Affordable care that isn’t affordable

[Arianrhod]

Y'all must know a lot of wealthy people.

That aside, denying insurers the ability to deny coverage for certain procedures is exerting downward pressure on costs.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Despite the president’s promises, health care costs are going up


Medicaid spending is up 23%!!! so far in 2015. And tens of thousands are facing the IRS over the program.


My personal feelings are that a whole lot of American voters who supported Obama and his Democrat toadies are going to be very sorry for doing so. And, they won't forget when 2016 comes.


Read story @ STEPHEN MOORE Affordable Care Act isn t affordable - Washington Times


More Obamacare victims noticing that they’re gonna be on the hook to the IRS. @ More Obamacare victims noticing that they re gonna be on the hook to the IRS. RedState

Post something factual, not Right Wing Talking Points R Us.

What is not factual ?

I think these statements can easily be proved or disproved.

I take issue with equating spending to costs.

We can spend more, but be getting more value for the dollar.

Obamacare was supposed to help cost (like lower the cost of a procedure).

Obamacare can do nothing (and could not be expected to do anything) if 3 times as many people show up needing the procedure (that is spending).

But if a consumer used to pay a small amount toward insurance to cover the cost should HE need the procedure, thats value. If he is now paying 3 times as much to cover the procedure for others, thats cost.
the individual is paying more for less.

My guess is that most people DON'T take out what they pay in.

That is insurance. You pay for coverage should it happen.

But you hope it does not.

I expect I have paid way more in car insurance than what I have taken out. I am paying for those who don't drive so well (and hence take out more than they pay in.

Not sure what your meaning is because what you describe is basic insurance.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Y'all must know a lot of wealthy people.

That aside, denying insurers the ability to deny coverage for certain procedures is exerting downward pressure on costs.

It would be great if you could explain this with numbers.

If insurance won't cover someone and it is my insurance...their outlays are down and hence so are my "costs".

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Despite the president’s promises, health care costs are going up


Medicaid spending is up 23%!!! so far in 2015. And tens of thousands are facing the IRS over the program.


My personal feelings are that a whole lot of American voters who supported Obama and his Democrat toadies are going to be very sorry for doing so. And, they won't forget when 2016 comes.


Read story @ STEPHEN MOORE Affordable Care Act isn t affordable - Washington Times


More Obamacare victims noticing that they’re gonna be on the hook to the IRS. @ More Obamacare victims noticing that they re gonna be on the hook to the IRS. RedState

Post something factual, not Right Wing Talking Points R Us.

What is not factual ?

I think these statements can easily be proved or disproved.

I take issue with equating spending to costs.

We can spend more, but be getting more value for the dollar.

Obamacare was supposed to help cost (like lower the cost of a procedure).

Obamacare can do nothing (and could not be expected to do anything) if 3 times as many people show up needing the procedure (that is spending).

But if a consumer used to pay a small amount toward insurance to cover the cost should HE need the procedure, thats value. If he is now paying 3 times as much to cover the procedure for others, thats cost.
the individual is paying more for less.

My guess is that most people DON'T take out what they pay in.

That is insurance. You pay for coverage should it happen.

But you hope it does not.

I expect I have paid way more in car insurance than what I have taken out. I am paying for those who don't drive so well (and hence take out more than they pay in.

Not sure what your meaning is because what you describe is basic insurance.

Lets use your car insurance example.
simple question. If you did not own a car, would you pay for the insurance on one?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Despite the president’s promises, health care costs are going up


Medicaid spending is up 23%!!! so far in 2015. And tens of thousands are facing the IRS over the program.


My personal feelings are that a whole lot of American voters who supported Obama and his Democrat toadies are going to be very sorry for doing so. And, they won't forget when 2016 comes.


Read story @ STEPHEN MOORE Affordable Care Act isn t affordable - Washington Times


More Obamacare victims noticing that they’re gonna be on the hook to the IRS. @ More Obamacare victims noticing that they re gonna be on the hook to the IRS. RedState

Post something factual, not Right Wing Talking Points R Us.

What is not factual ?

I think these statements can easily be proved or disproved.

I take issue with equating spending to costs.

We can spend more, but be getting more value for the dollar.

Obamacare was supposed to help cost (like lower the cost of a procedure).

Obamacare can do nothing (and could not be expected to do anything) if 3 times as many people show up needing the procedure (that is spending).

But if a consumer used to pay a small amount toward insurance to cover the cost should HE need the procedure, thats value. If he is now paying 3 times as much to cover the procedure for others, thats cost.
the individual is paying more for less.

My guess is that most people DON'T take out what they pay in.

That is insurance. You pay for coverage should it happen.

But you hope it does not.

I expect I have paid way more in car insurance than what I have taken out. I am paying for those who don't drive so well (and hence take out more than they pay in.

Not sure what your meaning is because what you describe is basic insurance.

Lets use your car insurance example.
simple question. If you did not own a car, would you pay for the insurance on one?

No.

But that does not address your post.

When insurance companies are paying out a lot of money..they raise rates on all of us....whether we claimed or not.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Post something factual, not Right Wing Talking Points R Us.

What is not factual ?

I think these statements can easily be proved or disproved.

I take issue with equating spending to costs.

We can spend more, but be getting more value for the dollar.

Obamacare was supposed to help cost (like lower the cost of a procedure).

Obamacare can do nothing (and could not be expected to do anything) if 3 times as many people show up needing the procedure (that is spending).

But if a consumer used to pay a small amount toward insurance to cover the cost should HE need the procedure, thats value. If he is now paying 3 times as much to cover the procedure for others, thats cost.
the individual is paying more for less.

My guess is that most people DON'T take out what they pay in.

That is insurance. You pay for coverage should it happen.

But you hope it does not.

I expect I have paid way more in car insurance than what I have taken out. I am paying for those who don't drive so well (and hence take out more than they pay in.

Not sure what your meaning is because what you describe is basic insurance.

Lets use your car insurance example.
simple question. If you did not own a car, would you pay for the insurance on one?

No.

But that does not address your post.

When insurance companies are paying out a lot of money..they raise rates on all of us....whether we claimed or not.

Why would you pay more into a program that you will not qualify to receive any benefit from at a later date then?
the people that are going to be using it are the ones that should be paying.
and only those that pay in should be allowed to access those funds.

 

[Arianrhod]

Despite the president’s promises, health care costs are going up


Medicaid spending is up 23%!!! so far in 2015. And tens of thousands are facing the IRS over the program.


My personal feelings are that a whole lot of American voters who supported Obama and his Democrat toadies are going to be very sorry for doing so. And, they won't forget when 2016 comes.


Read story @ STEPHEN MOORE Affordable Care Act isn t affordable - Washington Times


More Obamacare victims noticing that they’re gonna be on the hook to the IRS. @ More Obamacare victims noticing that they re gonna be on the hook to the IRS. RedState

Post something factual, not Right Wing Talking Points R Us.

What is not factual ?

I think these statements can easily be proved or disproved.

I take issue with equating spending to costs.

We can spend more, but be getting more value for the dollar.

Obamacare was supposed to help cost (like lower the cost of a procedure).

Obamacare can do nothing (and could not be expected to do anything) if 3 times as many people show up needing the procedure (that is spending).

But if a consumer used to pay a small amount toward insurance to cover the cost should HE need the procedure, thats value. If he is now paying 3 times as much to cover the procedure for others, thats cost.
the individual is paying more for less.

My guess is that most people DON'T take out what they pay in.

That is insurance. You pay for coverage should it happen.

Exactly. It's based on the Pareto principle, a.k.a. the 80/20 rule.

No one plans to get cancer or a chronic degenerative illness like M.S. or Parkinson's. But those who need that kind of costly care are the 20%.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What is not factual ?

I think these statements can easily be proved or disproved.

I take issue with equating spending to costs.

We can spend more, but be getting more value for the dollar.

Obamacare was supposed to help cost (like lower the cost of a procedure).

Obamacare can do nothing (and could not be expected to do anything) if 3 times as many people show up needing the procedure (that is spending).

But if a consumer used to pay a small amount toward insurance to cover the cost should HE need the procedure, thats value. If he is now paying 3 times as much to cover the procedure for others, thats cost.
the individual is paying more for less.

My guess is that most people DON'T take out what they pay in.

That is insurance. You pay for coverage should it happen.

But you hope it does not.

I expect I have paid way more in car insurance than what I have taken out. I am paying for those who don't drive so well (and hence take out more than they pay in.

Not sure what your meaning is because what you describe is basic insurance.

Lets use your car insurance example.
simple question. If you did not own a car, would you pay for the insurance on one?

No.

But that does not address your post.

When insurance companies are paying out a lot of money..they raise rates on all of us....whether we claimed or not.

Why would you pay more into a program that you will not qualify to receive any benefit from at a later date then?
the people that are going to be using it are the ones that should be paying.
and only those that pay in should be allowed to access those funds.

O.K.

That statement is different from the original.

What do you mean "pay in more than you will qualify to receive in benefits".....?

That makes no sense.

If people buy that...I'll start selling it !!!!!

 

[dblack]

My guess is that most people DON'T take out what they pay in.

That is insurance. You pay for coverage should it happen.

But you hope it does not.

I expect I have paid way more in car insurance than what I have taken out. I am paying for those who don't drive so well (and hence take out more than they pay in.

Not sure what your meaning is because what you describe is basic insurance.

Right. But the problem is that we've deluded ourselves into thinking insurance can be something else. Irrational as it is, most people see insurance as a means of making health care more "affordable". And to be fair, insurance companies have been selling it that way. And to some degree, it's actually worked that way for the last fifty years or so because of the pyramid scheme aspect of it all.

As long as insurers have been able to rely on a continually expanding base of new enrollees, they've been able to, on average, pay out more than they take in (for a given customer). But that base has been drying up and they've been forced to increase premiums, which has accelerated the drop-off in new enrollees. That's why they've turned to the mandate. With the mandate, they no longer have to worry about satisfying customers. They've achieved permanent middle-man status, with a cut of every health care transaction.

What was needed, more than anything, was a wide-scale change in the way we use health insurance, returning to the model you describe above. Insurance isn't viable as a financing scheme for routine health care costs. It only works as a hedge against bankruptcy in catastrophic situations. But ACA makes that change illegal, and forces us all to keep feeding the beast. It's insane and it's corrupt. I'll never vote for anyone who had anything to do with passing it.

 

[Greenbeard]

And to some degree, it's actually worked that way for the last fifty years or so because of the pyramid scheme aspect of it all.

As long as insurers have been able to rely on a continually expanding base of new enrollees, they've been able to, on average, pay out more than they take in (for a given customer).

Are you saying you think insurers have been paying out more than they take in for the last fifty years?

 

[dblack]

And to some degree, it's actually worked that way for the last fifty years or so because of the pyramid scheme aspect of it all.

As long as insurers have been able to rely on a continually expanding base of new enrollees, they've been able to, on average, pay out more than they take in (for a given customer).

Are you saying you think insurers have been paying out more than they take in for the last fifty years?

Only when it comes to individual policies. As long as the base of new policy sales is expanding, the insurance companies can take their cut and still service claims. It's when the expansion slows down that they run into problems.

 

[Bern80]

This should be pretty basic logic, but apparently it isn't. It's called the Affordable Care Act. I would presume a law titled as such is meant to make the cost of care more affordable. That is how the left sold it anyway. So what part of the policy addresses making care more affordable? In terms of it's general structure, how can it? The cost of the services hospitals and clinics provide is not directly addressed. Instead it's an insurance based solution. The goal being to provide more people with coverage and have that coverage be affordable. If we're being honest Obamacare has accomplished only part of that. It has provided more people with coverage (admittedly essentially at the point of a gun in many cases) and it's affordable if you qualify for subsidy (hint: subsidies never reduce what a product costs and typically inflates costs). But for the most part, for those not poor enough to qualify for subsidy the cost of insurance is going up. Premiums are going up and deductibles are going up. This should not be a surprise to anyone with a basic understanding of economics. Obamacare does not allow insruance to work the way insurance is supposed to work. Take auto insurance; if you have a track record of being bad driver you will and should pay more for insurance than someone else who has a record of safe driving, all other things being equal. Insurance under Obamacare doesn't work that way. Obamacare says insurance companies can not charge different rates to different people based on their health risk. So what did the insurance companies do? They said fine, we'll get our money by raising deductibles and premiums instead and now everybody gets to pay more.

As I said in another post, this issue isn't about a disagreement in outcomes. We all want health care to cost less. Those of you Obamacare and Obama supporters need to start asking yourself what you really want. Do you want affordable health care? If so, than the ACA as a mechanism for accomplishing that simply can't be supported.

 

[dblack]

As I said in another post, this issue isn't about a disagreement in outcomes. We all want health care to cost less. Those of you Obamacare and Obama supporters need to start asking yourself what you really want. Do you want affordable health care? If so, than the ACA as a mechanism for accomplishing that simply can't be supported.

I don't think the bolded assumption is necessarily true. That's the problem really. There are two basic issues that prompted public demand for health care reform. First is spiraling costs. Second is what to do about people who can't afford health care. Despite it's PR, ACA focuses, almost exclusively, on the latter.

 

[Bern80]

As I said in another post, this issue isn't about a disagreement in outcomes. We all want health care to cost less. Those of you Obamacare and Obama supporters need to start asking yourself what you really want. Do you want affordable health care? If so, than the ACA as a mechanism for accomplishing that simply can't be supported.

I don't think the bolded assumption is necessarily true. That's the problem really. There are two basic issues that prompted public demand for health care reform. First is spiraling costs. Second is what to do about people who can't afford health care. Despite it's PR, ACA focuses, almost exclusively, on the latter.

Well probably not for the suppliers. I agree the focus was on the later. It has come at the expense of everyone else. It's just inefficient and arguably immoral.

 

[Arianrhod]

This should be pretty basic logic, but apparently it isn't. It's called the Affordable Care Act. I would presume a law titled as such is meant to make the cost of care more affordable.

Again, denying insurers the power to set lifetime caps and/or reject patients for preexisting conditions is putting pressure on them to put pressure on doctors and pharma companies. That will have an impact on cost control. First we have to put more of the Martin Shkrelis in prison as a warning to the rest of the gougers.

If you'd read the PPACA itself - you can find it here: Text of H.R. 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill version) - GovTrack.us - or the many, many, many sources clarifying what it was instead of reading pre-masticated, regurgitated disinformation on RW websites or, after the fact, asked questions and/or read the extensive information provided by Greenbeard and others, you wouldn't be so confused.

 

[dblack]

As I said in another post, this issue isn't about a disagreement in outcomes. We all want health care to cost less. Those of you Obamacare and Obama supporters need to start asking yourself what you really want. Do you want affordable health care? If so, than the ACA as a mechanism for accomplishing that simply can't be supported.

I don't think the bolded assumption is necessarily true. That's the problem really. There are two basic issues that prompted public demand for health care reform. First is spiraling costs. Second is what to do about people who can't afford health care. Despite it's PR, ACA focuses, almost exclusively, on the latter.

Well probably not for the suppliers. I agree the focus was on the later. It has come at the expense of everyone else. It's just inefficient and arguably immoral.

And it makes the previous problem worse. Whereas, getting health care inflation under control first, would have made taking care of those who can't afford it easier.

 

[Arianrhod]

As I said in another post, this issue isn't about a disagreement in outcomes. We all want health care to cost less. Those of you Obamacare and Obama supporters need to start asking yourself what you really want. Do you want affordable health care? If so, than the ACA as a mechanism for accomplishing that simply can't be supported.

I don't think the bolded assumption is necessarily true. That's the problem really. There are two basic issues that prompted public demand for health care reform. First is spiraling costs. Second is what to do about people who can't afford health care. Despite it's PR, ACA focuses, almost exclusively, on the latter.

Well probably not for the suppliers. I agree the focus was on the later. It has come at the expense of everyone else. It's just inefficient and arguably immoral.

And it makes the previous problem worse. Whereas, getting health care inflation under control first, would have made taking care of those who can't afford it easier.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[dblack]

This should be pretty basic logic, but apparently it isn't. It's called the Affordable Care Act. I would presume a law titled as such is meant to make the cost of care more affordable.

Again, denying insurers the power to set lifetime caps and/or reject patients for preexisting conditions is putting pressure on them to put pressure on doctors and pharma companies.

They've always had incentive to do that. And their primary roadblock in those efforts has been state regulations preventing it.

If you'd read the PPACA itself - you can find it here: Text of H.R. 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill version) - GovTrack.us - or the many, many, many sources clarifying what it was instead of reading pre-masticated, regurgitated disinformation on RW websites or, after the fact, asked questions and/or read the extensive information provided by Greenbeard and others, you wouldn't be so confused.

What are we confused about, in your opinion? I've read a fair amount of ACA (though certainly not all of it - I'm not a masochist) and have yet to find anything surprising. The only thing confusing is why some people support it.

 

[Arianrhod]

They've always had incentive to do that. And their primary roadblock in those efforts has been state regulations preventing it.

That presumes that their primary motivation was concern for their customers. You and I have agreed that this was not the case. Here's how it worked:

Pharma Company X develops a drug to treat cancer. Sets whatever price it pleases, because this drug saves lives and desperate people will pay anything for it.

Dr. Y prescribes Drug X for one of his patients, who has a policy with Insurance Company Z, and starts treatment.

Insurance Company Z receives the bill and says "We refuse to cover Drug X. Nothing you can do about it. But we might maybe consider covering older drugs that aren't effective."

Insurance Company Z can't do that any more. So its CEO has a chat with the CEO of Pharma Company X and says "Look, why don't you lower the price of your cancer drug? In exchange, we'll cover your best diabetes drug, and you'll have diabetics buying your drug instead of your competitors' for the rest of their lives. Deal?"

 

[OnePercenter]

If your healthcare is too expensive, thank your insurance and healthcare provider (mostly one in the same) and Reagan for screwing with the HMO act. Screwing with the middle class consumer is ALWAYS Republican caused.