of debt collapses our financial system and if we're lucky it will simply be a repeat of the Great Depression and not something worse.

The ACA reduces total health care spending.
Second interest rats on T bills are 0 and negative meaning we can currently afford to have a large deficit.
Third if we balanced the budget today it would result in a depression, so it is stupid of you to want to create a depression in order to maybe avoid a depression

You are incredibly stupid, aren't you?

 

[Bfgrn]

Horseshit. It all comes from the same pool and you damn well know it. We are borrowing 40% of every dollar we spend. I don't care who or what the $794 billion is going to. It's reckless and irresponsible to spend it when you can't afford your current expenditures and you being intellectually dishonest about that doesn't change reality. Unfortunately, people like you aren't going to figure that out until our mountain of debt collapses our financial system and if we're lucky it will simply be a repeat of the Great Depression and not something worse.

The ACA reduces total health care spending.
Second interest rats on T bills are 0 and negative meaning we can currently afford to have a large deficit.
Third if we balanced the budget today it would result in a depression, so it is stupid of you to want to create a depression in order to maybe avoid a depression

You are incredibly stupid, aren't you?

It looks like you need to find a mirror.

 

[Sallow]

Kaiser and HRET say ObamaCare could be responsible for as much as 50% of the premium hike.

No, they don't say that because this is language conjured by rightwing media sources to be as misleading as humanly possible.

The consensus--arrived at by everyone from major HR and benefits consulting firms to the Kaiser Family Foundation to CCIIO's own estimates of the impact of its regulations--is that the ACA increased premiums by 1-2 percent following the changes that kicked in for plans renewed after September 2010. That's the impact of everything implemented so far: the extension of dependent coverage, the end of rescissions, the end of cost-sharing for evidence-based preventive care, the end of lifetime limits and the gradual phase out of annual limits, and the end of pre-existing condition exclusions for children.

What certain rightwing news outlets have done is decide that premiums should have increased by 5 percent overall, based on a small selection of years in which the nation wasn't emerging from a recession-induced plunge in service utilization. So they've decided that 4 of the 9 percent total increase KFF found in its survey is some "excess." And thus if we take the high-range estimates of a 2 percent impact of the ACA in premiums, then 2 of the 4 percent (half!) that they've arbitrarily decided is an excess is attributable to the ACA. That's where your magic fifty percent comes from.

The better rightwing rags would at least explain the poor reasoning of their flawed methodology in the text of the article, while putting a carefully worded but misleading title on the piece (that was the route CNS took when they tried this).

Your article, however, seems to have not understood the game and instead of careful linguistic gymnastics that hint at the fact they're talking only about the slice of the premium increase they deem to be in excess of historical norms, it slips into language that's simply false on its face: "Kaiser and HRET say ObamaCare could be responsible for as much as 50% of the premium hike."

Find better bullshit next time.

This also doesn't take into account that premiums were going up at a rapid pace in the first place with nothing really to justify the costs...except for the "possibility" that HMOs were both playing the markets with profit..and listed.

In any case taxpayers were demanding something be done for quite some time. Seeing that taxes were used to promote development of new medical procedures..the cost didn't really seem justified. This is nothing new either, the government has trying to get a handle on this for almost a century. HMOs were Nixon's baby. And "ObamaCare" was the GOP/Conservative answer to HillaryCare. Fast forward to know and we see the GOP never being really serious about addressing this. In fact..their "new" alternative to ObamaCare is tossing patients back to HMOs and getting rid of "state lines", whatever that means.

As this rolls out, people are going to like that cost has been staggered and they can't get tossed for nonsense. That's what really scares the GOP. They don't like stuff that actually works.

 

[Sallow]

Horseshit. It all comes from the same pool and you damn well know it. We are borrowing 40% of every dollar we spend. I don't care who or what the $794 billion is going to. It's reckless and irresponsible to spend it when you can't afford your current expenditures and you being intellectually dishonest about that doesn't change reality. Unfortunately, people like you aren't going to figure that out until our mountain of debt collapses our financial system and if we're lucky it will simply be a repeat of the Great Depression and not something worse.

The ACA reduces total health care spending.
Second interest rats on T bills are 0 and negative meaning we can currently afford to have a large deficit.
Third if we balanced the budget today it would result in a depression, so it is stupid of you to want to create a depression in order to maybe avoid a depression

You are incredibly stupid, aren't you?

Where do you get these nightmare scenarios from?

The depression wasn't caused by public debt. It was caused by the private sector playing games with other people's money. Sound familiar?

 

[editec]

All entitlement programs are subjects of massive fraud. Hence why we shouldn't have them.

All civilization is subject to massive fraud.

Ought we abandon the notion of civilization and return to our natural state, too?.

 

[Sallow]

All entitlement programs are subjects of massive fraud. Hence why we shouldn't have them.

All civilization is subject to massive fraud.

Ought we abandon the notion of civilization and return to our natural state, too?.

Silly as that sounds..this is what the whole argument boils down to. The reason we have the processes in place that we do..is that everything else has been tried and this seems to be the best solution.

The problem with some conservative thought is that they want to go back to processes that failed already. And it makes no sense.

 

[daveman]

True, but cons believe it's better to pay CEOs of private insurance companies hundreds of millions a year instead of the low overhead of Medicare.

Are you Always full of shit or just right now?

Republicans oppose single payer which would immediately wipe out 300billion in wasteful health care spending without impacting health quality. WHy would they oppose that? Well because then insurrance companies wouldn't be able to get mega rich off of cancer patients

Single payer doesn't work.

 

[daveman]

Are you Always full of shit or just right now?

Republicans oppose single payer which would immediately wipe out 300billion in wasteful health care spending without impacting health quality. WHy would they oppose that? Well because then insurrance companies wouldn't be able to get mega rich off of cancer patients

Single payer would immediately wipe out $300,000,000,000.00 in wasteful spending? How?

 

[rightwinger]

Are you Always full of shit or just right now?

Republicans oppose single payer which would immediately wipe out 300billion in wasteful health care spending without impacting health quality. WHy would they oppose that? Well because then insurrance companies wouldn't be able to get mega rich off of cancer patients

Single payer doesn't work.

Countries that have it have lower healthcare costs and better coverage than is available in the US

Why? Because we waste one third of our healthcare dollar on middlemen, administrative paperwork, political lobbying and overhead

 

[Luddly Neddite]

All entitlement programs are subjects of massive fraud. Hence why we shouldn't have them.

By that same ilogic we should not allow Catholics because some are pedophiles and misuse their religion?

And, jail all Baptists because Timothy McVeigh was one.

Other than our president, I would miss any of them but its a good point.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Republicans oppose single payer which would immediately wipe out 300billion in wasteful health care spending without impacting health quality. WHy would they oppose that? Well because then insurrance companies wouldn't be able to get mega rich off of cancer patients

Single payer doesn't work.

Countries that have it have lower healthcare costs and better coverage than is available in the US

Why? Because we waste one third of our healthcare dollar on middlemen, administrative paperwork, political lobbying and overhead

This was made very clear to me when I had to have emergency medical care while vacationing in France and Brussels.

I knew I was a fan of AFFORDABLE health care insurance but seeing how Europe does it so much better than we do really made it clear to me.

I believe that US citizens pay for and deserve that same quality of care and nothing will ever change my mind.

 

[Greenbeard]

After noting that family premiums in Massachusetts rose more slowly than the national average from 2006-10, Ezra Klein had a nice post this morning on the cost-saving potential of the ACA:

Wonkbook: Romneycare is working -- and Obamacare might be, too - The Washington Post

If that's so, however, we're not seeing it yet. Romneycare's cousin, the Affordable Care Act -- or, as it's more frequently known, Obamacare -- isn't fully in place, and won't be until 2014 at the earliest. But it has passed. And since it has passed, health-care spending has been dropping. Karen Davis, director of the Commonwealth Fund, writes that the most recent spending projections show a "$275 billion (5.6 percent) reduction for 2020, compared with pre-reform estimates. Moreover, that projection represents a cumulative reduction of $1.7 trillion over the 10 years from 2011 to 2020."

You might argue that that's just the recession, but as Davis writes, "the recession doesn’t plausibly explain why projected health spending in 2020 is substantially below estimates made just two years ago." And why the recession having such an effect on long-term spending under Medicare? The latest data shows we're on track to spend $750 billion less than the pre-reform projections suggested. The Medicare cuts in the Affordable Care Act account for barely half of that. If these trends hold, the Affordable Care Act will cost far less than anticipated.

Is this all the Affordable Care Act? Certainly not. The recession is part of it. And perhaps efforts over the last decade to change the health-care system are beginning to pay off. But the passage of the ACA didn't just send a loud signal to the health-care industry that things needed to change. It laid out, in endless detail, how providers would begin to lose money if they didn't change. And so they've started changing. We're seeing more consolidation in the hospital industry. We're seeing doctors join larger group practices. We're seeing efforts to crack down on medical errors and prepare for regulations that will penalize hospitals with high rates of readmission.

It's possible those preparations are beginning to bear fruit. At the very least, as Davis writes, "the dire predictions that the Affordable Care Act would fail to control costs and, in fact, accelerate spending have not been borne out by the early experience. It now appears that both the costs of covering the uninsured and Medicare spending are substantially below pre-reform estimates." If that seems impossible, well, look at the Bay State.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The ACA reduces total health care spending.
Second interest rats on T bills are 0 and negative meaning we can currently afford to have a large deficit.
Third if we balanced the budget today it would result in a depression, so it is stupid of you to want to create a depression in order to maybe avoid a depression

You are incredibly stupid, aren't you?

It looks like you need to find a mirror.

Why do I need a mirror? Your chart has absolutely nothing to do with anything starc said. Maybe you should look in one and ask it who is the stupidest in the room. I guarantee it won't be the mirror.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The ACA reduces total health care spending.
Second interest rats on T bills are 0 and negative meaning we can currently afford to have a large deficit.
Third if we balanced the budget today it would result in a depression, so it is stupid of you to want to create a depression in order to maybe avoid a depression

You are incredibly stupid, aren't you?

Where do you get these nightmare scenarios from?

The depression wasn't caused by public debt. It was caused by the private sector playing games with other people's money. Sound familiar?

How is calling someone stupid a nightmare scenario? Did I comment on anything else that could possibly be construed as a nightmare or a scenario?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All entitlement programs are subjects of massive fraud. Hence why we shouldn't have them.

All civilization is subject to massive fraud.

Ought we abandon the notion of civilization and return to our natural state, too?.

Silly as that sounds..this is what the whole argument boils down to. The reason we have the processes in place that we do..is that everything else has been tried and this seems to be the best solution.

The problem with some conservative thought is that they want to go back to processes that failed already. And it makes no sense.

Massive laws and endless regulations that are supposed to prevent anything people might think of ever are the best solution? Seriously? If that worked we would never have any problems because they thought would have thought of everything after the 1929 crash.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans oppose single payer which would immediately wipe out 300billion in wasteful health care spending without impacting health quality. WHy would they oppose that? Well because then insurrance companies wouldn't be able to get mega rich off of cancer patients

Single payer would immediately wipe out $300,000,000,000.00 in wasteful spending? How?

Seems about right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans oppose single payer which would immediately wipe out 300billion in wasteful health care spending without impacting health quality. WHy would they oppose that? Well because then insurrance companies wouldn't be able to get mega rich off of cancer patients

Single payer doesn't work.

Countries that have it have lower healthcare costs and better coverage than is available in the US

Why? Because we waste one third of our healthcare dollar on middlemen, administrative paperwork, political lobbying and overhead

I have asked this question a few times, and no one has answered, perhaps you can explain. If single payer produces better results why do people from countries with single payer systems come here for health care?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

After noting that family premiums in Massachusetts rose more slowly than the national average from 2006-10, Ezra Klein had a nice post this morning on the cost-saving potential of the ACA:

Wonkbook: Romneycare is working -- and Obamacare might be, too - The Washington Post

If that's so, however, we're not seeing it yet. Romneycare's cousin, the Affordable Care Act -- or, as it's more frequently known, Obamacare -- isn't fully in place, and won't be until 2014 at the earliest. But it has passed. And since it has passed, health-care spending has been dropping. Karen Davis, director of the Commonwealth Fund, writes that the most recent spending projections show a "$275 billion (5.6 percent) reduction for 2020, compared with pre-reform estimates. Moreover, that projection represents a cumulative reduction of $1.7 trillion over the 10 years from 2011 to 2020."

You might argue that that's just the recession, but as Davis writes, "the recession doesn’t plausibly explain why projected health spending in 2020 is substantially below estimates made just two years ago." And why the recession having such an effect on long-term spending under Medicare? The latest data shows we're on track to spend $750 billion less than the pre-reform projections suggested. The Medicare cuts in the Affordable Care Act account for barely half of that. If these trends hold, the Affordable Care Act will cost far less than anticipated.

Is this all the Affordable Care Act? Certainly not. The recession is part of it. And perhaps efforts over the last decade to change the health-care system are beginning to pay off. But the passage of the ACA didn't just send a loud signal to the health-care industry that things needed to change. It laid out, in endless detail, how providers would begin to lose money if they didn't change. And so they've started changing. We're seeing more consolidation in the hospital industry. We're seeing doctors join larger group practices. We're seeing efforts to crack down on medical errors and prepare for regulations that will penalize hospitals with high rates of readmission.

It's possible those preparations are beginning to bear fruit. At the very least, as Davis writes, "the dire predictions that the Affordable Care Act would fail to control costs and, in fact, accelerate spending have not been borne out by the early experience. It now appears that both the costs of covering the uninsured and Medicare spending are substantially below pre-reform estimates." If that seems impossible, well, look at the Bay State.

If Romneycare were actually "working" family premiums would be going down, not up.

Just saying.

 

[rightwinger]

Single payer doesn't work.

Countries that have it have lower healthcare costs and better coverage than is available in the US

Why? Because we waste one third of our healthcare dollar on middlemen, administrative paperwork, political lobbying and overhead

I have asked this question a few times, and no one has answered, perhaps you can explain. If single payer produces better results why do people from countries with single payer systems come here for health care?

Most don't, some choose to for elective procedures that they choose not to wait for

Sometimes you just have to get that boob job

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Countries that have it have lower healthcare costs and better coverage than is available in the US

Why? Because we waste one third of our healthcare dollar on middlemen, administrative paperwork, political lobbying and overhead

I have asked this question a few times, and no one has answered, perhaps you can explain. If single payer produces better results why do people from countries with single payer systems come here for health care?

Most don't, some choose to for elective procedures that they choose not to wait for

Sometimes you just have to get that boob job

The people that go to the Mayo clinic because it has the best medical treatment in the world get boob jobs? You really want to try to float that argument?